Spending Review settlement for the Department for Education - Education Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 37-81)

  Q37 Chair: Good morning. It is lovely to have you with us this morning talking about the spending review settlement for the Department for Education. Having heard from representatives of local government, we now hear from the voluntary sector. As I say, it is a pleasure to have you with us. I think I'll start with my first question to the last panel: given the need to tackle the deficit, and given the Government's stated priorities, does the way the Government are going about the spending reductions make sense to you? If not, what do you think they should be doing differently? I think we'll start with you, Martin.

  Martin Narey: I'm very happy to start. No one doubts the need to make significant reductions in public spending. We can see what is happening in Ireland at the moment and we have to avoid going there. I thought the responses from colleagues in local authorities were quite interesting and quite professional, in that they did not dispute that need. What they talked about was the management challenge. It is the speed of the cuts. Harsh as they are, cuts of this magnitude can be made, and we will have to make some of them, speaking as someone who does a lot of work for local authorities. But the speed of them is very troubling. My No. 1 worry is that local authorities will take an easy route and simply slash spending on voluntary organisations, so that we have to suffer redundancy costs, rather than local authorities themselves. I don't think local authorities wish to do that, but they may have very little choice.

  Q38 Chair: Do you have any evidence of that happening so far? It is classic in any organisation: if there is a choice between firing the person you sit next to every day or cutting by a similar amount the grant to a voluntary group that may be offering rather more bang for the buck than your esteemed colleague, the tendency is to cut the person you don't sit beside every day. Is there any evidence that that is happening?

  Martin Narey: There is a very small bit of evidence. We've lost a very good school in Scotland, which I think was admired by those who commissioned it, but the real problem is that we don't know yet. We're dealing with local authorities; 1 April is nearly upon us, and they haven't yet calculated exactly what sort of hit they have to take. My worry is that we will be in turmoil during the last few weeks of the financial year. That's when local authorities, understandably perhaps, will want to protect their own staff.

  David Seward: We've seen it very specifically in a local area, based around the cuts to the area-based grants. There was a double knock-on effect; one was in the grants they gave to a small, voluntary sector club that we run, and the other was in the money contracted to the organisation through the Positive Activities Fund, which was sub-contracted to the Connexions service to deliver. For two weeks in July, the organisation, which is in one of our most deprived estates, probably lost two thirds of its funding in a two-week period. There are some big examples of the effects.

  Q39 Chair: I think the Prime Minister has pleaded with local authorities not to take the easy route, but is there anything the Government can do, other than just public pleading?

  Bernadette Duffy: There are some very welcome messages coming from the Government around the importance of Sure Start children's centres, and around focusing on child development and being very clear that it is about child development and closing the gap for the most disadvantaged. However, some of the decisions that are being made—I agree with Martin—are very rapidly in danger of undermining that.

  For example, there was the removal last week of the requirement to provide day care in the most disadvantaged areas. I can understand that the current arrangement, whereby eight to six is provided for every family in a disadvantaged area, is certainly not a good one, and it is not an appropriate use of resources, but there is a need to keep day care within Sure Start children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas. Those are often the very families that we most want to reach. Being able to offer them that support—for example, children with child protection—makes a big difference in child development terms and for the most disadvantaged.

  There was the requirement to remove qualified teachers and early years professionals from children's centres, which I think was also announced last Tuesday. We know that the qualifications of the staff have the biggest impact on outcomes for children, particularly the most disadvantaged, so removing the requirement to have those qualified staff is a concern at a time when local authorities are finding funding challenging. The fact that Sure Start and early years are not ring-fenced, as schools are, means that there may be a temptation—however reluctantly—to cut those things within their children's centres to the detriment of the children.

  Q40 Nic Dakin: Welcome. You have talked, Martin, about the way things are being done having the potential to create turmoil. Bernadette, you have just said that some of the loosening might compound that by making vulnerable things that, in your view, shouldn't be vulnerable. Given that there is recognition that reductions are needed, how could it be better managed from now on in? Is there anything that we can do to improve the management?

  Martin Narey: I think there is. No one doubts the end point that we have to reach over the next three years, but it's the front-loading of the savings that have to be made. I don't think it's too late for the Government to consider whether local authorities need some more time to implement savings. I'm not saying it would be easy, but in any organisation you're running—and mine is a big organisation; we run 110 Sure Start centres—if you have been given, for example, a year's notice, you could drive out costs in the region of 10% or even 15% from those centres, even though it would hurt. You'd have to do less. Being asked to do that in February for 1 April will be impossible, not least because you can't take any advantage of natural wastage. It's the momentum of the cuts that worries me, not the end point, which we all acknowledge we have to reach.

  Bernadette Duffy: I think we need to take more time really to think about—from a children's centres perspective—what we know works best for young children. I have worked in integrated centres for the last 30 years. I know, from my experience in the 1980s in very targeted day nurseries, that that was not a good option for young children. They went to school at five, and—I think this was the record—one child managed three minutes before he was expelled. He didn't even get through assembly. It was not a good way to over-target services. I think we need to take a little time to make sure we're not inadvertently returning to the sort of model that didn't do children any good, particularly the most disadvantaged.

  David Seward: There's a sense of frustration. I sit on several LSPs; we have six unitary authorities where I work, across the county. In each of those LSPs, there is a sense of frustration among some members that the statutory services are generally working in silos to make the cuts. The private and voluntary sectors are not always included in the decisions around people, redundancies and other things because they are very difficult to make. I am not always sure that some of the private and voluntary, or third sector, organisations are involved in the full conversation about how the cuts could be made and how services could be maintained. A lot of the statutory sector is having those conversations independently.

  Q41 Chair: That's a really important point. Is that your experience, Martin?

  Martin Narey: I don't think there is time for those conversations. For example, we have said to the Association of Directors of Children's Services that we would discuss with it, on any contract that it[1] has with us, what we might need to do to help absorb some of the pain. A handful have had those discussions, but in the main, we haven't been able to have them. We are absolutely sure that we could help—not that it wouldn't hurt, but we could sit down and talk about how the core service could be delivered for less.

  Q42 Chair: There is pressure, but surely there is the time. If you don't actually engage in conversation with the person who provides the service on the front line, that is a neglect of duty, is it not?

  Martin Narey: Local authorities are in the difficult position of not really knowing. It was fascinating the way two very able directors here were still trying to digest and interpret what is being said. For example, I simply don't believe that Sure Start, about which at least two of us here are gravely concerned, is protected. Ms Munt, you got it absolutely right. Our calculations are that there is a little bit of leeway in the early intervention grant—perhaps a few hundred thousand—but if Sure Start is to be protected, there will be no money for, for example, family intervention projects. Sure Start funding will have to be reduced. Frankly, I believe that it could be. We could maintain the essence of a marvellous initiative if we were given the time to sit down and discuss how we could do the same for less.

  Q43 Nic Dakin: We heard from local authority colleagues about their willingness to work—indeed, their practice in working—with the voluntary sector. Do you think the capacity is there for the voluntary sector to take this forward and take some opportunity out of the situation that we are in?

  Martin Narey: I certainly believe so, and we can help with the need to provide economies. We provide services cheaper than local authorities themselves can provide them. Certainly that is the case with Barnardo's, for one very simple reason: five years ago, we sorted out the pension problems that still bedevil local authorities. My staff are not on a final salary or average salary pension scheme, so our costs for the same social work are significantly lower. We can provide good-quality services, we can be cheaper, and we can have better reach.

  People trust the brand, whether it is Barnardo's or the Children's Society. People trust the brand above the door, so we can reach out and pull into services the most disadvantaged. However, that takes time, and the extent of local authorities' willingness to commission is very variable. It is very limited in the north-east, for example, Ms Glass.

  Q44 Nic Dakin: Are there new types of services about which you feel able to have conversations with local authorities?

  David Seward: I think there are lots of opportunities. We represent a network of voluntary youth services, and there is a whole range of services that could be delivered, but there has been an unwillingness to work at the very local level with us specifically. It is about us filling a gap, or just sourcing the bits and pieces of external funding we can get to lever in small external grants. That will make us a player, but to be a player around the local authority table is probably more difficult unless you have something very large to offer. That could be the ability to shake a tin publicly—that will make you a player around the table.

  Q45 Nic Dakin: So it's easier for large organisations than small ones.

  David Seward: They are more attractive, but time and again, on the local level, they are not always able to deliver because they don't have the local network. There is that combination. They are attractive to local councils because they can bring in additional sources. In Berkshire, probably 80% of all the money that is raised locally leaves the county. In terms of our having the ability to access that, our community foundation estimates that somewhere in the region of £55 million is raised from local giving, but of that £55 million, probably only about £5 million stays in the local authority area. For us, as a small charity or organisation, it is almost impossible to access and to become a big player with the local authorities unless you have that leveraging to offer them something additional.

  Q46 Neil Carmichael: There's a key question about capacity, isn't there, and preparing for contracts, and so forth? The Government have provided some money for that in the comprehensive spending review for small organisations—or, indeed, large ones. Do you think that it is the small organisations that need help with preparing for contracts and so forth?

  David Seward: Not necessarily, no. I think that those who commission the contracts need to understand what success would look like. It's very easy for a small local charity to deliver successfully if those who are commissioning the service understand what success looks like. I am not sure that the local authorities always understand exactly what success would look like in a small community, and I think that there is a big margin between a statutory duty to provide a large-scale service and something that would make a big difference in a small community.

  In terms of commissioning and our capacity, if you gave me a five-year deal on a contract and guaranteed the income, I am going to have the capacity. If you ask me to raise 50% of a contract and then award it on the basis that—well, it would be difficult for any commercial company to do it. Capacity only exists in the fact of a commitment to fund, and local authorities are in a great position, in that they get their money up-front. No other organisation is in that position, except for local authorities. If we in the voluntary or third sector did that, we would be in a great position, and I could keep staff on and invest in their training and development.

  Q47 Neil Carmichael: In terms of commissioning, you think that it is the local authority that needs to be more imaginative and responsive to the voluntary sector, do you?

  David Seward: I think it's that speed. I've been in post for 10 years now, and over that 10 years we have been preparing for commissioning in one way, shape or form. We have had different capacity grants and we've grown probably from a £60,000 organisation 10 years ago to a £1.2 million organisation now. We have capacity, we have HR, we have all those systems in place, but we don't access those local contracts unless we can lever in significant national funds. So that is our capacity. Our capacity has got to be that we bring a value to the delivery.

  Q48 Neil Carmichael: You've obviously got a relationship with Berkshire—and no other authority.

  David Seward: Berkshire is six local authorities.

  Q49 Neil Carmichael: All right. Okay. So you've got six local authorities within Berkshire that you deal with. Can you compare them? Are there some that are less good or better than others?

  David Seward: Chalk and cheese—it really is. There are some examples of local authorities that are really trying to engage, and engage well, and they are really putting some processes in. Voluntary sector organisations across those local authorities would have various different experiences. However, there are some local authorities that would just completely shut up shop. Our organisation covers the whole of the country; as clubs and a youth organisation, we are part of a national network. Others would have the same experiences—that when the budget gets tight the door will be closed because it is not a statutory service.

  Q50 Neil Carmichael: So there is obviously a lot of variety in Berkshire, and that is only one county, presumably.

  David Seward: It was a county.

  Q51 Neil Carmichael: Yes. I'm from Gloucestershire, where we have seven authorities. What I am driving at here is this: how would you see changes being made in procurement and commissioning to try to get a more equal playing field, or to improve local authorities that need to be improved? What measures do you think should be implemented?

  Chair: May I interject? Where does it come from? Is it due to a key member of personnel further down the organisation, who took an interest and happened to view the world in a way that works well with you? Or is it from the top?

  Martin Narey: It's primarily political in local authorities. Some local authorities have embraced commissioning. The quality of the commissioning and the quality of the contract management is still variable, but it's been improving. Some local authorities have been very resistant to commissioning. Barnado's runs across the UK, and England is now very different to both Scotland and Wales in the extent of commissioning. Politicians have to give the lead. I think that they will be forced into recognising that they can maintain services by more commissioning.

  Q52 Neil Carmichael: So it's a councillor and political issue, rather than a capacity and officer competence issue.

  Martin Narey: There's an issue of capacity in being able to run commissioning well, but in my opinion, the lead mainly comes from local authorities. If you wish, I could send the Committee a note about the variation that we find around the country.

  Neil Carmichael: That would be extremely useful—I am speaking for us all here.

  Q53 Chair: Is it a left-right thing? Are you a form of privatisation to some people?

  Martin Narey: It's a bit more complex than that, but the brief answer is yes.

  David Seward: It's a purchaser-and-provider situation. The current commissioner is potentially a provider of services. If the voluntary or third sector wishes to tender, it is a combination of whether we make redundancies within our sector to fund that. There is some sympathy for the difficult decisions the local authority has, but it is not always based on need. They are processing a service that potentially means the end of their own departments. That is not really a comfortable place for them to be.

  Q54 Neil Carmichael: Two quick questions. We have identified the variations between local services. The Coalition Government think that by forcing transparency and local accountability, we will drive improvements where they are necessary and that the democratic process will kick out councillors who are not doing their jobs properly. Do you think that will work, or do we need something else?

  David Seward: There is an assumption that councillors fully understand what's going on.

  Q55 Neil Carmichael: Is that assumption based on something faulty?

  David Seward: I think it is an assumption based on the amount of information and data that are being fired at councillors at a very quick pace. The assumption on one of our projects is that it is taking a 5% piecemeal cut. The reality is that it is taking a cut of nearly 70%, but the councillors don't know that. They can't keep up to speed because things are happening at such a high rate. It is difficult for everybody, but it comes down to the sheer speed and being able to see what is happening. Transparency is okay, but if you throw it in with tens of thousands of pieces of information at the same time, nobody can pick the wheat from the chaff. That is the problem.

  Martin Narey: I don't share that view. It is something of a caricature of local councils. I find that they have a much greater grip on the provision of services. They are struggling with immense problems, but I do not find that at all.

  Q56 Neil Carmichael: One last question. From my experience of procurement by local councils, they sometimes have a project to procure that is new to them and of which they have no experience, so they have to set it all up, get consultants in and so on. That is obviously not quite the case in this field because they do it more often. I would have thought that this point relates to your organisation, David, but not necessarily yours, Martin. Should we be encouraging local councils to improve their procurement by setting up some sort of procurement offices themselves to build up that capacity?

  Martin Narey: Nearly all local authorities are doing that and procurement expertise has increased substantially. However, the process is frighteningly complex. I don't share David's views about smaller organisations being more sensitive to local needs, and I could demonstrate that not to be the case.

  Q57 Chair: You would say that, wouldn't you?

  Martin Narey: But I am willing to demonstrate that to any member of the Committee who wants to visit any of my projects and tell me that they are not locally embedded. I do have immense sympathy with small organisations over the procurement process—the paperwork that has to be filled in is sufficient to intimidate any small organisation—but procurement expertise is improving. The problem is that you might have somebody who last year was procuring a waste management system, and is procuring children's services this year.

  Q58 Neil Carmichael: That's what I'm getting at. What worries me is that we have procurement systems that seem to be applied to all sorts of projects. The expertise and knowledge about those projects isn't necessarily sufficient. I think that there are a few nodding heads.

  Bernadette Duffy: I'm at a maintained nursery school that is a children's centre, and we work closely with Coram, one of the oldest children's charities in the country. I think that there is an issue. We do know in children's centres about what works. We have a good evidence base now; we have the EPPE research project—on the effective provision of pre-school education—and we know what makes a difference. The people procuring it don't necessarily have all that information. There is a need to make sure that what we're procuring is in the best interests of the children. We should not be thinking, "Is it the maintained sector or is it the voluntary sector?" but, "Who in this locality can do this job best?" That is what the local authority needs to be able to do, based on the evidence of what works and what's going to work for the children and families in the area, and not getting into competitions between different sectors.

  Q59 Neil Carmichael: So, in summary, we need to look at procurement at a local level.

  Bernadette Duffy: We do.

  Q60 Charlotte Leslie: I have a very quick question, based on something that Neil said, and it goes to the heart of localism accountability. In your experience, who runs councils: the councillors or the officers? Is there a trend between good councils and bad councils as to who's in charge?

  Chair: Bernadette, deal with that poisoned chalice.

  Bernadette Duffy: I work in Camden and we have a lovely council. We have highly committed councillors, and the council is making decisions about the children's centre budget at the moment—I'm going to keep saying that very loudly. I think that in the best councils there is a good relationship between the two parties, with neither leading. It is the officers making sure that the councillors have the information to make the decisions that they have to make—and in the current climate those decisions are sometimes very difficult and unpleasant—and it is councillors who listen respectfully to the officers' views but also make sure that they get out and about in the local community, in our case in the King's Cross area, to find out what's actually working and what that community needs, so that when they are faced with that difficult task of deciding what to save and what goes, they can feel confident that they are making the best decisions.

  David Seward: I think that I agree. With us, there are six local authorities and every one is different, but some of the best are those with councillors that work very, very hard—and they need to work harder. I don't think that the council has ever visited some of the local groups that we deal with, and it is still making decisions about them. That I find a bit disappointing—that things are based on an officer-led rather than a councillor-led decision. I appreciate that there are some difficulties, but that is not in general. In general, the majority are quite good.

  Martin Narey: It's councillors, and in my experience the partnership between councillors and members of local authorities often compares favourably with the partnership between Ministers and civil servants in central Government.

  Q61 Chair: But famously, from "Yes Minister" and the rest of it, we recognise the civil service as protecting itself and doing its best to manipulate Ministers for its own interest—producer interest—rather than for the consumer interest. Do you have any insight into how we can better encourage councillors to represent their electors and not the people who just work for the council?

  Martin Narey: Obviously there is a tension between local authority councillors and members, just as there is between Ministers and civil servants, and the counter of your description of the civil service is a civil service that tries to retain some continuity and to keep Ministers focused on long-term problems, as ministerial officers change very quickly. I don't work locally, but when I visit services I meet countless councillors—particularly I might say in Wales, where there is a greater supply of councillors because there are many more local authorities—and I see a very considerable presence of councillors at our services, and them visiting them frequently and taking a real interest in them.

  Q62 Damian Hinds: We were talking a moment ago about the complexities of contracting, and Bernadette was talking about a knowledge these days of what works. So, payment by results—discuss.

  Martin Narey: I would welcome payment by results, and we have been saying to both central Government and local authorities for some time that we'd like to be paid by results. It is sometimes very difficult to do that, and there is no perfect way of doing it, but I think that there are a number of ways. Specifically with Sure Start centres, I have suggested to Michael Gove that there should be some incentivising, and that part of the contractual payment should be dependent on Sure Start centres demonstrating that they are getting the hardest-to-reach families there. Sure Start is fantastic, but the notion that everyone who needs it would push their buggy through that front door is flawed. All of us who run centres need to do more to demonstrate that the families who most need them, but don't come, are there frequently.

  Bernadette Duffy: We need to be focused on outcomes and results because that's what we're here for—for the children. Payment by results is interesting, because there is a risk that you measure what's easy to measure rather than what's most important. For a number of years, I was involved in early excellence centres, where we had a massive evaluation programme that was effective and able to show that every pound spent in the early excellence centres—the precursors of children's centres—saved £4 later on in the system. But it was highly expensive funding that evaluation to get that level of accuracy and rigour.

  We need to keep the balance of making sure that the results that we measure are the ones that are genuinely important. I would argue that our focus now in children's centres is on child development. We are not simply counting the number of children and families who come to us, or how many of those are disadvantaged, but what difference we have made for them and can we see the gap closing in terms of the foundation stage profile or its equivalent.

  We also need to ensure that the outcomes are then in a system where it does not become so time consuming to measure the outcomes that we do not offer the services—that is another experience that we have had—and that that ties in with any framework that Ofsted has.

  For small organisations, as David has pointed out, there is the problem of up-front costings, so I do not think that basing everything—all the funding—on results would be at all beneficial. We need to reflect the fact that there needs to be some up-front funding.

  Martin Narey: We have to take account of not just the children who already come to Sure Start children's centres. David Cameron was exaggerating, but when he talked about sharp-elbowed mums squeezing out other parents, it wasn't untruthful. My view is that we have to be tasked and paid for results on the basis of making sure that every child who needs support in a given area is getting into those centres. That is not always happening. Some centres are fantastic; others are much less effective.

  Bernadette Duffy: And we have 20% referrals for the most disadvantaged children to make sure that that happens.

  In respect of the middle classes, I have sympathy with some, because some in the middle classes don't have sharp elbows, but have issues and need support. But there are ways of making sure that children's centres reach the most disadvantaged. In Camden, we have 20% top-slicing to make sure that goes to child protection—the high-priority cases. We have also made sure that we use our outreach workers and family support workers—not having them sitting in the centres, but getting them out into the community and making sure that the most disadvantaged are reached.

  We open on Saturdays and on evenings. We trawl the shopping centres and Coram's Fields to ensure that if anybody out there doesn't know about us, it is not through want of trying.

  Q63 Damian Hinds: I suppose in any payment-by-results set-up there is a tension between having a simple and transparent system on the one hand and a complex system that captures all the subtleties on the other. In this Committee, we have on more than one occasion discussed the contrast between five-plus GCSEs at C-plus and contextual value added. Contextual value added is intellectually far more satisfying, but nobody who has come to this Committee has ever spontaneously used it as a measure for a school's performance, whereas everybody understands five-plus C-plus.

  Bernadette, you were talking about all the work you do to ensure that there is inclusion, and Martin said how important that is, but that is not in itself a result. You, Bernadette, quite rightly identified that it is the value added—the difference you make—that counts. But how on earth do you measure that at that time? Whenever I've asked people, including a gentleman who came from your organisation a couple of weeks ago, about the real robust evidence base that says, "This type of thing works and this type of thing doesn't", it seems that it is hard to come by. Contemporaneously with what you're doing, it's even harder. So, payment by results—what results?

  Bernadette Duffy: We at Thomas Coram are lucky that our chair of children and curriculums committee is Iram Siraj-Blatchford, who organised the EPPE research, so we have a slight advantage. We track children from when they come into the centre. We look at their level of development and talk with the parents about their understanding of key areas of development, such as language and communication, and personal, social, emotional and physical development, and about their ability, connections and attachments, and we use that to track children's attainment and progress so that we can say, on entry to our kindergarten at three-years-old—in the term after their third birthday—approximately 33% of the children are below expectations for their age group at that point, but by the time they leave us to go on to primary school, 98% are reaching or exceeding expectations for their age. You can do it, and you can do it in a way that's not bureaucratic and is child-centred and child development-focused. Hopefully, the review of the EYFS will help us to do that in far more centres.

  Martin Narey: We do that for each individual child. It's got to be done for each individual child; where they started and where you reach with them.

  David Seward: There are some quite significant longitudinal studies around the value and concept of youth work that stem back in the '60s and '70s, which tend to be disregarded because they're historic. But actually the point of principle is that young people have to be engaged for a period of time in their leisure time and to do that voluntarily. So, there is the whole assessment process of when they come and when they leave, but that will never be fixed over a six-week period. Young people can be measured in terms of their ability to respond and their robustness to deal with lots of different situations, but they would need those situations to be created for them in that time they were engaged.

  Having the opportunities to experience new cultures, recreation and those sorts of things will give you a five-year outcome. But to give you a test now of what would achieve the outcome of reducing crime, well, I could do that. I could show you that by holding a disco on a Saturday night we would reduce crime. The longitudinal effect on those young people would take three to four years to show—to make them more robust.

  We would prove with evidence that if you encourage young people to be happier, to feel that they belong and that they have the opportunity to succeed, it makes them far more robust. We deal with a lot of young people and children who have never, at the age of 13 or 14, experienced success in any way, shape or form. To turn that around, after a period of 10 to 13 years, is really very difficult.

  There have to be the flexibilities and, yes, the very tangible A to Cs, which I accept, but the value added can be taken in terms of youth centres and everything else as well. We can demonstrate value to you is what we are saying.

  Q64 Damian Hinds: I totally accept everything you say, by the way, and I recognise that time series studies show that, of course, if you do good work with young people, they are less likely to become criminals. However, that is not the same as being able to say that this week or this year, looking at this organisation versus that organisation and the two different sorts of programmes they are running with two different sets of young people, I will pay this one £x and that one £y, which is what payment by results is. Given that, isn't it inevitable that you end up with some sort of score card that involves assumptions about the sorts of things you are doing and how you can predict what effect they will have down the line? If so, who is best placed to draw up the score card, because the definition of what is going to count becomes so fundamental to, basically, who gets paid what?

  David Seward: For us, it would be really important to understand what the local success looks like. Even in a small county like Berkshire, across those six areas, the local success would be slightly different for young people. A lot of young people in some of these estates would never ever move off them, so they assume it's a bit like a ghetto. The success might be that you get them to understand a wider range of concepts, and it is the commissioner's job to understand what that need is, right at the very grass-roots level. It might be as simple and as subtle as giving them a varied range of experiences and counting those numbers. That might be all that's needed. There doesn't always need to be a really sophisticated formula for local remedies. To try and force one particular formula on a local need is going to end up as a failure. We have to look at those local issues—a rural issue is completely different to an urban one.

  Martin Narey: And you have to be cautious, you have to put your foot in the water gently and you have to start slowly but, going back to Sure Start centres and using the factors that Bernadette mentioned, I think that you could measure the progress of a whole population of children in a given year. There are some proxies. You do not always need to use outcomes. The evidential base for parenting courses is quite remarkable, so we know that a very good proxy would be, if in a particular Sure Start centre we got x number of parents through parenting courses, that the parenting in that area would be improved. That is beyond doubt. There are lots of proxies that one can use.

  Q65 Damian Hinds: Oh dear, that's not a causal link. It might be the case that you have parenting classes that are brilliant and therefore have a great effect, but that does not mean that by putting another 100 people in parenting classes you will have a positive effect.

  Martin Narey: I beg to differ; I think it does. For example, the evidential base for Webster-Stratton, which is one parenting course, is very considerable, and it shows considerable improvement in parenting skills across a range of factors, based on long-term research. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that if you deliver those services to another cohort of young parents, you will achieve similar improvements.

  Q66 Pat Glass: Following Damian's point, given that the purpose of Sure Start is to reduce the gaps between the most able and the less able, and given that there is shed loads of money going into this and has been over a number of years, should those things not actually be harsher? The outcomes for children from the richest and the poorest in your areas at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4; a reduction in children who are killed or seriously hurt in road accidents between seven and 11; a reduction in the number of suicides of young men between 16 and 19—should you not be judged on those things?

  Bernadette Duffy: I think there is a link with that, but I think you are then negating the role of the schools that the children are going on to.

  Q67 Pat Glass: But you contribute to this.

  Bernadette Duffy: Yes, we hopefully contribute.

  Q68 Pat Glass: There is lots of money going into this, so should you not play your part?

  Bernadette Duffy: And we are playing our part, because we can show, certainly in Camden, that the investment in Sure Start children's centres has led to improved outcomes for all children at the end of foundation stage profile. The gap between the most advantaged and the less advantaged has decreased significantly over that time. So that, I think, is very much calling us to account and making sure that the money that has been invested is making a difference.

  Q69 Pat Glass: Martin, should you be judged on these very harsh outcomes?

  Martin Narey: In part. Sure Start centres aren't the only determining factor for some of those things that you have indicated there. I think the evidence of the impact of Sure Start is now very concrete indeed. The great fear over Sure Start, although I don't think it's borne out, is that we might follow the experience of the USA, which abandoned Head Start—or more or less abandoned Head Start—before they realised just how much it had done, among a number of things, to reduce criminality in adults. Sure Start is there for the long haul. Actually, it's still in its early days, but all the evidence suggests that it is extremely effective, and if it can further improve reach—and the evidence shows that's got better, but there's further to go—it could be more effective.

  Q70 Chair: It can be extremely effective. I have no doubt that Bernadette's Sure Start centre is extremely effective. I have visited centres and it is quite clear that there is a demonstrable difference between one centre and another. Often, the longer-standing one that has really built up the expertise is so much more able to reach out to the hard to reach, for instance, because they have learnt how to do it.

  Bernadette Duffy: But we do have the EPPE research project, which is now the EPPE children. I don't know if the Committee is familiar with the EPPE research and we probably haven't got time to go into it, but it is the longest longitudinal study that has looked at children's experiences in pre-school and now followed those children up until 16 years old. It is showing that those children who went to what were the precursors to children's centres—they were called integrated centres in those days—that had qualified teachers and were part of maintained nursery schools are doing better in all the outcomes at 16 than those children who didn't. So we do have some very strong evidence, as Martin says, that this way of working with young children—the children's centre model—does have those long-term effects.

  Q71 Damian Hinds: But there are also longitudinal studies which show that it is the quality of nursery teaching that makes the difference.

  Bernadette Duffy: It is.

  Q72 Damian Hinds: And that is not quite the same thing as saying if you put more people through Sure Start—do you see what I mean?  

  Martin Narey: This was kind of what I was trying get at.

  Q73 Chair: If we keep Sure Start open but it just doesn't have the same number of quality teachers, or whatever, because it is a political promise in a clunky governmental and political world, isn't it in fact possible that we keep the form but not the real substance?

  Bernadette Duffy: We need to keep the ingredients. We need to keep the ingredients we know work. You are quite right: the qualified teachers were the things that made a difference. In the American research as well, it was qualified teachers who were making the difference. So if you can get the best of all worlds, you can get the parenting support and the high-quality early education, and then you will have the outcomes we want for all children.

  Q74 Chair: Who should be commissioning and over what period? Payment by results. Probably for some of my Labour colleagues, that would be a nightmare rather than a dream, but my dream would be when we had an evidence base so strong that some consortium of Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse came and raised £1 billion and invested it because they were paid, so that at the age of—pick an age—23, there were these outcomes for the young people in that area. They were going to make sure that there were no NEETs and that the percentage of people who went into higher education and the general contentment increased. That way, you would have an evidence base so strong that people, purely driven by profit, could raise billions of pounds, invest it in services right the way through in order to just absolutely slash the numbers of people who end up in prison and the number of people who end up with mental health problems, and they would be commissioning not because of either political imperative—anyway, sorry, I'm talking too long. Who could commission? How could we create a system that genuinely delivered outcomes for young people and invested on the basis of evidence rather than political whim?

  David Seward: I think there are some really good examples being created. There are some really interesting departments that are starting to get to that point. They are within the local authority, but they are almost cocooned or bubbled, and that feels a little bit more of a comfortable place. They understand the breadth and the width. They have that social responsibility rather than capital, but they are independent, almost, towards the Department or the local authority. I'd feel really uncomfortable if the commissioning officer was the head of the Department. If the commissioning officer is part of the Department for Education, they're naturally going to have an allegiance, but if the commissioning department is independent of the local authority, to me that seems a little more comfortable and a little bit easier for us to manage.

  Q75 Chair: Could they do it? One reason it's not working is that local authorities, one way or another, become interested in the producer interest as opposed to the consumer interest.

  David Seward: I think they could, but there needs to be some real test about, first, whether they understand what success looks like, and secondly, whether they're independent and not biased toward their own department. If those rules were put in place, I'd be really comfortable with the local authority being the right people to do it.

  Q76 Chair: We probably need to move on. If you have any further thoughts on this, the Government have said they're interested in outcomes as opposed to process-led targets. If your organisations have any opportunity to contribute to that and help develop a more genuine commissioning that spends money and allocates capital on the basis of need and evidence rather than, as too often happens, bureaucratic or political convenience, that would be very helpful.

  Q77 Tessa Munt: I'd like to go back to Sure Start. If we're going to have a core universal offer nationally and we're still going to target families on a very individual basis, I wonder whether you have any ideas? I want to pick up on the idea of what Sure Start might be dropping. What might it not be doing that it's doing at the moment? You've talked about expansion by outreach and so on. I expect this is probably for the two of you, Martin and Bernadette. Do you have any ideas about what one might not do?

  Bernadette Duffy: I've been involved in Sure Start from when they were local programmes to when they became children's centres to now. I'd be a bit concerned about the refocusing of Sure Start to its original objectives, because some of those were not at all good or evidence-based, and we spent a lot of money on Sure Start teddy bears and mugs, which I think was possibly not money well spent.

  It seems to me that if it's about child development and outcomes for children, we need to make sure that at the heart of every children's centre is a strong focus on child development, whether that's directly through work with children, through work with parents or through multi-agency work. We need then to be very critical of the other things which are lovely to do but cannot necessarily show that they're having that development effect. Things like baby yoga are lovely and a delightful way to spend a morning, but unless we can show that it leads to improved outcomes for children, I would be reluctant for us to be using Sure Start money on that. On baby massage, interestingly, we've got some research at Thomas Coram that shows a link between that and attachment, particularly in depressed mothers, so I would argue that there is a place for that, in moderation.

  On music, again, we have strong evidence at Thomas Coram, because the children have been involved in music programmes, done very cheaply—one music person reaches 55 people in one morning—that seems to be good value for money, and leads to improved outcomes in letters, sounds and phonological awareness at five. We have strong evidence of what works. I would drop those things for which we don't have strong evidence that they work.

  Q78 Tessa Munt: As far as I can see, we've got rid of the teddy bears and the mugs, and you've given a brilliant reason why we should keep a lot of—

  Q79 Chair: Name those services.

  Tessa Munt: It is difficult, I understand, to pick on the things you've got to drop.

  Bernadette Duffy: Little Kickers. I can't see a connection between funding Little Kickers and improved outcomes for children.

  Martin Narey: I think it's not just a question of what we might drop. I am not a front-line practitioner; Bernadette knows more about that than me. I think it's a matter of how we can deliver what seems to work at the moment less expensively. I think you can do that and that the voluntary sector, again, is well placed to do that. We can make greater use of volunteers. I have 8,000 staff, but I have 16,000[2] volunteers who work for us in Barnardo's in all our ventures. Actually, volunteers bring the community into our projects in a way that nothing can better.

  Although I absolutely support Bernadette on professionalisation of staff in terms of supervision, I actually think there's a lot of scope to use non-qualified staff, not just in children's centres but across our whole range of projects. Some of the staff I admire most don't have formal professional qualifications; a lot of them are mothers who've returned to work after bringing up their own children. They're incredibly effective. Even in some of the most sensitive areas, such as safeguarding, they're incredibly effective. We can probably do more to build a work force who are just as effective but perhaps less expensive, and volunteers, of course, are the least expensive of all.

  Q80 Nic Dakin: Is your answer to the challenge that we face basically a less expensive labour force? That has another set of issues in terms of the way in which the labour force drives other things, hasn't it?

  Martin Narey: It would be foolish of me to say that, in any of the services that we run, we couldn't do things more cheaply if we had to. It doesn't mean that some things don't have to go at the margins, but if I had to say to this Committee that I could run 110 Sure Start centres and retain the integrity of Sure Start on 90% of the overall budget, I would find a way of doing that. Sure Start was extremely well funded. I hasten to add that Bernadette's centre is renowned throughout the country, which is why she turns up here fairly frequently. I absolutely agree, Chair. I am honest enough and was shouted down at the Tory party conference the year before last for daring to admit that some of our centres weren't as good as others in terms of things such as opening hours, weekend opening and getting dads in. We can be driven a little bit harder and commissioners can be harder contract managers. It is not just about giving us a contract and saying, "Get on with it." It is about managing us quite hard, and I think we could drive down costs.

  Bernadette Duffy: The other way we have done it in Camden is to think about clustering our children's centres, so rather than having individual children's centres, duplicating things and, in an urban area, having them quite close together, we think about the locality as a whole. We are part of the south Camden locality, and three children's centres—one a voluntary sector provider, us as a nursery school and another children's centre—work together to share resources, so that we don't each do the same thing. We make sure that we make effective use of resources. That is one of the things that we learnt from the previous experience. We had a situation before where every children's centre was trying to do everything in the core offer and we were duplicating and, in some cases, it felt like we were fighting over families, so we needed to get far more effective in looking at what south Camden needed and who was best placed to deliver that, with good outcomes but also at the best cost, which I agree with Martin about. There are opportunities to make much better use of resources.

  Martin Narey: Commissioning groups is really important. A single children's centre could be torpedoed by one spell of maternity leave. You really need to try to have groups that can support one another.

  Bernadette Duffy: Yes.

  Q81 Pat Glass: One final and quick question. Early intervention is about intervening in the early years, but it is also about intervening before a crisis occurs. Given that the early intervention grant is largely going to be taken up with Sure Start, what will happen to things such as mental health in teenagers, families in crisis and drug and alcohol misuse, when they become a crisis later on?

  Martin Narey: I think it's very troubling and I worry very much. The one area you haven't mentioned is our family intervention projects in the north-east, which have been transformational for some families who had become the scourge of their neighbours on the estates on which they live. These projects are very hard hitting and have conditions and sanctions on the back of them, but their ability and capacity to fundamentally change some of the most difficult families, where there are often four or five children who are all going to grow up and drift into criminality, is outstanding. That is just one area that, as I look at the maths, I can see being squeezed very badly in the next couple of years.

  Bernadette Duffy: We are looking at children's centres and, obviously, I want them to be protected. We need to think about not stopping at five but thinking that, if we have built relationships with families in a community or in a cluster up until the children are five, we should be in a good position to base other services in and develop them from the children's centre to support children into later life, so that we perhaps become more flexible in terms of what the children's centre itself does to try to address some of those problems. I completely share your concerns about what is going to happen for those very vulnerable young people.

  Chair: Thank you all very much indeed for giving evidence to us this morning.



1   We don't contract directly with ADCS but with individual local authorities. The discussions we have had have been with DCS in local authorities. Back

2   Witness correction: over 14,000 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 15 March 2011