Back to Agenda

BRINGING EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE FUNCTIONS TOGETHER

Report of the Education/Social Services Joint Steering Group (October 2001)

Background

1. In February 2001, the County’s Best Value and Audit Sub-Committee approved the Review Team’s recommendation that the existing education and social services early years and childcare functions should be integrated within one department – probably education – with effect from April 2002.  This decision was endorsed by the Children’s and Young People’s Sub-Committee on 21 May.  The main reasons for creating an integrated early years and childcare service are:

   • to provide a stronger, more coherent identity within the County Council for this vital and growing area of work

   • to enable the County Council to give even better quality support to staff and settings in the field.

The Sub-Committee also noted that, at national level, early years and childcare functions are now fully integrated within the Department for Education and Skills.

2. In May 2001, an Education/Social Services Joint Steering Group was established to take forward the task of integration. Amongst other things, the Group’s remit is to advise Education and Social Services SMTs on detailed aspects of the amalgamation proposals, including their resource implications. The membership of the Steering Group is set out in Annex 1.

3. This report outlines for both SMTs:

   • the resource, staffing and personnel implications of the proposed integration
   • the issues that have been raised in consultations with various staff groups over the past few months
   • a proposed management structure for the integrated unit
   • the recommended next steps in the integration process.

Scope of The Proposed Integration

4. The new Early Education and Childcare Service is expected to include the following key areas of work:

   • Childcare Development and Support (currently Social Services)
   • Childcare Training and Recruitment (currently shared between Education/Social Services)
   • Children’s Information Services (mainly Education)
   • Early education grant funding (Education)
   • Early education policy, planning and development (Education)
   • Early Years Support Scheme (Social Services)
   • Family Centres (shared between Social Services/Education)
   • Family literacy and numeracy (Education)
   • Integrated Early Years Centres, including the ACE Centre (mainly Education)
   • Managing national early years and childcare grant funding (led by Education)
   • Nursery Schools (Education)
   • Parent and family education (Education)
   • Planning and data analysis, including childcare audit (led by Education)
   • Preparation of early years development and childcare plan (led by Education with strong Social Services involvement)
   • Servicing and supporting the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (led by Education/strong Social Services involvement)
   • Service level agreements with outside organisations (mainly Social Services)
   • Support for vulnerable children (Social Services)

   • Sure Start (led by Education but also involving Social Services).

5. Other relevant areas that will be closely linked to the new service are:

   • Early Education advice, monitoring and support (Education)
   • Early Education training (Education)
   • Special needs monitoring and support (Education)

Overview of Resource Issues

6. The main resources involved in the integration are set out in Annex 2.

7. As far as Social Services are concerned, the main staffing resources involved in the proposed integration are the Childcare Development Team (15.4fte staff) and the staff of four family centres: Barton Open Door, Britannia Road (Banbury), Cuddesdon Corner (Oxford) and Florence Park (16.3fte).  In addition, there are 15 service agreements with external organisations of which five are for Family Centres.  The 15 service agreements amount to 497k, of which some 63% (£314k) is for the five externally run family centres.

8. The above Social Services provision, including the 15 service agreements, is worth £1.13m in 2001/2002. This sum is included in the £1.6m Social Services recharge which has been part of the education budget since 1997/98.

9. As for Education’s Lifelong Learning branch, the main staffing resources involved in the integration are the Early Years Section (13.44fte), the 8 free-standing nursery schools (45.3 fte) and the 4 family/integrated early childhood centres (20fte).  In addition there are 37 service agreements with external organisations amounting to £1.263k.

10. As far as the other main branches of the Education Department are concerned, the Early Years Team within the Advisory and Improvement Branch is projected to have 19.3fte staff by the end of the current financial year and the Pre-School Teacher Counselling/SEN Support Service within the Pupil Services Branch a total of 14fte staff. The former are all based centrally at the Cricket Road Centre. The latter are located in 5 main office bases around the County.

11. Whilst Independent Voluntary Organisations are not directly part of the integration process, it is worth acknowledging that some of the Service Level Agreements attract additional funding and resources to Early Years and Childcare Services in Oxfordshire. These include both revenue and capital contributions. For example, the five external Family Centres bring estimated additional revenue funding of £150k per annum to the provision made by County Council.

Resource Transfer Issues

12. On the assumption that the Social Service resources devoted to childcare and early years support transfer to Education on 1 April 2002, a number of key resource issues need to be addressed and resolved:

Staffing

• Employment position of individual administrative and management staff in Social Services
• Comparability of staff gradings across the two departments

Budgets

• Calculation of these overhead and of support costs within the Social Services budget currently devoted to Childcare and Early Years Support, and agreement on the sum to be transferred to education in April 2002
• Agreement on how to deal with Social Services recharge of £1.6m within the Education Budget in 2002/03 and beyond.  Childcare and Early Years Support costs form the main part of this sum, but do not account for all of it.

Premises

• Premises management issues, particularly with regard to the Social Services Family Centres
• Accommodation implications for central staff

Each of these issues is dealt with in turn in the paragraphs below.

13. Administrative and management staff in Social Services:  the staffing figures set out in paragraph 8 above and in Annex 2, include only those staff whose jobs are wholly devoted to childcare and early years support.  They do not include any Social Services staff who have management, administrative, financial, personnel, premises, or IT roles in relation to these functions.  The steering group is working on the assumption that these support staff will remain in their existing posts within the Social Services establishment.  In a few cases (for example, see paragraph 18 below), they will continue to provide administrative support to staff who have transferred to the Education establishment, particularly where the latter continue to be located within Social Services office bases.

14. Comparability of Staff Gradings: as far as Family Centre staff are concerned, the steering group is satisfied that staff gradings are broadly comparable across Social Services and Education.  There is only one small discrepancy concerning administrative and clerical staff.  In Social Services centres these staff are paid uniformly on Scale 1-3.  In some Education-managed centres and nursery Schools, staff with similar roles are paid either on scale 1 or on scale 1/2. The review recommends that this anomaly is rectified as part of the process of creating the integrated unit. The total estimated cost of regrading the staff concerned, including on-costs, is £7k per annum.

15. As for other staff whose jobs would be affected by the creation of the integrated unit, the Joint Steering Group does not feel there are any other urgent grading issues that require attention as part of the integration process.  The Steering Group notes the point made by members of the Childcare Development Team that there may be a case for their posts to be regraded, particularly if they are to work more closely alongside other more highly graded Early Years staff in Education.  The Review Team recommends that it would be appropriate for this matter to be addressed over the coming year as part of the County Council’s forthcoming job evaluation exercise.

16. Calculation of overheads and support costs for Childcare and Family Support within the current Social Service Budget: Social Services currently operates a number of support services including Finance, Personnel, Property and Administration to enable its childcare and early years provision to be delivered. The manner in which these support services are configured makes it difficult for them to be transferred alongside the direct services. The Education Department has, therefore, identified and costed the support infrastructure which it requires to run the new integrated Service, including the Social Services provision, when it transfers in April 2002 (see paragraph 27f). It is agreed that from 2002/03 onwards Social Services will transfer appropriate sums to Education in respect of these costs.

17. Social Services re-charge: The cost of the services to be transferred (including overheads and support costs) is below the level of the historic recharge. However, it is important that the transfer of the Early Years provision does not place an additional burden on the Council as a whole. For this reason, the Medium Term Plan will need to merely transfer the provision identified above. This effectively puts an end to the recharge. The gap needs to be shown as a technical reduction in the Education spend above SSA although it does not reflect any reduction in the Council’s actual spending on education. This adjustment should take effect from 2002/03 onwards.

18. Transfer of Social Services Family Centre premises to Education:  the Steering Group has consulted with the  relevant premises officers in Education, Social Services and Environmental Services.  There is agreement that these premises would not be disadvantaged either in relation to repair and maintenance or to capital budgets by the proposed transfer to Education.

19. Accommodation implications for central staff:  the Steering Group anticipates that it will be necessary to accommodate up to four additional staff (one existing and three new) in Macclesfield House as a result of the creation of the integrated Early Years and Childcare Service.  As far as the members of the Childcare Development Team are concerned, it is agreed that they will continue for the foreseeable future to be located in their existing bases at the Social Services offices in Abingdon, Banbury, Bicester, Oxford and Witney.  They will also continue to receive clerical and administrative support from Social Services staff based at those offices.

Consultation with Staff

20. The Steering Group has carried out consultation with key groups of those staff and managers who are likely to be involved or affected by the creation of the integrated Early Years and Childcare Service.  A brief record of the issues raised at each of the meetings is set out below.

21. Open meetings for all Education and Social Services Staff and Managers on 11 June and 11 October:  Over 50 staff from a wide range of services attended the meeting on 11 June.    From the Steering Group Rick Harmes, Phil Hodgson, Peter Cook, John Vallis and Peter Fryer were present.  The rationale and background for the proposed integration were explained and the likely effects on staff and users were described.  Some initial concerns were raised particularly by staff working in Social Services Family Centres.  Staff were informed what the expected process and timescale for the integrated service would be. They were offered the opportunity to meet with members of the Steering Group in smaller and more coherent functional groupings.

22. The meeting on 11 October was once again attended by over 50 staff and managers from a wide range of services. The latest developments in implementing the new Service were outlined and copies of the steering group’s final draft report were available for distribution and comment. There was broad support for the proposals at the meeting. In particular there was discussion about the future development of Family Centres in the County and how the new integrated Service might assist with this. It was stressed that the new service would be a whole County Council Service and that social care values and those relating to learning and development will have equal priority within it.

23. Meeting with Education and Social Services Family Centre staff and managers on 3 July: around 20 Family staff and managers attended the meeting. For the Steering Group, Phil Hodgson, Rick Harmes, Peter Cook, John Vallis and Peter Fryer were present.  A note of the main points raised at the meeting was taken and is on file.  As far as the Steering Group are concerned, the main points to emerge from the meeting are that:

    • The creation of the joint service should include a commitment to maintain and complete the implementation of the eight key principles arising from the 1996/97 review of Family Centre provision in the County.
    • A common manual of guidance and good practice should be prepared.
    • All Family Centre Staff should continue to have access to Social Services training provision particularly in key aspects such as child protection
    • All Family Centres should continue to be available as venues for court-ordered supervised contact between children in the looked-after system and their parents
    • Social Services Family Centre staff should continue to have access to the Social Services in-house staff support service, at least in the period immediately following the creation of the integrated service

24. Meeting with Education and Social Services Senior Early Years and Childcare Managers on 9 July:  Six senior managers attended the meeting. For the Steering Group, Rick Harmes, Phil Hodgson and Peter Cook were present.  A note of the main points raised at the meeting was taken and is on file.  Five individuals (Annie Davy, Julie Fisher and Val Legg, Amanda Powell and Clare Abolins) have also sent subsequent written comments and these have been placed on file.  From the 9 July meeting and the subsequent written comments, the main points to emerge as far as the Steering Group is concerned are:

    • Managers working in the Service tend to favour the highest possible degree of integration of the management of  Early Years and Childcare Services, including quality and training functions.  They would also like to see closer links with Schools Branch over early education issues.
    • Managers would like the opportunity to develop more co-ordinated service delivery to users along the lines that are being developed at Sure Start
    • Any ‘first phase’ solution to the closer integration of Early Years and Childcare functions within Education and Social Services should not preclude the possibilities for an even greater degree of integration being achieved at a later date
    • The main test of the effectiveness of the new integrated arrangements will be that they really do add value to what has existed up until now within separate departments/branches.

25. Meeting with members of the Childcare Development Team on 19 July: some 10 members of the team attended the meeting.  For the Steering Group Phil Hodgson, Rick Harmes and Peter Fryer were present.  A note of the main points raised at the meeting was taken and is on file.  As far as the Steering Group are concerned, the main points to emerge from the meeting are that: 

    • Childcare Development officers around the County will continue to be based in their existing Social services Offices and will continue to be supported by Social Services administrative and clerical staff.

    • The day-to-day duties of team members are not expected to change as a result of integration.  The identity of the team as a whole will be maintained and regular team meetings will continue to take place.

Initial Conclusions from the Consultation and Resource Assessment Phases

26. These are as follows:

    1. As far as most staff are concerned, the proposed integration of Social Services and Education Early Years and Childcare functions is supported and welcomed.  The Steering Group is satisfied that most of the concerns expressed by Family Centre and Childcare Development Team staff in Social services can be satisfactorily addressed and resolved.

    2. Amongst managers of the Service, support for the integration of functions across Education and Social Services is also strong.  Managers tend to have stronger views than staff on the precise form that integration might take and on the status and location of the new integrated service within the Education Department.

    3. From a resource point of view, the integration appears to be feasible.  The main issues to be resolved appear to be as follows:

       • Agreement concerning the gap between what the Education Department needs in terms of additional support services to assist in managing new responsibilities and what the Social Services Department is able to pass across in terms of budget and costs.
       • Agreement with the County Treasurer and with elected members on how the remaining elements of the existing Social Services recharge should be dealt with in 2002/03 and beyond
       • Ensuring that sufficient accommodation is available in Macclesfield House to accommodate the three or four new officer and administrative posts that are likely to form part of the integrated management structure for the service.

Proposals for a New Management Structure for the Integrated Service

27. The Steering Group considered two main structural options for the management of the new integrated service:

    ‘Core Integration’ of the majority of Early Education and Childcare functions (see paragraph 4 above) within an existing lead Branch within the Education Department – probably the Lifelong Learning Branch.

    ‘Core Plus’ Integration of all core and additional Early Years and Childcare functions (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above) either within an existing lead Branch within the Education Department or, possibly, within a newly created Branch.

28. Core Integration of most existing Early Years and Childcare functions within the Lifelong Learning Branch has the following advantages:

    • It achieves a significant level of ‘value added’ over the existing arrangements particularly for the management and development of Family Centres and for the development of new Childcare provision in a range of existing education and community settings.
    • It can be achieved with relatively little disruption to other education department functions and can be managed using the same cross-branch approach that is currently used to co-ordinate support to primary, secondary and special schools

    • It is in line with what a large number of other authorities are currently doing but still leaves the way open for further integration at a later stage if desired.

29. The only slight disadvantage of the core integration approach is that it requires continued co-ordination across three or four separate Branches within the Education Department (Lifelong Learning, AIS, Pupil Services and Schools). This is felt by some to be wasteful of the time and energy of senior managers.

30. With regard to the ‘Core Plus’ integration approach, the main advantages and  disadvantages are as follows:

    • It achieves an equally high (and possibly higher) degree of ‘value added’ over the existing arrangements but only after significant restructuring of other functions within the Education department.
    • It would still require some liaison across Branches, particularly for example with the Schools Branch which would almost certainly not be part of the new service.

    • It is likely to be somewhat more expensive to implement than the first option particularly given that, under one of the scenarios suggested by managers, the service head could well have Head of Branch status.

31. With these points in mind the proposed management structure for the integrated service has been prepared with the core integration option above principally in mind.

The main proposals are as follows:

It is anticipated that these sums can be financed mainly from the resource transfer figure agreed with Social Services and from other existing sources within the education budget or from external grant funding.

Next Steps

32. So far the integration process is proceeding well and in accordance with the timescale set out in the Best Value Review Plan. Social Services and Education SMTs both approved the recommendations in this report in October 2001 and agreed that the proposals should be put to the Council’s Executive in November. The next steps in the process are now therefore as follows:

    1. November 2001 – Executive asked to approve the establishment of the integrated unit. Partnership asked to endorse new arrangements
    2. November/December 2001 – advertise and appoint Senior Education Officer post
    3. January/February 2002 – advertise and appoint other senior management posts within the integrated unit
    4. December 2001/March 2002– other preparations for integrated unit get under way – communication with staff/outside bodies; publicity, accommodation and budget changes planned and implemented

RECOMMENDATION

33. It is recommended that a new integrated early years and childcare service be established within the Education Department from April 2002 as set out in paragraphs 27 to 29 above, on the understanding that:

    • the new service will operate as a single County Council service in which social care values and those relating to learning and development have equal importance;
    • the new service will be established without any net additional cost to the County Council.

ANNEX 1