|
Memorandum submitted by the Association of Directors of Children's Services Ltd (ADCS) Summary Do the Children's Centres model of integrated services for under-5s and their families promote early childhood development and is it an effective response to deprivation? The Children's Centres model of integrated services for under-5's and their families do promote early childhood development when operating on an outcome focused model where all services are developed around the identified needs of the child and through consultation with children and families. The development of local authority locality integrated teams will strengthen the effectiveness of this model as will the implementation of the EYFS, however it will take time for this to be fully integrated into working practices. The flexible way in which they were encouraged to be developed has been a particular strength of the Children's Centre agenda, allowing children's centre services to best meet that communities needs. Where there are good working practices and information sharing between the children's centre and health services e.g. health visitors and midwives, targeted support is at its most effective for the most vulnerable at the earliest opportunity. However, whilst recognising the good practice
within Children's Centres, it is felt that there are concerns around the
evidence base for the benefits of Children
There are also concerns around continuing funding after the initial grant expires and in particular whether, in a tight funding settlement, the universal service can be sustained. 1. How models of Children's Centres have developed as the programme spreads from the most deprived neighbourhoods; 1.1 Phase 1 Children's Centres evolved from a number of DCSF initiatives e.g. Early Excellence Centres, Sure Start Local Programmes, Neighbourhood Nurseries etc. 1.2 As Phase 2 and 3 Children's Centres have developed, local authorities have increasingly used community buildings, schools, libraries etc not only to enhance partnership working but also to share ongoing revenue costs. 1.3 The flexible approach to the development of children's centres that was actively encouraged throughout the first two phases, has resulted in numerous innovative models being developed across the country. This is especially true of the more rural counties where one size does not fit all and alternative approaches to service delivery have had to be developed. 1.4 This has resulted in local authorities developing their Children's Centres in a number of different ways, such as: The Hub and Spoke Model § This seems to be a popular approach. One benefit of this model is that where a main hub serves a large area, it can, through satellite provision, meet the needs of the different communities within it, without losing the overall vision for the reach area. § The main benefit of this approach is that it will save on administrative and managerial costs, thus releasing more funding for service delivery. In addition it will provide additional facilities to support the integrated locality based approach to service delivery. The 30% and 70% centres model § In some areas where the demographics correspond Local Authorities have been able to adhere strictly to the guidance regarding centres in 30 and 70% areas. They have developed both as self contained centres and those shared with partners, such as libraries, schools, health and community centres. § The main benefit of this approach is that centres can fit more clearly within the Ofsted / Full Core Offer parameters. Models in Rural and Urban Areas § Demographics play a large role in the development of Children Centre models. It appears that the agenda is designed for inner city, urban areas with densely populated areas where those communities live in similar conditions and statistically fall into the same level, or similar levels of deprivation. § The idea of 800 children living within a half mile radius of a centre is suited to metropolitan areas, but for more rural, less densely populated areas this is unrealistic. § In addition in the rural areas there is 'masked' deprivation which is not recognised through the IMD criteria, where small numbers of isolated children will need specific and perhaps intensive support. 1.5 Whilst local authorities have developed children's centres as platforms for the delivery of services for children aged 0-5 years, most have recognised the benefits of continuing to provide services beyond these years for those most vulnerable children and their families, allowing them to benefit from continuity of care and support. It is crucial that this model links to extended services thus enabling children, young people and their families to benefit from seamless integrated service provision and have the opportunity to access a wide range of exciting activities from pre birth to19 years. 1.6 Service delivery models also vary and include: § Children's Centres; the childcare and the service delivery are managed by the local authority § Centres on school sites, which are managed by the Headteacher and Governing Body. § Centres where all services and management functions have been commissioned from the PVI sector. § A mixture of the above 2 The range and effectiveness of services provided by Children's Centres; 2.1 The DCSF core offer of Children's Centres provides a framework for the development of services according to the level of need in each community (30% and 70% areas). It is against this core offer that children's centres are performance managed. 2.2 As a result of the flexible approach to the development of children's centres, (referred to earlier in this report), even within a single local authority a number of different approaches to performance management are being used. By and large local authorities are working to address this by consolidating the variety of approaches being used by different centres into a common model which will achieve consistency of approach at a local authority level. However, at a national level this creates the potential for each local authority to be using a different model and therefore data sets will not be comparable across the country. 2.3 In order to measure the effectiveness of services, centres are often reliant on baseline data provided by statutory partners and national bodies. This can be very challenging at times as centres require information at LSOA level, but data may only be available at ward level or above. This has obvious implications for performance management and evidencing impact. 2.4 In addition to this, it appears that protocols for the sharing of information are under developed both nationally and locally. This impacts on the ability to share data that will enable children's centres to specifically target support and resources to the most vulnerable children and families. 2.5 The result of this is that the collation of data to demonstrate impact is still at an early stage. Many authorities are able to provide quantitative evidence of attendance at children's centres, but it is the demonstration of impact that is the most challenging. 2.6 There is concern about the child care element of the Sure Start programme and in particular the high costs compared to provision in other sectors that is not matched by higher quality provision. This is particularly relevant in view of the proposed expansion of free childcare places for 2, 3, & 4 year olds. 2.7 The EPPY project looked at benefits of child
care and early years education with some conclusions drawn on Sure Start. It
was acknowledged that other than this project and research into specific
projects the evidence base is weak and that needs to be stated in the response.
There are of course reasons for the lack of evidence, including the length of
time that Children
A summary of the evidence base
In 2004 EPPY produced an overview
of research into integrated Early Years education and care, but could not find
sufficient relevant
The National Evaluation of Sure Start Local Programmes (run by DCSF) have published a number of "quasi-experimental" studies into the impact of Sure Start, which has found some benefits to the programme, including better parenting leading to improved social behaviours, as well as possible increased vaccination rates and reduced accident rates (though there are concerns about the data used). The most recent study (2008) found that the discrepancies in benefits gained across social classes found by an earlier study were no longer apparent and that "the effects associated with SSLPs appeared to apply to all of the resident population"[1] but that "Nevertheless, however consistent the benefits detected in the current phase of impact evaluation, they should not be exaggerated, as all positive effects of SSLPs detected were modest in magnitude."
When looking specifically at parenting support provided through Sure Start, the studies found that there was little evidence based support for parents, outside of universal advice on breast feeding for example. Outreach staff were not sufficiently trained to deliver the highly intensive home based parenting support that is demanded by the research in this area.
In terms of "reach" early studies found that fathers, working parents and ethnic minority families were not taking up services in the Children's Centres, not as assumed by the practitioners, due to a lack of confidence, but because services were not designed around their needs, i.e. sessions in the evening or weekends.
A 2007 study found that "outreach" workers were focussed on bringing "hard to reach" families into the centre to attend group sessions, rather than any services delivered in the home. This was seen as a short-term measure to attract families to the services provided in the centre. This "outreach" work was seen as aiming to ensure that those who needed services most received them. The study does not, however, comment on the impact on outcomes for this group. The outreach was perceived to be most effective when led by universal health services i.e. midwives and health visitors.
A study of the impact of Sure Start Centres for domestic abuse also found that most interventions in this area were initially reported by universal health services, rather than identified through Sure Start outreach. After identification, support was offered through the Children's Centre. A study into the impact of Sure Start services on safeguarding found that families and staff felt that the distinction between child protection and family support was important in attracting "hard to reach" families to the centre. While there was some evidence of good joint working with social care (child protection) Sure Start staff were keen to distance themselves from the statutory duties. 3 Funding, sustainability and value for money; 3.1 There are concerns about continuing funding after the initial grant expires and in particular whether, in a tight funding settlement, the universal service can be sustained. 3.2 Many local authorities have developed their own formulas for the allocation of resources, based on numbers of children, levels of deprivation etc and for this reason sustainability of the centres is not considered an issue at this stage. In many areas, services are being reviewed with reference to impact and value for money as improved performance management procedures are introduced. 3.3 The notion of self sustaining childcare on Children's Centre sites, especially in the most deprived areas, is a major challenge now that additional funding (such as NNI) has come to an end. This is especially disconcerting when the aim is that this particular childcare should not 'just exist', but be of the highest quality, in order to have real impact on children's well-being. 3.4 It will need to be recognised that funding for the maintenance of the infrastructure will need to be increased as the buildings and equipment age and need to be repaired or replaced. 3.5 Short-term funding cycles, and uncertainty about future funding levels, has hindered the ability of long-term planning of finances and development of sustainable services. 4 Staffing, governance, management and strategic planning; 4.1 The staffing and management of Children's Centres reflects the requirements of the core offer, the needs of children and families within the area and the different models that local authorities may have developed. Variances will arise where children's centres are managed by schools, local authorities or have been commissioned to third parties. 4.2 Where commissioning has taken place, there is evidence to support economies of scale in areas such as management and administration, where centres have been clustered together or are in a hub and spoke model. 4.3 There are issues throughout the country around the recruitment of QTS in terms of the levels of pay and conditions of employment. There are limited opportunities for career progression of staff in these positions, and this is exacerbated by uncertainty regarding the future of the QTS role in relation to that of the Early Years Professional. This needs to be addressed if early years services are to be of the highest quality. 4.4 The model of children's centres delivery that each LA has developed will influence the structure of the Advisory Groups, as will the link to integrated locality based working and the Children's Trust Board. 5 How well Children's Centres work with other partners and services, especially schools and health services; 5.1 Delivery of the core offer of children's centre services engenders good partnership working as many elements of the core offer are the responsibility of other statutory partners e.g. health or job centre plus. In order for services to be developed effectively it is crucial that the children's centre and other statutory partners, work very closely together in planning and developing service provision. Lines of communication must be good so that practitioners are fully aware of the range of children's centre services available and are able to work with centre staff supporting children and families in accessing them. 5.2 Research into the early years health centered
interventions is much more developed than for Children 5.3 It appears that there are a variety of arrangements in place or being developed between children's centres, schools and other services such as MoU's, partnership agreements, service level agreements etc. All too often though it is down to the quality of individual relationships on the ground; the quality of the advisory group; the sharing of information and the opportunities for the collocation of staff e.g. health visitors and Job Centre Plus advisers on site. 5.4 As mentioned previously there is still some work to do on information sharing both at a locality and national level to ensure that vulnerable children and families have their needs met in a timely manner. 5.5 There is also some work to be done regarding communication and increasing the understanding of the changing agendas of statutory partners. 5.6 The joining together of the children's centre and extended services agenda in an integrated 0-19 approach promotes the development of good relationships between schools and children's centres, providing seamless provision of support for children and their families for as long as it is needed. 6 Whether services are being accessed by those most in need and how effective they are for the most vulnerable. 6.1 As previously mentioned, there are many systems in place across local authorities that record 'numbers and provide sound quantitative indicators of children and families who have accessed children's centre services' e.g. eStart. Such systems will also provide evidence of which target groups these families may be from, e.g. BME and fathers. However it is the qualitative evidence that will show the actual difference that has been made. 6.2 When evidencing and measuring impact within a preventative framework it must be remembered that it may take many years before we are able to show that outcomes have been improved and be able to attribute it to a particular, or a number of, specific interventions. 6.3 It is therefore very important that all children's centre performance management systems collect both quantitative and qualitative evidence and that children and families are tracked over a period of time. It would also be useful if there is consistency of approach in this area across all local authorities so that the data collected and stored is comparative and will therefore allow consistent judgements to be made. 6.4 As the CAF becomes more embedded within children's centres there will be more evidence that vulnerable children and families are benefiting from children's centre services. The same can also be said about 'Team around the child' meetings and Early Support. October 2009 [1] The Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on Three Year Olds and Their Families by The National Evaluation of Sure Start Research Team (2008) |