To consider the findings of the scrutiny task and finish group and to recommend the report to the executive for consideration.

The chairman thanked the chair and members of the task and finish group for their work on this review.

The chair of the task and finish group expressed her thanks to all who participated in the review and assisted with production of the report. In introducing her findings, she noted the significance of the impact of a lack of early years support on a child’s development. It was therefore remarkable that few children were seen during the group’s visits to various services and although there were programmes of events for parents at the children’s centres visited, it seemed that few were taking up the offer when the task and finish group made their visits. 

More specifically, there was concerning information regarding children not attaining an appropriate level of development in communication skills. This had an impact on ability to socialise and form friendships. It was found that the waiting list for speech and language therapy was unacceptably long, at between 40 and 60 weeks.  

Other observations were that outreach work was reported to have been unsuccessful in some areas alongside some services being described as hard to reach by some staff interviewed in some areas. This raised a question over the feasibility of village amenities such as village halls in providing more accessible services.  As part of the review, members also visited the Hope Centre in Bromyard which is run under a different model as a family centre and managed by a charitable organisation. This was found to be a busy centre, and it was noted that it was used by parents from Leominster, where there was also a children’s centre. It was felt that the Hope Centre model supported the whole family to be engaged and that this provided an example of a successful model.  It was noted during the item that the Hope Centre received a higher comparative level of funding to other centres. Although staff at other centres visited were dedicated, they reported feeling frustrated and constrained.

The group concluded that outcomes for children in early years required improvement, and resources could be used to better effect. The report identified a number of areas for improvement and recommendations to inform the wider review of early years provision.

A member asked about possible reasons for people not accessing children’s centres when they could benefit from them.  In response, the chair of the task and finish group explained that there were several factors observed: In some cases, the centres’ programmes of activity did not link up with public transport and transportation issues did not appear to be  taken into consideration in some scheduling; centres were not always well promoted and in some locations were hard to find.  In one case there was no link between the children’s centre and the local school’s reception and nursery class where there might have been opportunity to engage parents in activities being run at the centre; centres appeared to have their own formats. Location was not considered to be a factor however, for example, the Hope Centre was not in a central location, but was well used. 

In considering use of community transport to support greater access, it was questionable as to whether such usage would meet the criteria.  It was noted that some centres operated on a 9am to 5pm basis which meant that working parents were unable to access centres, in favour of nurseries which opened for longer.

The vice-chairman noted the success and good practice of the Hope Centre, and asked about any learning points that could be drawn in regard to the other centres. 

In response, it was felt that other centres could develop a wider remit in order to reach people who would benefit most from them. This was particularly in relation to the significant population in rural areas and the benefits that parents and children would gain from greater interaction with peers. Therefore greater could be made of community resources such as village halls to increase accessibility.

In response to observations regarding the success of the Hope Centre, the assistant director commissioning and education explained that the Hope Centre operated under a different funding and management model. The report noted that a wider review of early years services was in progress and this would look at enabling a vibrant and focused approach for early years, recognising the need for a collective approach involving public health, schools and nurseries.

A member commented on the approach and philosophy of the Hope Centre model in terms of opportunity to mirror aspects of good practice in other centres. She asked if other areas were considered in order to make comparisons for informing the report.  The chair of the task and finish group explained that the scope of the review was to look at services within the county. The key point was that the level of funding was not reflected in the number of people taking up the services and this needed to be addressed. 

Members commented on the value of learning from commercially focused service providers in terms of achieving better outcomes through managing funding, marketing and attracting people to the service.  With regard to the sharing of premises with other providers, for example healthcare, there needed to be greater clarity on the arrangements to ensure that complimentary services could be supported appropriately to add value to the overall offer.  It was clarified that in the case of a healthcare service in a specific centre appearing to be subsidised, the centre welcomed the presence of the service but felt that it should contribute financially. 

The cabinet member for health and wellbeing commented that such buildings should be used by partners. She also advised caution with regard to citing community transport as a factor in preventing access to children’s centres if it were the case that parents did not see a particular centre as a venue of choice. She added that early years provision was vital and service design and usage should not be dependent upon use of a particular building. The chair of the task and finish group added an observation that it could be the case that other local venues were more attractive to families even if they did not offer the range of activities and services.

The cabinet member for young people and children’s wellbeing welcomed the contributions from members on such an important issue and thanked the task and finish group for their work.  In recognising the value of centres he commented that all centres needed to develop their approach in being more attractive to the market and making best use of resources. Achieving priority two of the health and wellbeing strategy was critical for the county, as a good start aided development and addressed issues early, which in turn reduced need to access services over time. The challenge lay in funding centres in a sustainable way and taking a more holistic approach to providing the right service.  He confirmed that there would be a full executive response to the recommendations.  In response to a question from the chairman, he commented that the Hope Centre was a good example of social enterprise but in terms of private sector provision in the future, was not ruling this in or out and at this stage.  

Referring to the recommendations set out in the report, and responding to concerns about waiting times for speech and language therapy services, the chairman proposed an amendment to recommendation 7, as follows:

As a matter of urgency the performance of speech and language therapy be reviewed, and if necessary, appropriate resources put in to reduce the waiting time for a first appointment to a maximum of three weeks. 

The proposal was supported.

RESOLVED

THAT:

(a)             the report of the task and finish group, in particular its recommendations (as amended), be agreed for submission to the executive; and

(b)          the executive’s response to the review, including an action plan, be requested for presentation to the first available meeting of the committee.