Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Children, Education & Families

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/2022

Contact: Lucy Butler, Deputy Director for Children’s Social Care Tel: (01865) 815165

Report by Chairman of the Early Intervention Cabinet Advisory Group (CA6).

The current budget for the Early Intervention Service including Children’s Centres is approximately £16M. As part of the service and resource planning process for the period 2014/15-2017/18 savings of £6 million were identified for the Early Intervention Service to be achieved through integration with Children’s Social Care.

A cross-party Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG)  was established to support development of proposals to achieve a £6M budget reduction and fundamental redesign of early intervention services was agreed.

This report provides some background into the work of the CAG and makes recommendations to Cabinet for changes to the children’s early intervention service in order to realise the savings mentioned above .

It is RECOMMENDED that Cabinet consults with potential partners on the proposals set out below:

a.     The current service needs to be streamlined and refocused to respond to (i) financial pressures to achieve savings of £6m by 2017/18; (ii) increases in demand for statutory services.

b.    A robust and sustainable service should be developed that delivers an integrated response to families’ needs and focus on the prevention of the escalation of need.

c.     One coherent 0-19 years’ service be created rather than continuing with an early intervention service divided by age groups. This allows for better joined up working and use of limited resources.

d.    Location of services and funding should be determined based on need as defined by Index of Multiple Deprivation, Children on Protection Plans, Children in Need and percentage under 5 (2015-20). See Annex 1 for draft summary of the needs analysis providing detailed information on the data.

e.     In addition to centres being located on the basis of need considerations of access and geographical spread of centres is critical given the rural nature of the county. The existing locality model should be used as a basis for future service design.

f.      Children & Family Resource Centres be developed in line with County Council localities. Locality based centres targeted to those areas of greatest need will be developed and combined with outreach services so as to allow for a good geographical spread of resources. Locality modelling which is based on natural communities means limited resources can be allocated on a needs basis at a local level. Locality modelling is a robust model which can be flexible to meet changes in need and population.  It also allows for local communities/groups and parishes to play a part in service delivery.

g.    Early intervention services must not be duplicated. Close working is required with partners, especially schools and Public Health to ensure an effective service.

h.    Outreach of early intervention work from main service centres should be a means to ensure service provision in both urban and rural areas.

i.      Early intervention services need to focus on providing evidence based prevention work in particular to prevent children’s needs escalating and requiring statutory interventions as well as providing targeted family support. This means that some other services perhaps traditionally associated with children’s centres and early intervention cannot continue under county council funding streams for example stay and play sessions.

j.      Maintaining services through the current network of centres is not sustainable and alternative options for these buildings should be sought. Discussions are required with communities about the future of buildings and services in their area.

k.     The voluntary and community sector provision of early intervention services in Oxfordshire is thriving. Communities should be supported by the council, including being given the opportunity to access funding to develop alternative models of service delivery. As a strong signal of commitment to alternative models community funding should be made available for communities to bid for.

l.      Detailed proposals for the future delivery of early intervention services be drawn up for public consultation and communication undertaken at the earliest stage to involve stakeholders, including schools, district councils, town and parish councils, public health and the voluntary and community sector.

m.   Given the current indications from Government, that there is likely to be extensive reductions in available resource, we recognise that reductions in the service, beyond the £6m, will be needed.

Cabinet considered the report of the Early Intervention CAG which provided some background into the work of the CAG and made recommendations to Cabinet for changes to the children’s early intervention service in order to realise the necessary savings.

Councillor Fooks referred to the huge concerns within communities and commented that the report would not allay those fears. Within her Division there were areas that were very deprived with high numbers of single parents, children on free school meals and families on income support or job seekers allowance. She believed that the proposals on early intervention centres needed re-consideration and that it would be a mistake to close them. There was a need to provide at lower cost but the Centres themselves should be asked for their suggestions to achieve this. In response to concern that the consultation was over the summer period when schools were closed the Leader explained that there would be a full consultation on proposals to come back to Cabinet following initial conversations with stakeholders over the summer period.

Councillor Gray, as Vice Chairman of the CAG highlighted the seriousness with which they approached their task and outlined how their work had been carried out. He was pleased to see the move to a 0-19 service and he did feel that going forward the Council would need to focus on the statutory services and work with the most vulnerable families.

Councillor Brighouse, Leader of the Opposition, stated that there was more information that she would have liked to have seen, for instance around the finances of the individual centres. As someone heavily involved in her own local centre she was aware of the value of the stay and play services, which encouraged people into the centres. The question was how to work in the local areas to ensure children were safeguarded and that the most vulnerable were not disadvantaged by the new service. The Council was facing very difficult decisions in a time of financial constraint and increasing need.

Councillor Godden, speaking as a recently resigned member of the CAG commented that she had a minority view, feeling that further information was needed before being able to say that the proposals in the report were the best way forward.. She felt uncomfortable and embarrassed not to be in a position to understand the funding of individual centres and at the lack of information on the changing policies and the impact on health partners. She would have liked to see more being done to explore what was possible with the current model before suggesting a new model. She had formally written with her views but received no acknowledgement.

Councillor Gill Sanders, Shadow Cabinet Member for Children, Education & Families and member of the CAG, recognised the need for cuts. The CAG had recognised that it was vital that children & young people received the support they needed and the question was how to best provide that in the face of such cuts and to assure the public that needs will be met. She urged that the consultation be thorough and wide ranging. She welcomed the move to a 0-19 service. Going forward the experience of trained staff was vital as was partnership working. She commented that the job losses were worrying and that currently staff must be very unsure of their future employment. She hoped that the eventual proposals would meet needs and that the Council will not need to make further cuts. She urged Cabinet to continue to lobby the Prime Minister .

Councillor Webber, Liberal Democrat Group Leader, thanked Councillor Godden for all her work on the CAG and understood her reasons for stepping down. He had concerns about the process so far but would be repacing Councillor Godden. Having spoken to Councillor Godden he  supported the 0-19 service. He felt that the approach was wrong and that schools and parish councils should be approached first to see what they could do to then look at what remained to be done by the Council.

Councillor Tilley responded to the speakers commenting that there was an in depth understanding of need; that children’s centres had already been asked to find savings and she recognised the need to work with them; that the major consultation would not begin until September when schools were back; that the NHS were central to this matter and it was vital they were involved and that safeguarding was central to the proposals. Councillor Tilley responding to Councillor Godden stated that she had not known how to reply to her letter. The CAG had had a lot of information on matters such as footfall, delivery and duplication. She recognised the need to work with

Jim Leivers, Director for Children’s Services, introduced the contents of the report, highlighted that the report was the start of the process and explained the context and background to the recommendations. His staff had tried to provide relevant information and no-one sought to hide or prevent information going to the CAG. He detailed the consultation process to be followed and briefly explained the proposals.

During discussion Cabinet thanked the CAG for the work they had undertaken and recognised that although it would be difficult there was the need to make progress on a sustainable delivery model.

Councillor Brighouse suggested that locality meeting during September may be a useful tool in terms of tapping into councillors local knowledge. It was essential that this massive piece of work was done properly involving the whole range of individuals concerned including teachers. Councillor Hudspeth welcomed the use of locality meetings.

Councillor Tilley in moving the recommendations thanked all the CAG members and paid tribute to former Councillor Val Smith who had been a very valued member during her time on the CAG.

RESOLVED:-             to agree that Cabinet consults with potential partners  on the proposals set out below:

a.    The current service needs to be streamlined and refocused to respond to (i) financial pressures to achieve savings of £6m by 2017/18; (ii) increases in demand for statutory services.

b.    A robust and sustainable service should be developed that delivers an integrated response to families’ needs and focus on the prevention of the escalation of need.

c.    One coherent 0-19 years’ service be created rather than continuing with an early intervention service divided by age groups. This allows for better joined up working and use of limited resources.

d.    Location of services and funding should be determined based on need as defined by Index of Multiple Deprivation, Children on Protection Plans, Children in Need and percentage under 5 (2015-20). See Annex 1 for draft summary of the needs analysis providing detailed information on the data.

e.    In addition to centres being located on the basis of need considerations of access and geographical spread of centres is critical given the rural nature of the county. The existing locality model should be used as a basis for future service design.

f.     Children & Family Resource Centres be developed in line with County Council localities. Locality based centres targeted to those areas of greatest need will be developed and combined with outreach services so as to allow for a good geographical spread of resources. Locality modelling which is based on natural communities means limited resources can be allocated on a needs basis at a local level. Locality modelling is a robust model which can be flexible to meet changes in need and population. It also allows for local communities/groups and parishes to play a part in service delivery.

g.    Early intervention services must not be duplicated. Close working is required with partners, especially schools and Public Health to ensure an effective service.

h.    Outreach of early intervention work from main service centres should be a means to ensure service provision in both urban and rural areas.

i.      Early intervention services need to focus on providing evidence based prevention work in particular to prevent children’s needs escalating and requiring statutory interventions as well as providing targeted family support. This means that some other services perhaps traditionally associated with children’s centres and early intervention cannot continue under county council funding streams for example stay and play sessions.

j.      Maintaining services through the current network of centres is not sustainable and alternative options for these buildings should be sought. Discussions are required with communities about the future of buildings and services in their area.

k.    The voluntary and community sector provision of early intervention services in Oxfordshire is thriving. Communities should be supported by the council, including being given the opportunity to access funding to develop alternative models of service delivery. As a strong signal of commitment to alternative models community funding should be made available for communities to bid for.

l.      Detailed proposals for the future delivery of early intervention services be drawn up for public consultation and communication undertaken at the earliest stage to involve stakeholders, including schools, district councils, town and parish councils, public health and the voluntary and community sector.

m.   Given the current indications from Government, that there is likely to be extensive reductions in available resource, we recognise that reductions in the service, beyond the £6m, will be needed.