To undertake pre-decision scrutiny of proposals for the integration of the council commissioned early help children’s centre service for the Bromyard area (worth £25k per annum) with the existing in-house provision from 2021.

 

The committee considered a report by the Director Children and Families concerning pre-decision scrutiny of the decision regarding the provision of children centre services in the Bromyard area. The Children’s Joint Commissioning Manager (CJCM) introduced the report and outlined the principal points below:

 

·         The current contract with the HOPE centre provided for 11 hours work with families per week. It was recognised that the provider had exceeded the contract and provided an average 17.5 hours per week;

·         No cuts to the service were proposed; the £25,000 cost of the contract with HOPE would continue to provide children’s centre services;

·         The proposal would see the integration of the contracted service in Bromyard into the service that operated across the county;

·         The proposed change to the delivery of the service would be expected to increase capacity for direct work and enable a quick response to changing demand.

 

The Chairperson of the committee spoke and explained that it was important that when issues of local sensitivity were identified the scrutiny committee should be informed and have the opportunity to conduct scrutiny where appropriate.

 

The local member for Bromyard West read aloud a representation from Bromyard and Winslow Town Council. The Town Council explained that the proposal to bring the service in-house was not appropriate in the current circumstances, with particular reference to the pandemic.

 

The local member for Bromyard West read aloud a representation from the local member for Bromyard Bringsty. The representation noted that there was no criticism in the officer report of the service provided by HOPE and the proposal appeared to be for the sake of consistency. An alternative option could be to offer to HOPE the opportunity to run services across the county. There was no reference in the officer report to the outstanding Ofsted rating and there was no evidence in the report that HOPE had been approached to discuss a possible variation of the contract. The proposal was evidence of the marginalisation of Bromyard and the cabinet member was asked to reconsider the proposal.

 

The local member for Bromyard West spoke on the proposal and raised the principal points below:

 

·         HOPE had been the centre of the community in Bromyard for 20 years.

·         It had been acknowledged that the relationship with HOPE was important and valuable but the proposed decision would undermine that relationship.

·         The decision was proposed as the service provided by the HOPE centre did not conform to the prevailing arrangements for children’s centres across the county.

·         Emotive language had emerged at the recent Town Council meeting and it was concerning that the proposals for children centre services in Bromyard had been perceived as an attack by some participants at the meeting.

·         It was noted that the previous comprehensive consultation concerning the centre and service had been carried out in 2017.

·         The service provided by the HOPE centre was an exemplar of good practice and should be rolled-out across the county.

 

The local member for Three Crosses spoke on the proposal and raised the principal points below:

 

·         The HOPE centre had been part of the Bromyard community for a significant time and provided a haven for young families.

·         In respect of the services provided by the HOPE centre it was important to consider whether Bromyard was already being catered for and more statistics should be provided as evidence.

·         The committee should question whether the service provided by the HOPE centre was the best way to deliver children’s centre service. It should be considered as such.

·         The withdrawal of funding would undermine an organisation which had benefited the local community in Bromyard. The HOPE centre provided a high level of support and a vital safety net for families and children.

·         The council was encouraged to undertake more evaluation of the HOPE centre service and its benefit to the local community before a decision was made.

 

The Chair of the Board of Trustees of the HOPE Family Centre spoke and raised the principal points below:

 

·         The HOPE centre was established in the late 1990’s and is currently located in purpose built accommodation and delivers a range of integrated services to local families, including a nursery for 80 children, an outreach service to families and children in Bromyard and area, other support services including a contact centre funded by CAFCASS, training and support and advice to parents.

·         Council staff have said that demands for early help In Bromyard are lower than elsewhere which HOPE believes is a result of their integrated and effective approach.

·         The HOPE centre had linked the provision of a statutory service with its own services to provide a holistic approach.

·         Three qualified and experienced staff are employed at the centre who jointly provide 37.5 hours of work to fulfil the contract though it only pays for 11 hours, and the proposal risks losing their services and experience.

·         The process to develop the proposal had been rushed. There had not been proper consultation with the HOPE centre or the local community.

·         The timing of the change to the provision of the service during the pandemic was not appropriate.

·         The council was encouraged to undertake a longer consultation, after the pandemic, to consider the proposals in greater depth and to then change the model if necessary.

 

During the debate the committee raised the principal points below:

 

·         The lack of referrals for Early Help was raised and it was queried whether other providers had made referrals. The CJCM explained that, while records showed that some Early Help Assessments had been undertaken, there had been no evidence of claims for families achieving sustainable change arising from cases that involved children’s centre services in the Bromyard area.

·         The lack of a consultation and evaluation of alternative options was queried. There was concern that the process followed to develop the proposal was not sufficiently rigorous. The CJCM explained that the development of the proposals had followed corporate guidelines. A consultation would have been useful but due to limited resources this had not been possible.

·         The impact of the proposal on the staff at the centre was raised. There was concern about the uncertainty caused to staff and service users at the centre and there needed to be greater consideration of such impacts in the proposal. The Chair of the HOPE Family Centre was asked if staff would be willing to transfer under TUPE. The CJCM explained that the council would work with the centre to explore the possibility of TUPE for existing staff employed through the contract. The Chair of the HOPE Family Centre explained that the staff were not employed fulltime on the contract and carried out other work at the Centre and HOPE would lose their services if they transferred to Herefordshire Council under TUPE. In any case, none of the staff wanted to transfer. The Children’s Centre Services Manager explained that there were sufficient resources at the council to cover those early help cases that were currently active.

·         The proposal concerned a change in the delivery of service. The financial and resource implications may not be significant but it was felt that the potential impact on the delivery of a council service necessitated the involvement of scrutiny.

·         It was queried why there was not a tendering exercise at an early stage in the development of the proposal to examine alternative options and determine what HOPE or other providers could offer. The Children’s Commissioning and Contracts Leads (CCCL) explained that it was necessary to determine the preferred delivery model, and whether this would be an in-house or commissioned service, before a potential tendering exercise took place to award a contract, and that the decision to be made was a choice between in-house or external delivery rather than whether an incumbent provider should be recontracted. . 

·         The performance of children’s centres in other areas of the county was raised. The take up rates of children’s centres demonstrated that delivery of service by the council was not a guarantee of a successful service.  

·         It was felt that greater consultation with the centre and service users was required before a decision could be taken and the timing of the decision during the current pandemic was considered to be a risk.

·         The extension of the current contract with HOPE, for a period up to 12 months, was queried to enable an evaluation of the service provided by HOPE, more extensive consultation and an examination of alternative options. The CCCL explained that there was the potential for a short extension. The interim Head of Legal Services explained that a longer term extension would require a variation of the current contract and involve consultation with HOPE.

·         It was felt that detail concerning the obsolescence of the Council’s database system used at the HOPE centre was an important detail that should be included in the report. The CJCM explained that this detail would be included in the decision report.

·         The uniqueness of the HOPE centre and its understanding of the Bromyard area was felt to be key to its success. Rather than ensuring consistency across the county, the provision of a service should consider what was best for the local community. Greater evidence was required that an in house service would match the service provided by the HOPE centre.   

·           The committee understood that the decision concerning the proposal was scheduled to take place in January but it was felt that a deferral of the decision should be considered by the cabinet member to allow for additional work to take place on the proposal.

 

The Cabinet Member Children and Families spoke on the debate and raised those principal points below:

 

·           The committee was thanked for the debate and its comments.

·           All involved in the debate and decision-making wanted what was best for local children and families.

·           The cabinet member had attended the meeting of the Town Council that had debated the matter and understood the local sensitivity.

·           The Cabinet Member paid tribute to the service provided by HOPE and the wide range of opportunities for children and families at the centre.

·           The issues raised during the debate and the recommendations agreed would be considered.

 

Councillor Carole Gandy proposed and Councillor Phillip Howells seconded the recommendations below which were agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: That the committee:

 

1)            Has significant concerns about the timing of the proposed decision during the current pandemic and the implications for services users. The committee recommends deferral of the decision and extension of the current contract up to 12 months to enable:

           

-       A comprehensive consultation with the local community, service users and voluntary sector organisations;

-       Engagement with the HOPE Family Centre to ensure that the Council has necessary evidence to conduct a full and detailed evaluation of the service provided by the HOPE Family Centre and how it compares to the in-house service;

-       Greater exploration of alternative options including a potential tendering exercise for a commissioned service;

-       Work to ascertain what staffing arrangements would be put in place to ensure existing HOPE Family Centre staff have a greater degree of understanding about their future roles within the service; and

-       The committee to undertake a detailed scrutiny exercise on the proposal involving evidence from service users.

 

2)            Recommends that in future the committee is made aware of issues of a sensitive and emotive concern to local communities as potential items for scrutiny.