Foundation Years - Sure Start Children's Centres

Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association

Introduction

The Local Government Association (LGA) is here to support, promote and improve local government.

We will fight local government’s corner and support local authorities through challenging times by focusing on our top two priorities:

· representing and advocating for local government and making the case for greater devolution

· helping local authorities tackle their challenges and take advantage of new opportunities to deliver better value for money services.

This evidence is not limited to the questions raised in the Education Select Committee’s call for evidence and represents the LGA’s wider views on the issues raised in the inquiry which affect local government.

Summary

1. The LGA is deeply concerned that the Government plans to hold back £150 million of the Early Intervention Grant from local authorities in each of 2013-14 and 2014-15 for unspecified purposes. This is equivalent to withdrawing funding for hundreds of children’s centres.

2. Councils will now face significant additional cost pressures and it is imperative that any current discussion around children’s centres must take into account the context of the wider funding landscape.

3. There is no one-size-fits-all model for the provision of local children’s centres. Local government must be given the freedom to respond to local needs in the most effective way, within the resources available to them.

4. We welcome the new targeted approach set out in the core purpose of the draft children’s centre statutory guidance (consulted on this summer) of focusing on families in greatest need of support to reduce inequalities. This will equip councils with the ability to target local resources in the most cost effective way when responding to local needs.

5. Local areas need to be able to deploy programmes and approaches which will work locally, rather than being told to use programmes defined and evaluated elsewhere. Councils want to make best use of evidence but need flexibility to fit solutions to local needs.

How overall provision will be affected by moves to local funding

6. In the last Spending Review the Government funding to councils for non-educational children’s services, such as children’s centres, was put into the Early Intervention Grant (EIG). Following the changes as a result of the last Comprehensive Spending Review the LGA estimated that the EIG represented a 32 per cent cut when compared to the funding streams it replaced. O verall reductions in local government’s budget were 28 per cent over the spending review period.

7. Furthermore, as part of the technical consultation on business rates, the Government is proposing the Department for Education (DfE) retain s £150 million in each of 2013/14 and 2014/15 for ‘central purposes’. T his holdback is equivalent to withdrawing funding for hundreds of children’s centres. This means that non-ring fenced resources will fall by 27 per cent. The Government has provided no justification for this arbitrary reduction in the local government settlement, as announced in Spending Review 2010, nor has it offered any explanation for how the money withheld will be utilised.

8. When the Early Intervention Grant was introduced, the Government said very clearly that it was for local authorities to determine the most effective use of this money.  This rightly recognised that local, not central, decisions about funding were the best way to make use of limited resources.

9. Councils will now face significant additional cost pressures and it is imperative that any current discussion around children’s centres must be had in the context of a tough funding landscape. We must be open and honest both between ourselves and with the public about the implications of such reductions on children’s centres, and children’s services more generally, and how this will affect overall provision. This will enable councils to have the most meaningful consultations with their local families and communities about future service delivery.

The purpose, effectiveness and impact of children’s centres

10. We welcome the new targeted approach set out in the core purpose of the draft children centre statutory guidance (consulted on this summer) which focuses on families in greatest need of support to reduce inequalities. This will enable councils to target local resources in the most cost effective way when responding to local needs.

11. However, we highlighted concerns that this targeted focus is not wholly reflected throughout the guidance. We noted a number of references to provision of inclusive universal services which welcome all families through children’s centres. The guidance also makes links between children’s centres and local authorities’ duty to secure sufficient childcare, an aspect of children’s centres services which are often accessed by those who are not in greatest need of support. As the guidance has yet to be published we see this as an opportunity for the Government to clarify this focus on a targeted approach in the final version.

12. There is no one-size-fits-all model for the provision of local children’s centres. Local government must be given the freedom to respond to local needs according to resources available to them by re-considering how they deliver services whilst achieving the best possible value for money. We do not support the presumption against closure of children’s centres which was included in the draft statutory guidance on children’s centres consulted on this summer.

13. This presumption clearly undermines the flexibility of local authorities to design services in a way that best meets local need and deploys resources to maximum benefit. This flexibility is increasingly important in the context of budget reductions and rising pressures on the system, including increasing numbers of referrals to social care and of children looked after.

14. Local authorities understand the importance of a child’s early years in their future development and quality of life. Councils play a fundamental role in promoting children’s well-being and improving outcomes for young children and their families. Children’s centres are one of a range of important resources councils use to help achieve this and do not take closure decisions lightly.

15. Yet it is important to be aware that closure of a children’s centre building does not automatically mean a decrease in access to children centre services; with alternative effective methods of provisions such as the emerging "hub and spoke model", it can mean accessing services in a different way. The presumption also does not consider previous over-provision.

16. We believe the focus should be on the overall provision of services for children and their families, rather than individual centres. It is crucial that any inspection frameworks also recognise this and are able to inspect the quality of overall provision rather than individual centres in a silo approach.

Evidence based early intervention

17. The National Evaluation of Sure Start showed limited impact of the earliest and best resourced Sure Start Local Programmes, which only existed in the most disadvantaged areas. There is no national evaluation evidence yet about the impact of later and less well resourced centres. Councillors with their democratic mandate and local knowledge best understand the local resources and needs of local families to make the difficult decisions required around how local services are delivered in the most effective and cost efficient way.

18. Some councils have told us that the over emphasis on approved evidence-based programmes with limited scope is unhelpful. They are often more expensive to deliver and sometimes need to be modified in local areas to adapt to local needs.

19. Councils want to take account of any evidence which can inform effective design of local services, so it would be helpful if the next evaluation of children's centres could focus on assessing the relative effectiveness of different models. We hope the Early Intervention Foundation will be helpful in supporting councils to use evidence effectively to ensure local services are as effective and cost effective as possible.

Multi-agency working

20. We welcome the opportunities for joint working offered by the public health reforms and recognition of the role children’s centres can play in the health and wellbeing, and development of 0-5 year olds. However, the LGA is concerned about the fragmentation of the responsibility for children’s public health services between the NHS Commissioning Board (for children aged 0-5) and local authorities (for children and young people aged 5-19) until 2015. After this time it will be transferred to local government.

21. The LGA called on the Government to give local authorities the responsibility for commissioning children’s public health services throughout their childhood rather than for 5-19 year olds as currently proposed. Many local authorities believe that the split responsibility will lead to the fragmentation of children’s services and may undermine existing services such as children’s centres, which are already established in every local authority area. Local authorities should have responsibility for commissioning children’s public health services from pregnancy throughout childhood.

22. We remain concerned about the persistent barriers to effective information sharing between services and children’s centres, specifically in the new health landscape. We agree such sharing of information is key to identifying families in greatest need of support. Working with health visitors on information sharing will be particularly crucial. Many local authorities have developed effective local information sharing processes and we welcome Government’s new initiatives to reflect on the national system, including the Child Information Sharing Project and Dame Caldicott’s review of information governance. The improving information sharing and management exemplar project has carried out a lot of work, including developing products and guidance. Although this is in relation to the Troubled Families Programme, there is likely to be wider learning for multi-agency information sharing.

23. We do not support the top down stipulation that children’s centres should have access to a named social worker. It is important local authorities are afforded the flexibility to make the determination locally as to how multi agencies can best work locally together to ensure the health and wellbeing of children.

24. A mutual understanding of child protection across the many professionals involved increases the efficacy of the system. Councils know that providing early help can reduce the need for child protection interventions that are more complex and more expensive. Equipping support staff to do this could prevent referrals to social workers. Many local authorities already have multi-agency teams located in community services where professionals from early years, health and education services can discuss child protection concerns and potential referrals. Through both providing early help to families and appropriate referrals of children to children’s social care teams, resources can be focused where most appropriate.

Increasing involvement of families

25. Councils are leading the way in reforming the way services are delivered, opening up markets, supporting enterprise and supporting communities to play a bigger role in the running of services.

26. Councils are pro-actively taking action to make it easier for families and communities to get more involved in running children’s centres; the methods will vary depending on local needs, interests and resources. Employee-led mutuals or community groups are just two of the options that councils are exploring as they seek better outcomes for their communities.

27. There is a plethora of existing partnership working, for example in Stoke on Trent Council parents and communities have been involved in running a social enterprise at a children’s centre, and in Manchester Council children’s centres are delivering services in partnership with community organisations.

28. Whilst greater community involvement can bring real advantages, commissioners should not make assumptions about which type of provider is best placed to deliver different services. The goal should be to ensure that services are provided by the service provider that can provide the best level and quality of service to users and tax payers. The LGA publication ‘Social-enterprise, mutual, co-operative and collective ownership models’ provides a good resource for local councils in this regard. In particular government should focus on creating an environment in which a healthy balance of providers is encouraged.

29. Councils are best placed to weigh up the different options in their role as commissioners. They possess the knowledge of local needs and resources to know whether in certain circumstances it is in the best interests of local service provision that families and communities get more involved in running centres, and where it is, to know what support is required to support they need to get more involved.

30. The LGA is already supporting councils and councillors with effective engagement and commissioning to help them to develop ‘bottom up’ services through a confident and in-depth knowledge of local community priorities and potential local providers. Our ‘Keep it REAL: Councils at the heart of their communities’ programme is supporting a range of councils across the country to work with their communities and Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) organisations on a range of local priorities.

31. Many councils are already taking radical steps to improve their commissioning with a focus on the local voluntary and community sector. For example, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council is strengthening a neighbourhood offer to local people and developing a co-operative approach to services including involving local people in developing the services that they wanted. The LGA is working with a range of VCS organisations to ensure that effective support for commissioners and providers is in place.

Good practice of family and parenting support

32. This response includes references to councils which are doing good practice throughout. There are many councils carrying out excellent work around providing family and parenting support through children’s centres. However, below is a specific example of an innovative programme delivering family and parenting support.

Hertfordshire County Council – Family Toolkit and "My Baby’s Brain" project

Hertfordshire County Council has produced a family toolkit in order to support families to develop their parenting skills and look after their own emotional needs so that they can parent more effectively. The toolkit is compromised of a series of workshops covering key positive behaviour management, communication and relationship strategies. Each workshop is for around 10-20 parents and lasts for two hours, with a Family Toolkit document accompanying the workshops.

The council have worked closely with the local NHS Trust and private sector experts in the baby brain development field to design a new project which aims to help parents understand why they should and how they can support the health development of their baby’s brain. The project is made up of a training course, meetings for new parents with health visitors and accompanying tools to help support the learning.

Southampton City Council – supporting parents back into work

Southampton City Council participated in the Work Focussed Services Poverty pilot between 2009-2011 which ran in three children’s centres and helped 110 parents finding work, 600 parents completing a training course and 25 parents taking up voluntary placements. Following the success of the pilot it was agreed with JobCentre Plus that some JobCentre Plus Advisers would become part of the children’s centres team. This means they have a greater understanding of families’ journeys and appropriate help so can provide a more family centred approach for parents. They also link families into other sources of support provided by children’s centres.

Sector-led improvement

33. Local government is committed to continual improvement of children’s services through sector-led improvement with support from the Children’s Improvement Board (CIB), which is the agreed way forward by Ministers for the sector.

34. The CIB is a partnership set up by the Local Government Association (LGA), the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS), and SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) supported by the Department for Education (DfE). It is a direction setting and decision making group that is responsible for the overall delivery of a programme to develop sector led improvement for children's services. More details about  sector led improvement can be found at  www.local.gov.uk/CIB

35. CIB commissioned SERCO to undertake work to help local authorities to deliver their duty to secure sufficient Sure Start Children’s Centres cost effectively, including sharing good practice case studies.

36. In partnership with the DfE and CIB, 27 payment-by-results trial areas are taking place to test the impact of rewards on three measures:

o breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks

o Early Years Foundation Stage – the gap between Free School Meals and non-free School Meals group

o two year olds in funded early education

37. CIB’s involvement in the trials has facilitated an open dialogue with local authorities and instilled confidence at a local level that the department is working collaboratively with organisations that represent councils and early years services and have the relevant experience and expertise of service management and delivery, to carry out a genuine trial of payment by results. Councils are developing their work and supporting each other through action learning sets.

38. The LGA recently funded a research report on "Targeting children's centre services on the most needy families", in September 2011 and this report includes numerous good practice case studies.

December 2012