Agenda item

6.1

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families submitted a report setting out in principle proposals to redesign Early Years’ Services in Sheffield.

6.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet (a) approves in principle:-

(i)

the proposed redesign and streamlining of the organisational structure in early years services in order to maximise access to high quality early learning and health services with the resources available;

(ii)

the proposed action plan for a quality improvement programme for all early years settings;

(iii)

the proposed reorganisation of the management and co-ordination of 36 Children’s Centres into 17 Children’s Centre Areas;

(iv)

the proposal that existing contracts with providers (due to end in March 2013) are not renewed where services are no longer required or funding is not available, while, at the same time, specifications for procurement of new targeted services will be developed;

(v)

the proposed cessation of grants to 16 childcare providers in the Private, Voluntary and Independent sector and 4 in the statutory sector; and

(vi)

the proposed reduction and transfer of the maintained childcare provision; and

(b)

notes (i) the proposed further communication and consultation to be carried out on the Early Years’ Review and (ii) that a further report will be submitted to Cabinet in February, 2013 on the outcome of the consultation.

6.3

Reasons for Decision

6.3.1

The purpose of this report is to inform Members and seek approval in principle for proposals to redesign and streamline early years services in Sheffield in order to make savings in management, administration and premises costs whilst maintaining universal, early intervention and family support services that are flexible, accessible and of high quality. This is the next phase in the development, which builds on the consultation and proposals that formed the conclusions of the Early Years Review.   The size, depth of the savings proposed and the timescale are as a result of the severe Government cuts to funding and changes in Government Strategies for early years.  Due to these changes the Council will concentrate on being the Champion and advocate for children and families, will have an increased focus on 'uptake', quality assurance and value for money.

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.4.1

No alternatives were considered or thought to be appropriate in the circumstances.

6.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

6.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

6.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Jayne Ludlam, Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families.

6.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Children, Young People and Family Support.

6.1

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families submitted a report setting out in principle proposals to redesign Early Years’ Services in Sheffield.

6.2

In considering this matter, Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) indicated that it was proposed to receive any representations, in the form of Petitions or Public Questions, prior to Cabinet considering its decision and that before a decision was made, points raised by the public would be answered by officers, in their presentation of the report, and Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families).   

6.3

Petition

6.3.1

The Cabinet received and noted a petition presented by Ms. Emma Chadwick containing 1,554 signatures opposing the cuts in funding for 20 nurseries in Sheffield, indicating that this was devastating both for staff, who could be out of work after years and thousands of pounds of education and training, and also to working parents, who sent their children  to these nurseries and who also faced the risk of losing their jobs without childcare facilities.  

6.3.2

In presenting the petition, Ms Chadwick referred to her own position where she was the parent of a three year old son with a learning disability who attended Darnall Community Nursery and that, as a result of the Council’s proposals, was faced with finding, at short notice, a place at a new nursery providing appropriate special needs support. This would provide problems in terms of her child establishing new relationships with staff and other children. She asked how could the Council consider closing the Nursery in light of the hard work the staff had undertook in order to support her son?

6.3

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) thanked Ms Chadwick for sharing with the Cabinet her personal circumstances which, she understood, was a highly emotive matter for her. She stated, however, that the Council needed to re-examine how it accommodated provision for special needs in the early years’ service and this would be undertaken as part of the review.

6.4

Dawn Walton, Assistant Director, Prevention and Early Intervention, Children, Young People and Families Service, responded that there were no proposals in the report submitted to Cabinet for the closure of any childcare provision. However, the report examined the principles in relation to the delivery of childcare across the City and recommended a proposed programme of further public consultation which would enable the Council to receive feedback from people like Ms. Chadwick in order that a smooth transition to any designated alternative childcare provider was made and high quality childcare provision within a familiar setting was maintained.

6.4

Public Questions

The following questions/issues were asked or raised by members of the public in relation to the report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, on the Redesign of Early Years’ Services:-

6.4.1

I attend the Fir Vale Centre to improve my English speaking skills as advised by the Job Centre and currently use nursery provision at the Centre to be able to do this.  Where will I leave my children if the provision was closed?

6.4.2

As my husband works nights and is unable to care for their children during the day, I need childcare to enable me to study English to fulfil my determination to become independent.

6.4.3

Where could I leave my four children if the Fir Vale nursery closed, in light of the English language studies which I have undertaken in order to help both myself and my children with their studies?.

6.4.4

A member of staff from Fir Vale Nursery, asked how children could achieve entry level attainment when cuts were being made?

6.4.5

Why was the Council cutting childcare provision when they had not consulted with parents, in light of the importance of this provision to parents’ and children’s futures..

6.4.6

A parent of a 2 year old child explained that she and was using nursery provision to enable her to go to work and, as she was not grant eligible, currently paid £4 per hour which was affordable, with the true cost being  £7 per hour.  Where would my child go so that I could go to work? 

6.4.7

Had consideration been given to the impact on Sheffield as a whole, as a result of the hundreds of jobs and thousands of children who would be affected in the City? She highlighted the fact that people would not be able to return to work as there would be nowhere for them to take their children.

6.4.8

A questioner stated that she had 37 years’ experience in early years’ provision in Sheffield and asked what consideration had been given to the impact of the proposals on vulnerable children. She added that Sheffield would not recover from the loss of experienced staff. 

6.4.9

Where would the children attend alternative childcare facilities if the Darnall Community Nursery closed. leaving vulnerable children without experienced and skilled support staff?. 

6.4.10

Why had Multi-Agency Support Teams (MAST) not been included within meetings on the Early Years’ Review as this is what MAST wanted? The questioner stressed the importance of the first intervention in a child’s development and the co-ordinated response being carried out by different services at this stage and asked why this was being abandoned? She also stated that the City Council was the only Authority in Yorkshire and Humberside to have no Children’s Centres graded as outstanding and had two Centres graded unsatisfactory. She asked, when such large cuts were being made, how could parents and staff trust that services could be delivered with even less money?

6.4.11

The last Labour Government had championed childcare and now the Council was stressing that it had no choice but to cut funding in this area because of Government cuts. The questioner suggested that this was not true, referring to the action taken by Essex Council who had challenged the Government on policy and had won. The questioner stated that Councillors were elected to represent the public and the issue was very important to them and that the Council should not decimate provision in this way. 

6.4.12

Were the Council aware of how the proposed budget reductions would impact on black and minority ethnic employment and how did they fit in with equalities and diversity within the Early Years’ workforce?

6.4.13

How, in light of the proposed reductions, would services, particularly those for the vulnerable, be maintained and improved?

6.4.14

The Council had a responsibility to provide flexible childcare and that private childcare was often inflexible in that it was focussed on full-time provision. Families were being refused childcare if less than two days’ care was required. The questioner also referred to the need for further consultation and that the consultation undertaken so far had been a token gesture and many parents felt that they had not been consulted at all.

6.4.15

What accompanying plans were in place for alternative provision given that many of the Centres were currently in pushchair walking distance, suggesting that parents would have to provide for increased parking and driving costs which, for many parents, was not feasible. As there were no affordable places available in private childcare centres, how did the Council intend to support those who needed to go out to work? 

6.4.16

On behalf of the Tinsley Parent and Child Consortium, was the Council aware that Tinsley Green was the only nursery within the community and had received an outstanding OFSTED report. The questioner highlighted poor transport links between Tinsley and other areas of the City and the associated problems for travelling to other Centres. She also stressed the importance of Early Years and the safeguarding of vulnerable children and asked who would see them each day should Centres close. She suggested that parents were desperate to preserve the universal, locally developed and culturally sensitive services currently offered.

6.4.17

A member of staff from a women’s refuge referred to the issue of domestic abuse and the fact that such refuges relied on community childcare provision for those women suffering domestic abuse.  She stated that childcare was crucial to enable those women who had been the subject of domestic abuse could access counselling and meet with outreach workers. She stressed the importance of trusted services who had already been through the trauma and for families in vulnerable circumstances.

6.4.18

ChrissyMeleady, Families using Community Childcare Group, provided Cabinet with a written submission  asked a number of questions/issues on behalf of an amalgamation of parents and asked that written response be provided to the questions/issues:-

·      concerns in relation to the consultation process, in particular to the lack of consultation with parents, service users, providers, the poor and vulnerable.

·      there was an absence of equalities considerations within the report submitted to Cabinet.

·      whilst the Council was stating that the proposed cuts in childcare were the fault of Government cuts, it was understood from central Government that funding was available through a range of budgets available to local authorities. 

·      in 2012, six local authorities took the Secretary of State for Education to court on his decision to immediately cease funding on the Building School for the Future Programme without consulting local authorities and won the case. Parents now felt that a similar lack of consultation was happening to them. Would the City Council now heed this? 

·      the proposals were based on flawed and presumptive assumptions and therefore, the Cabinet should reflect on this.

·      Cabinet had not been briefed adequately in terms of best value. Nolan principles, the Equalities Act and existing childcare legislation had not been taken into account.

·      the Council asserted that is wishes to maintain an Early Years’ vision, but the withdrawal of funding did not equate to that vision. What was the Council’s vision?

·      how will the proposal to facilitate greater competition in the early years’ field secure better value for money and is there an assertion that current services do not provide value for money ? if so, how has this been assessed, has the Council triangulated this evidence and shared it with current providers and the public?

·      under current proposals, the removal of Council grant aid from not for profit community charities from March 2013 will not be replaced by alternative funding, on a limited basis until September 2013, so were there any contingency plans in place so that the Council could ensure funding was made available from April to September 2013 in order to fulfil its responsibilities under the Childcare Act 2006?

·      what regard had been given to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012  in terms of its impact on the community sector.

·      there had been a lack of support for not-for-profit community organisations in preparing them for the competition alluded to in the Cabinet paper which could lead to a situation where the not-for-profit sector was disadvantaged against larger companies wishing to enter the market using loss leader strategies.

·      the Equalities Impact Assessment was disappointing. No consultation had been held with providers, users, staff and communities on such an assessment.

·      had the principles of “Total Place” been applied? This would seem not to be the case as the reality was that the Council was cutting much needed and demanded community not-for-profit grants and services.

·      why had the Council not worked with the community sector and others to produce specifications for commissioning/ procuring services?

·      what were the findings and recommendations of the Early Years’ Review and why had no feedback on its key recommendations been provided?

6.4.19

a recent Council press statement stated that proposed reforms would provide greater access for services. How was this possible when parents would have to travel greater distances to access services. The questioner also asked which children’s centres were not meeting the needs of parents and children as there was reference in the report to the Council not being able to “prop up” providers.

6.4.20

five Labour Councillors in Hull recently voted against budget cuts, so why could the Council not take similar action to resist Government cuts? 

6.4.21

a questioner commented that many students on English for Speakers of Other Languages would be affected by losing nursery provision and, in referring to page 16 of the report, which stated that there would be opportunities for local providers to improve services to children and families, asked was the Council aware of the high standards achieved by the present Teams in place and how would the proposals in the report improve on these standards? 

6.4.22

In presenting the report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, Dawn Walton, Assistant Director, Prevention and Early Intervention, indicated that the proposals submitted to Cabinet were designed to seek approval in principle to redesign the Early Years’ Service within the context of significant consultation and opinion gathering carried out in 2011 during the Early Years’ Review and set against the backdrop of the financial circumstances the Council found itself in. She emphasised that the proposals would be subject to further consultation to be undertaken in January 2013, with stakeholders and parents, with a view to final proposals being submitted to the Cabinet meeting on 27^th February, 2013.

6.4.23

Ms. Walton stated that the proposals reflected the key themes of the Early Years’ Review and the priorities of the City Council to improve early intervention and preserve as many of the Centres as possible. The proposals aimed to improve outcomes at Foundation Stage level so that young children could make an effective start to school through effective interventions which met the needs of families. The recommendations within the report ensured that the Council focussed on its statutory duties and met the high standards expected by children and families. It was recognised that re-organising the Children’s Centres and reducing the number from 36 to 17 children’s Centre areas would provide greater value for money and focus services on front line delivery at the same time reducing management and administration costs.

6.4.24

The redesign of services would increase accountability to families and ensure that the local authority focussed on its statutory requirements to provided a satisfactory number of childcare places and ensure the take up of these places was maximised. In order to ensure this, the proposals would offer the opportunity for childcare service delivery to be undertaken by other providers such as schools, private organisations, the independent and voluntary and community sectors.  

6.4.25

Ms Walton re-affirmed that the issues raised today would be examined as part of the January, 2013 consultation process. However, 19 million had been transferred from Early Intervention Grants Under 2s provision to school budgets. Whilst the Council hoped to expand childcare places from April, 2013 as soon as funding was available it was recognised that there could be a mix of childcare provision, with schools as well as other providers, delivering the best opportunities. It was also important to understand that support would be given to encourage parents to take up their two year entitlement to support. 

6.4.26

There was no intention to close any childcare provision, but changing childcare providers would be examined in order to maximise resources and buildings that were available in order to ensure that the Council met its statutory commitments to make sure sufficient childcare places were available. The Sufficiency Assessment carried out in 2011 had informed work to identify early years childcare requirements and the Council wanted to maximise access to the whole range of prevention and early intervention services. Childcare providers were an important link in the provision of universal health services and the report acknowledged the importance of health visitors and other maternal services as a means of ensuring children got the best possible start in life.      

6.4.27

Early Years services were crucial when focussing on prevention and early intervention at the earliest opportunity and, from the evidence that the Council possessed, picking up problems made a substantial difference to families and their future resilience. She stressed, as did the report, that there was every intention of working with vulnerable families in the City to improve the life chances of all children, wherever possible.  

6.4.28

As far as consultation was concerned, the current consultation and the proposed round of consultation in January, 2013 would take account of the Early Years’ Review as submitted to Cabinet in March 2012 and be reflected in the proposed report to Cabinet in February 2013. As far as Equalities Impact Assessments were concerned, these were critical as they identified the most vulnerable families in communities but the Council needed not just one document but a composite , overarching document which took account of the outcome of consultation. This final document, which would be presented to Cabinet in February, 2013 and would inform service provision.   

6.4.29

The Public Services (Social Value) Act would govern the way that that the Council engaged providers to deliver service, but the Council’s policy acknowledged the need for specialist services to be delivered by specialist organisations. This would require recruitment of a talented workforce.

6.4.30

It was quite clear that the local authority wanted to focus and concentrate on the need to secure sufficient childcare provision, to meet parents’ demand for flexibility and a service which met changing social and family needs. This would be examined in the Sufficiency Assessment to ensure that the Council delivered services which were of the right type and of a high standard tailored to meet parents needs.

6.4.31

Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) in responding to the questions asked, stated how much she appreciated the hard work staff in nurseries and other childcare settings who provided invaluable and effective support to families and children in what were, sometimes, difficult circumstances. She understood that many parents and staff were feeling upset at the moment but these were difficult times and had to be set in the context of a tidal wave of draconian cuts which amounted to £140 million over the last two years with a further cut of approximately £50 million in 2013/14.

6.4.32

She added that Early Intervention Grant which, in addition to early years services, supported youth offending services to families with disabilities was due to be cut by £6.8 million. The Council, therefore, was trying to make savings responsibly whilst striving to protect services to families. However, in terms of early years services, it would be wrong for the Council to say that it could make £3.5 million savings without affecting anybody. She suggested that the previous Labour Government had been committed to early years services through the SureStart Scheme but the present Government had an alternative policy of supporting the Pupil Premium and Free Early Learning, the latter being supported by funding of approximately £6.8 million which was the amount by which Early Intervention Grant was being cut.

6.4.33

Councillor Drayton indicated that the Council had tried to make savings through management and administration and reducing premises costs and that was why the Council was reducing the number of Children’s Centres requiring inspection (and the consequential reduction in advisory groups and management teams) down to 17. It was envisaged that some childcare facilities might have to be relocated to suit local groups, but the council had to make best use of the funding it had for services. Named OFSTED Centres would have to de-registered with OFSTED and the 17  Centres would have to be re-registered with OFSTED and would continue to be monitored and measured by that agency. 

6.4.34

Councillor Drayton referred to the fact that parents had indicated, during the consultation on the Early Years Review, that they required flexibility in childcare provision which was relatively low cost, available at different times and situated in locations that were relatively easily accessible. The proposals in the report offered an opportunity for the provision of such flexibility to provide childcare not just for 36 weeks but for 50 weeks per year. She added that it was important that people recognised that any Cabinet decision on this matter would not be made lightly and the report asked for approval in principle to hold further consultations on the current situation where the Council had little money for funding childcare. The Council would do what it could to protect the most vulnerable children and families, but universal provision for childcare sat within the early years budget in accordance with Government policy. The current situation was something that the Council did not want to be doing, but this was the reality of the position in which the Council was placed.

6.4.35

 Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) added that the Essex case involved representations made to Government on the Building Schools for the Future Programme and a judicial review on the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove M. P. to cut funding on the Programme without any consultation. This was in stark contrast to the Council’s intended action to consult widely on the Redesign of the Early Years Service.

6.4.36

In relation to Councillors in Hull refusing to support budget cuts, if the Council refused to set a balanced budget, Government officials would take over the administration of the Council’s affairs and make, what could be, unfair cuts. The Council was committed to protecting the most vulnerable and would examine the cumulative impact of the cuts on the most vulnerable families in the City. The Fairness Commission would report on these issues in the near future and suggest recommendations as to how the Council and other agencies might reduce inequalities.

6.4.37

Councillor Dore stated that the Council had written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, M. P., the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, M. P. and Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove M. P. on the cuts to childcare funding and the Sheffield MPs had also made representations to the Government on the matter as had the Shadow Education Minister, Stephen Twigg M. P. Responses received from the Government to these representations were unsatisfactory and suggested that the Government was not listening. She was, however, due to attend a Core Cities conference in Liverpool in January 2013 which would act to provide a collective voice against unfair cuts.

Following the receipt of the above petition and representations Cabinet made the under-mentioned decision:-