Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
22 JANUARY 2007
DEPARTMENT FOR
EDUCATION AND
SKILLS AND
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, everybody.
Today we are considering the Comptroller and Auditor General's
Report, Sure Start Children's Centres. We welcome David
Bell and Sheila Scales from the Department for Education and Skills
and Hilary Samson-Barry from the Department of Health. I also
welcome the chair, vice-chair and staff of the Committee of Budget
and Finance of the Portuguese Parliament and the delegation from
the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
May I start with Mr Bell? I am president of
a Home Start scheme in my constituency, and the biggest complaint
that I get is that the funding period is three years. We MPs give
ourselves at least five years employment between elections. Why
is the funding period just three years?
David Bell: We have obviously
committed the funding until the end of the spending review period.
Of course, there are Government commitments to roll out the Sure
Start children's centres to 3,500 by 2010. Obviously, consideration
will be given as part of the comprehensive spending review to
funding beyond that time. It is also worth noting the commitment
to children's centres; the predecessor organisations have been
running since 1998. We have a clear indication that the Government
attach great priority to early intervention and children's centres.
Q2 Chairman: I accept that, but the
people who work in the centres often become fundraisers part-way
through their existence because three years is just insufficient.
David Bell: The bulk of the funding
for children's centres will come from central Government. As I
mentioned, that can be confirmed to the end of the spending review
period. I cannot make any commitments, as I am sure that you will
understand, into the next comprehensive spending review period—
Q3 Chairman: It will stop? What do
you mean by that?
David Bell: The Government's commitment
to early intervention and children's centres has been evident
from 1998 onwards.
Q4 Chairman: Research shows that,
for children to get the best value, they need high-quality services
at children's centres. How will you maintain that quality while
local authorities drive to increase the numbers by 1,500? Is that
not a rapid expansion of the service?
David Bell: It is fair to say
that it is an ambitious expansion. The Government believe strongly
that intervention in the earliest years can have the longest term
benefits. There is an important investment in the training of
staff for children's centres. In the period 2004 to 2006, about
£130 million within the general Sure Start grant has been
assumed for training. At the same time, there is a substantial
investment in the training of centre leaders, with a new national
qualification for those running children's centres that recognises
the particular expertise and specialism required. Yes, it is a
rapid expansion, but there is a strong commitment to ensuring
that staff are trained effectively to deal with what, for many,
will be a new way of working.
Q5 Chairman: I accept that there
is a commitment, but I am not quite clear how you can ensure that
the training is available.
David Bell: It is for local authorities
to determine the nature of the training with individual centres,
in consultation with the Children's Workforce Development Council,
which is the national body looking at the training and development
of all staff working in those settings. There is a variety of
ways in which that can be done. It can be done through local authorities
or private providers organising the training and so on. The evidence
is that a lot of the money is being used to train staff appropriately.
We can say that on the basis of our understanding of what centres
are actually spending their money on. We are giving a clear signal
that training and development are important.
Q6 Chairman: Paragraph 3.2 on page
25 shows that only 9% of centres proactively target special groups—perhaps
the most disadvantaged groups. I talked today to the organisers
of the centres in my area, and they tell me that they do not proactively
seek clients as such; it is referral by neighbours or self-referral.
How will you tackle that?
David Bell: The Report highlights
an important bit of business that needs to be done, and that is
to target those that by definition are hardest to reach. Some
of the good practice examples cited in the document demonstrate
that you cannot sit in a children's centre and wait for the most
hard to reach people to turn up. You have to go out and look for
them. Some of the best centres have outreach workers going out
and dealing with particular communities in order to find out what
might meet their particular needs.
Q7 Chairman: Are you piloting any
of that to discover whether it works effectively?
David Bell: Yes, and the guidance
that we published in November 2006 highlights examples of good
practice. We have also commissioned a national body that deals
with families with children with disabilities, to help us to think
about how we might target most effectively those who find it difficult
to access services for one reason or another. However, from what
the Report suggests, through its case studies—and we know
that a number of centres are doing this—it is clear that
we have to take the initiative, go out there and find out which
are the hardest to reach groups in the community.
Q8 Chairman: Spending time, as I
have, in some of the children's centres in my constituency, I
find that the informal social activities that the parents are
engaged in—generally mothers, and often young mothers, talking
over a cup of tea or coffee and a biscuit about getting help,
getting the right food and about finding support and so forth—are
most important. Do you see it as an important tool in expanding
child care provision?
David Bell: One of the successes
so far of the move to children's centres is to bring parents,
particularly mothers, into the centres to allow them to have that
kind of informal discussion. At the same time, on the back of
informal discussion, many of the services that children's centres
offer, whether related to health or education, can be offered
to those parents. Equally, however, the Report highlights the
need to ensure that work is targeted towards those dads who might
need or want support. The Report highlights the good example of
a centre that is doing that, but as part of that harder to reach
category that you described. We emphasise that we want to see
more activity with dads; they obviously want to be involved in
the care of their children.
Q9 Chairman: If you turn to page
21 and figure 11, you will see three examples that show quite
a disparity in expenditure on centres. Is there a danger, as responsibility
for funding is passed to local authorities, that there will not
be a proper audit? We need to ensure a uniform spend, so that
the standard is fairly consistent across the country.
David Bell: The first point is
that the Report helpfully highlights some of the explanation for
that variation. Interestingly, what is likely to happen as we
move to a more consistent expectation of what children's centres
should be offering is that you will probably see a coming together
of that spend. By the same token, this is precisely not a programme
that tries to specify in every detail at the national level exactly
what each centre should offer. So, we should expect some variation,
but also some degree of convergence.
As far as auditing is concerned, local authorities
have responsibilities to audit. We can also ensure, through our
memorandum of understanding, that we know how local authorities
are doing. Also, our inspection regime, through the joint area
reviews, can look at the outcomes that children's centres are
achieving, alongside other services for children and young people.
We must get the balance right between ensuring that we know how
the programme is doing and not over-regulating or trying to micro-manage
a programme that is intended to be locally driven.
Q10 Chairman: I understand that fully.
I understand the devolution of power, responsibility and funding
to local authorities, but my concern is that we shall not have
a uniformly good standard throughout the country unless we audit.
When the ring-fencing for the funding ends—as it will end—the
pressures on local authorities will be such that one area will
receive money for its children's centres while others will not,
and there will be a postcode lottery.
David Bell: The programme of expansion
of children's centres requires each local authority to describe
what it is doing and what services it will offer. In fact, in
the guidance that was issued at the tail end of last year, we
gave more ideas about the kind of performance management arrangements
that we would expect to see at local authority level, in working
with children's centres. As I indicated a few moments ago, the
inspection system, which looks at the provision of children's
services across an area, will look at the extent to which children's
centres contribute to priorities identified by local authorities
and individual centres.
Q11 Chairman: One final point—in
my experience, I have found that there is often a lack of financial
awareness among those who run the centres. Will you make it a
requirement of local government to ensure that it trains the people
who operate these centres in understanding their financial responsibilities
and duties, just as it trains school governors these days?
David Bell: The point is fairly
made in the Report that many of the people who have leadership
positions in children's centres might not have had the kind of
experience and training that you have described. We have developed
a new style qualification through the National College for School
Leadership for people who run children's centres, to provide precisely
that kind of expertise. At the same time, of course, local authorities
have a role in ensuring that children's centres have robust arrangements
in place for management and governance.
We are offering training opportunities at national
level to ensure that the people who lead these centres are well
qualified, at the same time as recognising that local authorities
have a major responsibility to provide such training locally.
We have also been consulting recently on the governance arrangements
for children's centres, which in some ways are a rather interesting
new model of organisation. I hope that we will publish some more
guidance on governance arrangements in April or May this year,
when that consultation is completed.
Q12 Mr Wright: May I clarify something
on page 7, which says: "Local authorities are rapidly expanding
the number of centres—from 350 in September 2005 to 1,000
by September 2006"? That is a big jump in a year. Is there
any particular reason September was chosen as the start date?
Is there any special relevance in that?
Sheila Scales: Only that an increasing
number of centres are co-located with schools. Starting with September
is probably about bringing together the opening of some centres
with the new school term.
Q13 Mr Wright: Is that a sensible
approach, given that the transfer of responsibilities from the
Department to local authorities took place at the end of March?
Sheila Scales: We have been monitoring
on a regular basis. We had an interim target of 800 for 1 April,
which we also met. We know what the trajectory should be month
by month, so that we can monitor it.
Q14 Mr Wright: May I pick up on something
that the Chairman talked about, which was governance? The Report
seems fairly damning, saying people in children's centres did
not find that there was enough challenge there from support groups.
In terms of parental involvement in running centres, particularly
in places such as my constituency, a disadvantaged area in which
there might not be any skills in this respect, I find it very
difficult to see where anybody in authority has provided parents
with the ability to get governance skills. You mentioned rapid
expansion and it says somewhere in the Report that the Department
will provide governance training in early 2007. That is far too
late, is it not?
David Bell: It is important to
remember that children's centres have grown out of a number of
initiatives, from very small-scale programmes in some cases through
to slightly larger programmes. They have also involved a variety
of governance models. There were a few in the early days—of
course, there are now more and more—that were co-located
with primary schools, where the governance is more secure. There
are also those where community groups have been working with professionals
to govern and oversee what is happening. The point is well made
in the Report that we need to ensure that we get more consistent
standards of governance.
I would make the point, however, that we are
not just waiting until 2007 to do the training. A lot of training
has happened up till now but, as the Report points out, we need
to ensure that, across all the centres, there is greater awareness
of what responsibilities fall to you if you are leading or managing
a centre. Centre managers have a role to play, but also local
authorities properly have a role to play in holding centres to
account for what they are doing in a local area.
Q15 Mr Wright: Taking another tack,
away from governance, although it is linked, let us consider cost
and, in particular, pages 18 and 19. Paragraph 2.3 terrified the
life out of me, frankly. It states, "Most local authorities
have not yet developed a firm basis for allocating funds to centres.
Just over half that we interviewed... had not identified the cost
of core centre services, but relied on cost information . . .
Only five had done some detailed work to identify costs."
Paragraph 2.8 on page 19 states that "one third of the centres
had not agreed their 2006-07 budget, or been allocated their budget
by the local authority" despite the fact that the visits
took place in the fourth quarter of the previous year. People
do not know how much the services cost, do they?
David Bell: The first thing to
say is that the Report and the field work were undertaken at an
important point of transition as the local authorities took on
the responsibility from March 2006 as the funding conduit, so
to some extent it is fair and it understandable that they did
not know all the detail of what was going on there. However, the
point is made, and we would accept it, that you need to understand
what the costs of different services are in a particular centre,
so that you can understand whether you are getting value for money
and how it compares with other services and other centres in different
parts of the country. Part of the support that we and local authorities
need to give to centres is to enable them to work out how well
they are doing against other bodies. In fact, part of what we
have issued recently is precisely about that kind of benchmarking
and detail to enable centres to check their costs against others.
Q16 Mr Wright: But from reading the
Report, I do not get any sense that that is taking place at all.
I refer to "Cost Effectiveness of Implementing SSLPs: An
Interim Report" from February—SSLPs are Sure Start
local programmes. That report states, "There is some evidence
to suggest that the high resource levels available to Sure Start
local programmes means that some services continue even though
they are not always well used, and some resources are spent in
ways that outside observers, sometimes including parents, believe
are not always justified." We are just throwing money at
services that are not actually tied in to need, are we not?
David Bell: I do not think that
is fair, because the Report points out at the beginning and throughout
that in a number of cases parents are very positive about the
kinds of services that are being offered. I think in trying to
offer services in a slightly different way from what has been
done previously, there may well be occasions on which you conclude
that a particular service is not worth continuing, but the spirit
of the Report, and what we pick up, is that parents broadly are
very appreciative not just of the services being provided, but
of the attempt to ensure that the services are offered in the
same place. One of the criticisms traditionally has been that
services are offered in all sorts of different places and parents
are not able to access them in a way that suits them and is most
convenient to them.
Q17 Mr Wright: Taking the example
of my constituency, which is a deprived area in the north-east
of England, Sure Start has been a huge success, but even so there
are surpluses of child care places and there does not seem to
have been a marrying up of resources, costs and actual needs.
On page 38, above paragraph 4.6, the Report states, "Centres
are uncertain about how to measure their performance." From
reading the Report, I think that there is a sort of vague realisation
that "We intervene early and it is a long-term thing, so
we do not need to be precise about performance objectives."
Is that not the case?
David Bell: No, it is not. For
any expenditure, particularly expenditure of this magnitude, it
is important that we get a clear idea of what we are trying to
achieve. We have to help local authorities—and, through
them, centres—to have at their disposal the best information
to make those comparisons. Do not forget either that through the
joint area review of local services, we are able to understand
what improvements we are getting from the outcomes—in other
words, whether children are healthier, safer and so on as a result
of the programme.
You touched on child care. The other thing to
say about that is that under the Childcare Act 2006, the local
authority has the role of ensuring that there is a sufficient
supply of places getting the right kind of mix. You are right;
in some places—you cited your own area—there is sometimes
an excess of places against what is required. But part of the
local authority's responsibility is to keep that under review,
although not to provide all the places—in fact, it must
very much ensure that private and independent providers provide
places. However, it must keep that supply and demand under consideration.
Q18 Mr Wright: My final point is
aimed at pulling things together. I did not get any reassurance
at all from the report on the issues of providing guidance to
allow people to run the centres, having rigorous costs analysis
and evaluating performance. Despite Ministers having provided
a clear political steer and the resources—£2.2 billion
in revenue over four years, £1.2 billion in capital—there
are still hard-to-reach disadvantaged areas in my constituency
that we have not reached. We have wasted a huge amount of public
money, have we not?
David Bell: Certainly not, for
reasons that are highlighted in the Report about the services
that previously were not offered in many places "for parental
satisfaction", as it is expressed.
Equally, you are right that some hard-to-reach
groups have not yet been reached and we accept that challenge
fairly and squarely. In relation to the future, we now have in
place a performance management system. Guidance has gone out to
local authorities and there is recognition and realisation on
the part of children's centres that they have to be able to demonstrate
that all the expenditure that you cited is providing the best
value for money.
Of course, we are talking about a long-term
investment and the report points out that trying to measure the
impact of the programmes in the short to medium term is probably
not possible, as by investing in the early years, you are looking
for a long-term gain and benefit.
Q19 Mr Dunne: Mr Bell, everyone will
agree with the intent behind the Sure Start programme, which is
clearly meant to do a great deal of good to improve children's
early starts, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The challenge
for you at the centre is seeking to impose a one size fits all
solution. I should like to ask you about how that works in practice.
From reading the Report, my understanding is
that there have been good and less good aspects. If my understanding
is correct, you are seeking to do something extremely ambitious:
according to paragraph 1.4 on page 12, you have to move from 800
children's centres in March this year, to 2,500 in only 15 months'
time, to 3,500 by 2010. How are you faring with that programme?
We heard that you had got to about 1,000 by September last year,
but you have to more than double that in the next 15 months.
David Bell: You are absolutely
right to say that the programme is ambitious. We have a new provider
to help work with local authorities to ensure that the programme
is kept on track and that we get the right kind of advice on building
centres and the right kind of guidance and support on how they
put them together.
To go back to your first comment about trying
to direct from the centre, in a sense that is not what we are
trying to do. There is a clear Government target for the number
of children's centres to be achieved by 2010. There are also some
high-level expectations about the kinds of services that we would
expect to see in children's centres, but it is very much up to
local authorities, based on the analysis that they do in their
own areas, to work out exactly what the organisation of services
should be. One of the virtues of the programme is that it has
not attempted to try to impose a national blueprint in every area.
We need to get the balance right between clear national expectations
of what should be provided and lots of local discretion to ensure
that that is provided in a way that best meets the needs of local
areas.
| 
