London Borough of Croydon

Children’s Centre Consultation Report

March 2012

 

Contents 1 Outline................................................................................................................................1 2 Context...............................................................................................................................2

2.1 About the collaborations..............................................................................................2 3 Purpose of consultation......................................................................................................6 4 How consultation was undertaken .....................................................................................8 5 Responses to the consultation ............................................................................................12 6 Views of parents / carers..................................................................................................13

6.1 Profile of parent respondents and participants..........................................................13 6.2 How parents rate children’s centres ..........................................................................13 6.3 Attendance at children’s centres ...............................................................................15 6.4 Travel to children’s centres .......................................................................................16 6.5 Range of services accessed by parents....................................................................17 6.6 Reasons why parents use children’s centres ............................................................18

6.6.1 Development of children.....................................................................................18 6.6.2 Developing social networks................................................................................20 6.6.3 Support and advice ............................................................................................21 6.6.4 Improves health and well-being.............................................................................22 6.6.5 Training and employment...................................................................................23 6.6.6 Childminder support ...........................................................................................24

6.7 Staffing ......................................................................................................................24 6.8 Resources, the environment and facilities.................................................................25 6.9 Cost of children’s centre activities .............................................................................25 6.10 Concerns expressed by parents .............................................................................25 6.11 Views of Teenage parents ......................................................................................26 6.12 Deaf parents............................................................................................................27 6.13 Parents with a disabled child...................................................................................28 6.14 Vulnerable parents ..................................................................................................28 6.15 Parents / carers who don’t use children’s centres – hand held unit responses ......29

7 Views of staff and other stakeholders ..............................................................................30 7.1 Type of participant / respondent................................................................................30 7.2 Issues raised by staff and stakeholders ....................................................................30 7.3 Preferred model.........................................................................................................30 7.4 Model 1 – Merging Centres .......................................................................................31 7.5 Model 2 - Merging Management of Centres..............................................................33 7.6 Model 3 - Greater involvement of parents or voluntary groups .................................34 7.7 Model 4 – Closing centres.........................................................................................37 7.8 Model 5 – Using the centres for alternative but highly valued children’s services ....39 7.9 Model 6 – Maintain status quo ..................................................................................41 7.10 Other ideas..............................................................................................................42

8 Next steps ........................................................................................................................44 Annex 1 Questions and Answers from the consultation.........................................................45

 

  1

1 Outline This report presents the detailed findings of consultation undertaken by the London Borough of Croydon (LBC) Early Intervention and Family Support (EIFS) team in relation to Croydon’s network of 26 children’s centres. The report will be used:

- By LBC EIFS to inform a Cabinet paper in April 2012 on the forward strategy for children’s centres in light of budget reductions and changing requirements of National Government.

- By EIFS, individual children’s centres and children’s centre collaborations to inform future service planning.

- By EIFS to feedback to those who have contributed to the consultation. The report is structured as follows: Context Sets out the background of children’s centres in

Croydon – how they are delivered and funded. Purpose of the consultation Summarises the reasons why LBC undertook the

consultation. The consultation Outlines how the consultation was organised,

who took part and over what timescale. Findings Details the key issues emerging from the

consultation. Next steps Summarises how the Council will feedback to

parents and how final decisions will be made Q&As Presents the questions that were raised during

the consultation and the responses to these questions.

Quotes from contributors are shown in italics and are direct quotes from what people said or what they wrote down. Obvious spelling errors have been corrected but phrasing is presented as is.

 

  2

2 Context There are currently 26 children’s centres in Croydon. Of these, five are delivered by voluntary organisations and 21 by nursery, primary and academy schools. Each children’s centre has a ‘reach area’ comprising a number of Lower Super Output Areas1 (LSOAs). Three centres are phase 1 and were designated between 2004 and 2006, 17 are phase 2 and were designated between 2007 and 2008 and six are phase 3 (i.e. they were designated by end January 2010. The budget for children’s centres is £4.6M during 2011-12. Historically each centre has received approximately the same amount of funding – irrespective of its size or location or number of LSOAs. Some funding is set aside for central services. In June 2011, pre-empting reductions in funding for children’s centres, EIFS explored how children’s centres could minimise the impact of budget reductions by working together more collaboratively and so brought the 26 centres together in seven collaborations. The aims of the collaborations are: • To explore ways of saving money for example by sharing management and staffing and

making more effective use of resources. • To develop a better response to meeting the needs of the most vulnerable families in the

borough and in the longer term. • To deliver Croydon’s Payment By Results (PBR) pilot.2 The collaborations were brought together based on natural communities. A new funding formula has been developed (for implementation during 2012) that aims to distribute funding in a more equitable way that supported PBR and that would enable children’s centres to target the most vulnerable families. The funding formula is made up of three main elements:

i. Individual centre funding based on the numbers of children aged under 5 living in the lower super output areas (LSOAs) with weightings based on deprivation.3

ii. Individual centre funding for premises and infrastructure costs. iii. A collaboration ‘pot’ to support the achievement of focused PBR targets.

2.1 About the collaborations Within each of the seven collaboration one centre was nominated as the coordinating centre to coordinate the collaboration and to receive the collaboration funding on behalf of the collaboration. The seven collaborations as originally established are listed in the following table. The collaborations were originally named either according to their location or using an acronym formed from the names of the centres. Subsequently collaborations have been named using locations. The report uses the location names.                                                         1 LSOAs are a sub-ward geographical areas averaging approximately 1,500 people. 2 PBR is a national government initiative designed to encourage children’s centres to focus on the ‘Core Purpose’ of improving child development and school readiness among young children and reduce inequalities. PBR is introduced initially as a pilot within 27 English local authorities with a view to it being rolled out across the country from April 2013. 3 The weighting used was x1 for children in the 80% least deprived, x1.5 for children in the 50% most deprived, x2 for children in the 20% most deprived, x2.5 for children in the 10% most deprived and x3 for children in the 5% most deprived.

 

  3

Table 1 Children’s Centre Collaborations at the time of the consultation Collaboration Coordinating

Centre Other Centres

Miid South Aerodrome Bourne, Purley and Purley Oaks East Castle Hill Fairchildes (plus Family Centre) North West Winterbourne Kensington Avenue and Norbury Manor South Byron Chipstead Valley, Sanderstead and Woodlands North East Thornton Heath Ecclesbourne, South Norwood Hill and Upper

Norwood Central Woodside Lilac House4, Oasis, Tunstall and Crosfield West Selhurst Broad Green, Peppermint and Gingerbread

Corner A brief summary of each of the collaborations is presented in the following tables: Mid South (formerly known as BAPP) There are 39 LSOAs in the BAPP Collaboration reach area and an estimated 4,757 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 2 number of SOAs and children in the Mid-South Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 5 4 0 0 0 Bourne Children 475 465 0 0 0 LSOAs 0 5 3 1 1 Aerodrome Children 0 614 522 103 132 LSOAs 5 4 0 0 0 Purley Children 400 548 0 0 0 LSOAs 3 7 0 1 0 Purley Oaks Children 270 1068 0 160 0 LSOAs 13 20 3 2 1 Total Children 1145 2695 522 263 132

East There are 14 LSOAs in the East Collaboration reach area and an estimated 1,914 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 3 number of SOAs and children in the East Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 0 0 2 3 2 Castle Hill Children 0 0 205 414 487 LSOAs 0 1 4 1 1 Fairchildes Children 0 88 504 104 112 LSOAs 0 1 6 4 3 Total Children 0 88 709 518 599

                                                        4 Also called The Children and Family Centre Shirley

 

  4

North West There are 24 LSOAs in the North West Collaboration reach area and an estimated 2,718 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 4 number of SOAs and children in the North West Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 1 8 0 0 0 Winterbourne Children 130 831 0 0 0 LSOAs 1 4 1 1 1 Kensington

Ave Children 52 477 185 108 91 LSOAs 0 5 2 0 0 Norbury

Manor Children 0 549 295 0 0 LSOAs 2 17 3 1 1 Total Children 182 1857 480 108 91

South There are 41 LSOAs in the South Collaboration reach area and an estimated 3,225 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 5 number of SOAs and children in the South Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 6 1 1 0 0 Byron Children 497 91 83 0 0 LSOAs 8 1 0 0 0 Chipstead

Valley Children 635 76 0 0 0 LSOAs 10 2 0 0 0 Sanderstead Children 743 153 0 0 0 LSOAs 8 3 0 1 0 Woodlands Children 512 337 0 98 0 LSOAs 32 7 1 1 0 Total Children 1387 657 83 98 0

North East (formerly known as TUSE) There are 31 LSOAs in the North East Collaboration reach area and an estimated 3,969 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 6 number of SOAs and children in the North East Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 2 3 2 1 0 Thornton Heath Children 225 401 248 94 0

LSOAs 1 7 0 0 0 Upper Norwood Children 75 839 0 0 0

LSOAs 0 6 1 0 0 South Norwood Hill Children 0 699 100 0 0

LSOAs 0 6 2 0 0 Ecclesbourne Children 0 892 396 0 0 LSOAs 3 22 5 1 0 Total Children 300 2831 744 94 0

 

  5

Central (formerly known as WOTCH) There are 44 LSOAs in the Central Collaboration reach area and an estimated 4768 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 7 number of SOAs and children in the Central Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 1 3 2 0 1 Woodside Children 114 385 285 0 72 LSOAs 3 3 1 2 0 Oasis Shirley Children 190 241 122 194 0 LSOAs 4 6 1 0 0 Tunstall Children 379 794 142 0 0 LSOAs 0 3 3 1 0 Crosfield Children 0 400 381 170 0 LSOAs 7 1 0 1 1 Lilac House Children 436 117 0 150 196 LSOAs 15 16 7 4 2 Total Children 1119 1937 930 514 268

West There are 27 LSOAs in the West Collaboration reach area and an estimated 3,905 children aged under five years – this is broken down by children’s centre in the table below: Table 8 number of SOAs and children in the West Collaboration Children’s Centre

80% least deprived

50% most deprived

20% most deprived

10% most deprived

5% most deprived

LSOAs 0 2 5 1 0 Selhurst Children 0 358 660 146 0 LSOAs 0 3 1 0 0 Peppermint Children 0 460 150 0 0 LSOAs 0 2 4 2 0 Broad green Children 0 311 555 335 0 LSOAs 0 4 1 0 2 Gingerbread

Corner Children 0 578 124 0 228 LSOAs 0 11 11 3 2 Total Children 0 1707 1489 481 228

An interim needs analysis for each children’s centre has recently been completed.

 

  6

3 Purpose of consultation In light of national cuts in local authority funding LBC has reduced its overall budget for children’s centres from £4.6M to £3.5M from 2013 with reductions being required during 2012. This reduction, along with the need to refocus funding on deprived families and services towards more vulnerable5 families, necessitates changes either to the centres (in terms of staffing, management and opening times) or to the services that are delivered – or both. The Childcare Act 2006 imposed duties on local authorities to improve the well-being of young children in their area and reduce inequalities between them. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 inserted new provisions into the Childcare Act 2006 so that the Act now defines Sure Start children’s centres in law. Section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 requires consultation before making any significant6 change in the services provided through an existing children’s centre or before doing anything which would result in a children’s centre ceasing to be a children’s centre, i.e. either closing it or reducing the services provided to such an extent that it no longer meets the statutory definition of a Sure Start Children’s Centre. Aside from the legal requirement to consult, The Council was keen to ensure that parents/carers, staff and other stakeholders were actively involved in determining what these changes might be and their views taken into account in any subsequent redesign. In December 2011 Council Cabinet7 considered a paper outlining a number of alternative models of delivery and agreed to consult on these models and the implications for families of children aged under five. These models are summarised below: Proposed models for children’s centre redesign Model 1 – redesigning how children’s centre services are delivered a) merging centres where one staff team delivers services across 2 or more sites

with each centre retaining their individual identities but becoming one entity for Ofsted purposes.

b) merging management of centres so that there is one management structure including administration support services but with each centre retaining their own front line staff team, and retaining separate entities for Ofsted purposes

c) greater involvement of parents or voluntary sector groups by using this opportunity to promote and support parent-led groups or social enterprise models to manage and/or deliver children’s centre services thereby increasing responsiveness and reducing costs.

Model 2 – reduction in the number of locations of children’s centres a) closing children’s centres in less deprived areas but providing outreach. b) using the centres for alternative but highly valued children’s service

provision e.g. base for children with disability.                                                         5 Vulnerability is subjective word that incorporates issues related to poverty, social justice, safeguarding, health, education etc. 6 The nature of what is a ‘significant’ change is not defined in the legislation and is a matter for local authorities to determine 7 The Cabinet paper can be accessed from the Croydon website at http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/meetings/546596/2011/2011-12-12/earlyintervention.pdf

 

  7

Model 3 – a new model Options that may arise from within the collaboration or through consultation. Model 4 – maintain the status quo This option involves the 26 children’s centres to continue as they are currently configured at current funding levels and would require a continuation of funding during a period when government funding of councils is reducing by 26% over four years. This option is not sustainable if the Council is to reach a balanced budget. Recognising that is was highly unlikely that ‘one size would fit all’ each collaboration was asked to consider the above models and the proposed new funding formula and present an options paper outlining possible staffing structures, demonstrating how this structure would enable the collaboration to best meet the needs of families within its reach area. These options would be further explored during the consultation to determine, in part, whether the collaborations as they stand are the right ones. The consultation gathered feedback from families, and other stakeholders (staff, school governors, voluntary sector trustees, health and education partners, local residents, local councillors etc.) to find out more about

- Who uses / does not use children’s centres - The reasons families use / do not use children’s centres - The positive benefits that children and families gain - The likely impact of the proposed changes - Views on the models proposed and seeking alternative models

The consultation was also an opportunity to explain why the changes were necessary and to gather questions (and where possible answer them). A question and answer table is included as an annex. The recommendations on which model will be adopted by which collaborations can be found in a paper for the cabinet meeting in April 2012.

 

  8

4 How consultation was undertaken The consultation, managed by staff from LBC EIFS and Customer Strategy and Development Teams, took place over the period December 2011 – February 2012 and involved a range of consultation activity designed to ensure ample opportunity to contribute, as summarised in the following table. A questionnaire was widely distributed through children’s centres and publicised on the Croydon website, the library website and the CVA website. Focus groups with users of children’s centres and staff and other stakeholders were held at a children’s centre in each collaboration (with the exception of the West collaboration where the focus groups were held at CVA, London Road). Children’s centres supported families to attend for example by provision of a crèche, transporting families from centres and ensuring focus groups were held at times when users could attend. Additional focus groups were planned with parents and carers who were identified as being less likely to use children’s centres and/or less likely to take part in a children’s centre focus group or complete a questionnaire. Emails were sent to a range of organisations include those supporting women who have experienced domestic violence, those who work with specific Black and minority ethnic groups, pre-schools and organisations who support parents of disabled children. Four focus were successfully arranged. Consultation events were widely promoted through children’s centres and through the borough’s website. Feedback sessions were held in March 2012.

 

  9

Table 9 How consultation was undertaken Consultation method Target group(s) and purpose How it was done Timescale Questionnaire Families with children aged under

5 who used children’s centres. Designed to collect qualitative and quantitative data on how parents use children’s centres, the services they use most / least, their preferred access times etc.

Families could choose to complete the questionnaire electronically or in paper format and hard copies were widely distributed through children’s centres. In order to ensure confidentiality and anonymity paper questionnaires were put into a sealed ballot box on completion. Two EIFS officers opened these.

Questionnaire went live on 13th December 2011and closed on 31 January 2011

Questionnaire Staff and other stakeholders. Designed to collect qualitative and quantitative data on views of the models proposed.

Staff and other stakeholders were invited to complete an online questionnaire. The deadline for completing the questionnaire was extended by two weeks in order to ensure all stakeholders, but in particular health colleagues, had sufficient opportunity to contribute.

Questionnaire went live on 13th December 2011and closed on 24th February 2012

Focus groups with users of children’s centres

Parents and carers who use children’s centres. Designed to explore issues in more detail.

Focus groups, facilitated by LBC staff, were held in each of the seven collaborations. Participants took part in a ‘pinpoint’ activity. This involved participants using ‘post-it’ notes to capture their reasons for using children’s centres. Participants were then asked to take their top three and post them on the wall. Participants then collectively grouped the post-it notes and gave each group a name or description that, for them, defined the activity/experience. During the process participants were able to explain their thoughts and give examples from their own experiences and the facilitators were able to seek clarification on points raised.

w/c 16th and w/c 23rd January 2011

 

  10

Consultation method Target group(s) and purpose How it was done Timescale Where there were large numbers, participants were asked whether they wanted to break into smaller groups or continue as a large group – in all cases they chose to stay as a large group. To ensure that all participants were able to express their views and concerns, a flipchart was used to capture other contributions and participants were encouraged to talk to members of EIFS staff. One member of the consultation team was constant throughout to ensure an overview of differences and similarities was obtained and to ensure consistency of approach.

Focus groups with staff and other stakeholders

Staff and other stakeholders Designed to explore issues in more detail and to gather views on the proposed models

Two focus groups were held in each of the seven collaborations and were facilitated by LBC staff. Participants were given time to read the results of the parents/carers group sessions before taking part in a group discussion. Where there were large numbers, participants were asked whether they wanted to break into smaller groups or continue as a large group – in all cases they chose to stay as a large group. The discussion picked up on points made by parents and carers and provided an opportunity for stakeholders to give their views on how children’s centres are used, the benefits they bring, the models proposed and their concerns in relation to changes.

w/c 16th and w/c 23rd January 2011

 

  11

Consultation method Target group(s) and purpose How it was done Timescale Participants were also able to talk in smaller groups or individually to members of EIFS staff..

Focus groups with parents identified as less likely to use children’s centre

Young parents, deaf parents and parents of children with complex medical or health needs. The purpose of these focus groups was to find out the reasons why some families choose not to use children’s centres and where they go to get support.

In order to reach families who don’t use children’s centres, local providers such as Croydon Church Housing Association, Croydon Opportunity Pre-School and Homestart helped to set up the groups and facilitate access. One member of the consultation team was constant throughout to ensure an overview of differences and similarities was obtained and to ensure consistency of approach.

January and February

Email and other written responses Any group or individual who wanted to submit a response

An email address was set up and widely shared. Responses were collated by EIFS.

December 2011 – February 2012

One-to-one discussion Anyone who requested this. An open invitation was made to any individual who felt that they wanted an opportunity to talk to a member of staff. Some chose to do this during or after a focus group but no-one asked for a separate one-to-one discussion.

Throughout

Hand Held Units Non children’s centre users. EIFS staff took hand held units to four places where they anticipated parents with young children would go (New Addington, Central Croydon, Thornton Heath and Upper Norwood). Parents were chosen at random and were asked if they used children’s centres. If they answered ‘no’ they were asked to answer five short closed questions.

w/c 13th February 2012 (half term week)

Other To ensure as many views as possible were considered.

Some children’s centres had already undertaken consultation with users and non-users of children’s centres. These reports were shared with this consultation team.

Throughout. A deadline of 26 February 2012was set for these responses.

 

  12

5 Responses to the consultation Overall there was a good response to the consultation. The table below summarises the numbers involved in the different activities: Method Numbers involved Questionnaire – parents and carers A total of 1993 questionnaires were returned in

hard copy and on-line Questionnaire – staff and other stakeholders

A total of 256 on-line questionnaires were submitted

Focus groups – children’s centre users A total of 212 parents/carers who use children’s centres took part in focus groups

Focus groups – staff and other stakeholders

A total of 203 staff and stakeholders took part in focus groups. This includes 22 social workers during one of their routine tea meetings.

Focus groups – parents and carers identified as less likely to use children’s centre

A total of 22 parents /carers took part in four focus groups

Email and other written responses An email was received from the manager of Byron and Chipstead Valley Children’s centres outlining the number of deprived families the centres had supported. A letter from a primary school head teacher with concerns about the impact of the reduction in funding for children’s centres and highlighting the impact. A letter from the Coulsdon Residents’ Association concerned about the impact of the funding reduction on services in the south and petitioning against closure of any centres.

Hand held unit responses 90 parents took part in the hand held unit survey Other A petition containing 33 signatures was received in

respect of Selhurst children’s Centre. Two research reports commissioned by Aerodrome Children’s Centre were submitted to provide further evidence of the views of 100 users and 150 non-users of the children’s centre. One research report commissioned by Purley Nursery School and Children’s Centre was submitted to provide further evidence of the views of 100 users of the children’s centre.. One questionnaire respondent re-presented a report that they wrote whilst working for the Centre for Social Justice in 2009 entitled A New Bridge to Tackle Deprivation.

 

  13

6 Views of parents / carers The views of parents were gathered largely through a questionnaire (completed on-line and in hard copy by just under 2,000 parents and carers). In addition a further 212 parents and carers attended a focus group held in each of the seven collaborations and 22 parents who were identified as being less likely to use children’s centres attended focus groups supported through community organisations. The purpose of the questionnaire was to gather parents’ views about the children’s centres they attended. The purpose of the focus groups was to explore in greater detail the reasons why parents use children’s centres. Two reports8 summarising the findings of consultation undertaken with 100 users and 150 non-users of Aerodrome Children’s Centre broadly support the findings from the parents’ questionnaires and the views of parents expressed at focus groups.

6.1 Profile of parent respondents and participants Of the 1993 parents who completed the questionnaires, 92.2% were female and most (80.4%) were aged between 25 and 44 years of age. Less than 10% (9.6%) were aged under 25 years and 10% were aged over 44 years of age. Of those respondents who declared their ethnic origin most (975) were of White origin, 280 were of African or Caribbean origin, 177 were of Asian origin, 69 were of multiple ethnic origin and eight were of Arab origin. Of the 5.8% of respondents who said they had a disability, 34% said they had mental health problems, 33% had mobility difficulties, 20.4% were hearing impaired, 15.5% had a learning disability and 6.8% were visually impaired. Of the 6.1% of respondents who said their child had a disability, 68.4% said they had a learning disability 32.9% had mobility difficulties, 20.3% were visually impaired, 19% had mental health problems and 8.9% were hearing impaired.

6.2 How parents rate children’s centres  Of the 1969 parents who rated their children’s centres 3072 rated them as good (90%), 302 (9%) rated them as ok and only 35 (1%) rated them as poor. The ratings per children’s centre are shown in table 10:

                                                        8 “Summary of consultation of registered non-users and Summary of consultation of registered users of the children’s centre”, October 2011, Coda (commissioned by Aerodrome Children’s Centre)

 

  14

Table 10 - Parents’ rating of Children’s Centres by collaboration   Good  OK  Poor   Number  %age Number %age Number  %age 

Responsecount

Mid South Collaboration Aerodrome 104 92.0% 8 7.10% 1 0.90% 113Bourne 29 78.4% 8 21.60% 0 0.00% 37Purley Nursery 169 84.1% 27 13.40% 5 2.50% 201Purley Oaks 70 90.9% 6 7.80% 1 1.30% 77East Collaboration Castle Hill 175 95.1% 8 4.30% 1 0.60% 184Fairchildes 91 81.3% 19 17.00% 2 1.80% 112North West Collaboration Kensington Ave 103 88.8% 13 11.20% 0 0.00% 116Norbury Manor 47 95.9% 2 4.10% 0 0.00% 49Winterbourne 65 83.3% 12 15.40% 1 1.30% 78South Collaboration Byron 199 91.3% 17 7.80% 2 0.90% 218Chipstead Valley 134 89.9% 14 9.40% 1 0.70% 149Sanderstead 80 90.9% 8 9.10% 0 0.00% 88Woodlands 237 94.4% 10 4.00% 4 1.60% 251North East Collaboration Thornton Heath 117 88.0% 14 10.50% 2 1.50% 133Upper Norwood 78 88.6% 8 9.10% 2 2.30% 88South Norwood Hill 83 95.4% 4 4.60% 0 0.00% 87Ecclesbourne 43 91.5% 4 8.50% 0 0.00% 47Central Collaboration Woodside 309 92.0% 24 7.10% 3 0.90% 336Oasis 178 89.0% 19 9.50% 3 1.50% 200Tunstall 233 94.7% 12 4.90% 1 0.40% 246Crosfield 93 87.7% 12 11.30% 1 1.00% 106Lilac House 89 94.7% 4 4.30% 1 1.10% 94West Collaboration Selhurst 138 89.0% 15 9.70% 2 1.30% 155Canterbury Rd 108 86.4% 16 12.80% 1 0.80% 125Peppermint 73 83.0% 15 17.00% 0 0.00% 88Gingerbread 27 87.1% 3 9.70% 1 3.20% 31Total 3072 90.1% 302 8.9% 35 1.0% 3409

 

  15

6.3 Attendance at children’s centres Most parents (40.1%) who attend children’s centres attend once a week. 29.3% attend twice a week and just under a third (30.6%) attend more than twice a week. Figure 1 number of times a week parents attend children’s centres

The preferred opening times for parents are weekday mornings with 86% of parents saying this was their preferred opening time. This is followed by weekday afternoons with 63% of parents saying this is a preferred opening time. Very few parents said they would prefer Sundays and evenings. Fathers and male carers were more likely to prefer weekend activities. Figure 2 preferred opening times

The parents who took part in focus groups were more likely than those who responded to the questionnaire to comment on the value of weekend activities. Fathers and parents with children aged under and over five years were most likely to value weekend activities

 

  16

“Importance of Dads Saturday - it’s the only place my husband feels comfortable coming without me.” (Parent)

6.4 Travel to children’s centres Most parents (66.8%) of parents say they walk to their preferred children’s centre. A quarter (25.5%) say they drive and 7.6% use public transport. A very small number of parents (0.1%) cycle. Figure 3 how parents travel to their preferred children’s centre

Parents see children’s centres as a vital and valuable local service. Many parents, particularly those who don’t or can’t drive, value the close proximity of the children’s centre to the school or home. Parents from the Central collaboration and the Coulsdon area were most likely to refer to the importance of ease of access of their children’s centres. Local is interpreted differently and whilst many parents said they would be willing to travel 15 to 20 minutes to get to a centre, the journey time for most parents is between five to 10 minutes. Only 1.5% of parents say they travel over 30 minutes. Figure 4 journey times

 

  17

46.3% of parents who completed the questionnaire said they would be willing to travel an additional 10-20 minutes to their preferred children’s centre and 53.7% said they would not be willing to travel a further 10-20 minutes. Staff and other stakeholders, particularly those in the East and North West, expressed concern about increases in travelling to access children’s centre services. Issues include • Parents’ willingness and ability to travel • The cost of travel • The logistics of travelling on public transport or walking long distance with young children

“Parents are challenged to get from one end of New Addington to the other. If it's in the morning the bus is full & you can't get on with a buggy.” (East collaboration stakeholder focus

group participant)

“Confident families will drive from centre to centre.” (West collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

Research undertaken by Aerodrome Children’s Centre in October 2010 revealed that parents who already use children’s centres are prepared to travel a bit further to access services whereas those who don’t use services are less likely to travel. “The average distance [a non user] would be willing to travel to access a children’s centre was 2.06 miles. (The comparable figure for the research with users was 2.72 miles)”.9

6.5 Range of services accessed by parents Parents access the wide range of services (family support, information and advice, training and workshops, stay and play groups, baby clinics, ante and post natal appointments, breastfeeding etc.) available at the children’s centres and value the holistic approach that enables the needs of parents, children and whole families to be addressed in one place. This is confirmed by both the parents who responded to the questionnaire and by those who attended the focus groups. Table 11 summarises the range of services attended by parents and as demonstrated by the questionnaire stay and play sessions10 are the most popular activity. Table 11 activities attended by parents Activity Response per cent Number of responses Stay and play 90.3% 1708 Information and advice 32.9% 622 Health visitor support 27.8% 526 Parenting courses 23.6% 446 Family learning 22.3% 421 Childcare 12.5% 237 Ante/post natal services 12.0% 227 Breastfeeding support 11.2% 212 Fathers’ groups 10.2% 193 Training/support into employment 7.4% 140 Young parents’ groups 4.2% 80 Home visits 3.6% 69

                                                        9 Taken from a Research Report “Summary of consultation with registered non-users of the Children’s Centre’, Coda, October 2011, commissioned by Aerodrome Children’s Centre . 10 This is consistent with the findings of consultation undertaken with 100 children’s centre users on behalf of Aerodrome Children’s Centre “Summary of consultation of registered users of the children’s centre”, October 2011, Coda

 

  18

Figure 5 children’s centre services used

Some parents who attended focus groups also commented on the value of one-off trips and outings (parties, pantomime, lunch in the park, farm etc.) particularly during the summer as important in ‘having something affordable to do’.

6.6 Reasons why parents use children’s centres Parents highlighted a number of reasons why they attended children’s centres and identified a range of benefits to them and their children. Parents see children’s centres as local places where they can go to access high quality and non-judgemental support from experienced and friendly and staff in a welcoming atmosphere. Children enjoy attending and are able to play with toys and equipment that they wouldn’t have at home including, for some, access to safe outside spaces. Parents and children develop peer support and social networks which helps them both be better prepared for when the child starts school. Parents value the fun children have when they go to the centres, the enjoyment they get out of taking part and express their disappointment when sessions are full. These findings are consistent with research with 100 children’s centre users undertaken by Purley Nursery School and Children’s Centre in December 2011.

6.6.1 Development of children The overwhelming reason expressed at focus groups for using children’s centres was to support the development of children and parents saw stay and plays and the opportunities they afforded for children to play as critical to their child’s physical and social and emotional development and confidence. Some of the benefits of stay and play were expressed as: • Enabling children to play with other children through which they make new friends,

develop confidence and social skills and learn to share which many parents thought important in helping children to settle in more easily at nursery and school:

“My child is learning and achieving more when he is in the centre.” (Parent)

“Because when he starts the nursery he is able to settle and has got the confidence as well.” (Parent)

“My 3rd son didn’t go to a children’s centre and when he went to nursery he cried and

cried and I don't want to make that mistake again.” (Parent)

 

  19

• Provide a learning place where parents can interact with their children “Watching your child develop in front of you.” (Parent)

• Helping children to become more independent

“They (stay and plays) help children to detach from their parent.” (Parent)

• Giving children an early start “If you teach them when they are young they learn respect - I have 2 older children who play

roughly, I want her to learn the right way and not be aggressive.” (Parent) • Opportunity for children to play with toys and equipment that they don’t have access to at

home.

• Give parents ideas for new and creative ways to play with their children.

• Help children establish routines in relation to feeding and sleeping “My son feels better and eats and sleeps better.” (Parent)

Focus group parents also identified the educational development of children, building on Early Years Foundation Stage at home and helping children to prepare for school “school readiness”. Parents from the North West collaboration were most likely to identify the opportunities for their children to develop their English as an important aspect of their development. “Mixing with older children helps children when they go to school and when they go to clubs.”

(Parent)

“For pre-school children to be ready to make the most of school reception class when they start.” (Parent governor)

This view is supported by feedback from staff and other stakeholders across a number of the collaborations.

“I can see at nursery level the development is lower, I can tell those that have accessed children’s centres.” (East collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

“Children in stay and play are much more ready for nursery than those who don't attend.”

(WOTCH (Central) collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

“Higher attainment at Gilbert Scott Primary School in profile data over last 3 years.” (Woodlands / Sanderstead stakeholder focus group participant)

“Children who have been through nursery and children's centres have a huge advantage

over others.” (BAPP (Mid South) collaboration stakeholder focus group participant) A number of focus group parents identified improvements in their child’s speech and language, often because the problem had been identified at an early stage.

“Educational support allowed my son the opportunity to work through his speech and language delay within a safe, social and stimulating environment.” (Parent)

Staff and other stakeholders highlight the importance of Early Intervention and the longer-term costs of not reaching families at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

  20

“We can't measure what all our children centres are preventing.” (BAPP / Central South

collaboration stakeholder focus group participant) 

6.6.2 Developing social networks The opportunity to develop social networks was ranked by parents who responded to the questionnaire as the most important reason they attended a children’s centre and as the second most important reason by focus group parents. In the focus groups many parents reported feeling isolated leading to greater levels of family stress and tension. Parents from all the collaborations highlighted the critical role that children’s centres play role in reducing isolation. This was particularly the case for parents from the South and East collaborations and first time parents, parents who are new to an area and parents who do not have existing family networks. A number of grandparents also commented on the importance of the social aspect of children’s centres.

“We meet some people that have things in common I lived here for three years and didn't know anyone and now I do.” (Parent from the East collaboration)

“Young mothers who don’t have families locally feel very vulnerable and now they have

community networks.” (Parent from the Central collaboration) “When family far away they help like a family….. When I first got here I did not know anyone

- now [I’m] able to socialise with other mums.” (Parent from North East collaboration)

“Very good if you are new to the area for meeting new mums and finding places to go.” (Parent from the South collaboration)

“Somewhere for my son and I to go as we are lonely’” (Parent from the Mid South

collaboration)

“When people have left their country the centre is their family.” (Parent from the West collaboration)

Closely linked to social networks was the sense of community and belonging engendered by children’s centres which are seen as places where all parents are welcomed and accepted. This ‘sense of community’ was expressed in terms of adults with different backgrounds and from different ethnicities coming together and in doing learning about and learning from each other and in terms of bringing children together at an early age to learn about, and develop respect for, different cultures and groups.

“Giving the children a chance to understand other cultures.” (Parent from the East collaboration)

“[Children’s] centres bring together nationalities, people with different financial statuses and

personalities that may not otherwise naturally mix.” (Parent from the Mid-South collaboration)

The children’s centre has enabled me to feel a sense of community and belonging which is a challenge in our society.” (Parent from the North East collaboration)

 

  21

In the WOTCH collaboration this was very closely linked to the summer 2011 disturbances with an expectation that the young people of tomorrow would be less disconnected than the young people of today.

“Teenagers who have this type of upbringing grow up good friends and contribute to society mixing with people from everywhere.” (Parent from the Central collaboration)

For some parents attending the children’s centre was an important motivating factor in their lives and as a way of preventing family problems.

Gives me a reason to go out and get kids ready.” (Parent from the South collaboration)

“Makes me get up and get dressed instead of sitting at home in my pyjamas watching tele all day.” (Parent from the South collaboration)

“Gets me out of four walls - prevents family breakdown through relationships and support.

(Parent) Many parents value the additional activities at weekends and during holidays and activities that can be attended by whole families – things like trips in the summer, visits to the farm, pantomime at Christmas, family fun days etc.

“You can get support for children of all ages – [mine are] 10, 8, 4, 1.” (Parent)

“I have 2 children 2yrs and 7mths that can come and play at the same time.” (Parent)

“Whole family can get involved.” (Parent)

6.6.3 Support and advice Access to support, including family support, specialist support and one to one support, was a key reason why parents use children’s centres. Family support was identified by 26.8% of parents who completed a questionnaire as the most important children’s centre service. A further 14.5% of parents ranked easy access to information and advice as the most important children’s centre service. Parents who attended the focus groups highly valued the confidential and non-judgemental support, advice and information that they receive at children’s centres, both from the professionals who work there and from other parents. Parents also value the on-going and continuous support from pre-birth to school age.

“Parent groups - it is useful as you get the chance to talk to other parents with the same problems.” (Parent)

“Somewhere you can be yourself and show your vulnerability without being judged.” (Parent)

Some parents, particularly those who thought that they might not be identified or targeted as vulnerable parents, spoke of the immense support they had received around mental health and postnatal depression. “I was offered immense support when I suffered from depression, I was able to go back to study, look after myself and my children.” (Parent) For some parents the support they received through the children’s centres literally has been a matter of life and death. As one parent said

 

  22

“When I had my first I had no help and support and I was severely depressed. When I had

my second I went to the children’s centre and admitted I was thinking of killing myself - it was so hard but they helped me and supported me to turn my life around. If it wasn’t for the

children’s centre my children would be in care and I wouldn’t be here.” (Parent) Parents also highly value the advice they receive, from professionals and from other parents through peer and professional support. The advice that parents receive includes advice on child development, managing difficult behaviour, eating habits, sleeping habits, employment such as helping with a CV and coping with being a first time parent. “Window into other peoples lives - find out how they deal with things and I can help them with

things I have tried.” (Parent)

“Not only support from staff, you can back off kids and talk to parents - you don’t get that anywhere else.” (Parent)

Parents from Woodlands were most likely to mention one to one support. Parents of children with special educational needs, disabilities and/or complex health problems highlighted the support they had received in relation to early diagnosis, information and helping parents establish links with other professionals). Most support was around early diagnosis of and support for speech and language delay and behaviour.

“Supported me to get the statement for my child that has ADHD.” (Parent)

“I could have had earlier intervention for my son if I had had access to a CC, didn’t get this until my son went to nursery and had problems. Took 2 years to get a diagnosis, I was

isolated when he went to school – he was labelled as 'naughty' and me as the 'mother of the naughty boy'.” (Parent)

Fathers and grandfathers who go to sessions specifically for male carers value these sessions as time for them to spend with their children and as places where they can learn as parents and develop better parent-child relationships.

“It’s education for parents and children – as a single dad I didn’t have a clue what to do with two girls the benefit has been invaluable.” (Father)

6.6.4 Improves health and well-being Although less parents identified health related benefits as might have been expected a number described the access to midwives and health visitors as useful and the support to develop good and healthy eating habits. More parents from the North West collaboration than any other referred to the children’s centre as a place to meet mid wives, health visitors and other health professionals. Many parents view children’s centres as a non-judgemental and more accessible alternative to the GP surgery. A small number of parents commented on the limited availability of health professionals. “I asked my doctor for support as my child didn't sleep and they looked at me like "every child

doesn't sleep" but I came here and they helped with different things.” (Parent)

“I would get my health advice from the GP but would talk to a health visitor at a centre.” (North West collaboration parent)

 

  23

Support for breast-feeding was specifically mentioned most often by parents in the BAPP collaboration. Parents from the TUSE and the East collaborations were least likely to mention access to health professionals as the reason they used children’s centres. “This [the children’s centre] provides a pathway to other national and local services I wouldn’t

have found otherwise.” (Parent)

“Went to the centre when I was pregnant. [They] offered help with breastfeeding. I speak Arabic and [the] centre tried to help me in many ways with my premature baby.” (Parent form

the Mid-South collaboration) As previously mentioned under support, parents value the support they get from children’s centres in coping with stress, mental health and post-natal depression. Parents in the Byron / Chipstead Valley area and from the Central collaboration made most references to support around mental health than from any other collaboration.

“I don't have family locally - this is my family! I didn’t realise I was depressed with my 1st child - didn’t go out for a year, then came here and realised what depression was and how to

get help. So now on my second child I recognise the symptoms and what to do about them If not for Byron I really feel I would have gone into post natal depression.” (Parent from South

collaboration) Parents from the East and North West collaborations made most reference to the support around healthy eating. Many staff and other stakeholders felt that relationships with health needed to be improved and saw health professionals as having a key role in identifying problems at the earliest possible stage and referring parents to children’s centres.

6.6.5 Training and employment Employment and training support was not ranked highly as a key reason why parents use children’s centres; only 3.2% of parents who completed the questionnaire ranked ‘support back to work/training’ as the most important children’s centre service. However parents who attended the focus groups valued the rage of courses and workshops that they are able to attend covering topics such as developing good family relationships, managing children’s behaviour, parenting, healthy cooking and eating, first aid, literacy, numeracy and English and IT. These courses help parents develop confidence and learn new skills. The provision of a crèche not only enables parents to attend the courses but is also, for some, the first time a parent leaves their child with another carer. This in turn develops parents’ confidence in childcare and helps children become more independent. Parents in the East and South collaborations were most likely to value children’s centres as places for learning.

“When I left school I didn't have any qualifications, I'm dyslexic and I've achieved so much

more through the centre than at school - English, maths and now a child diploma.” (East collaboration parent)

“I wasn’t computer literate, through Selhurst Centre I can now use the computer and can

study online through the Open University.” (West collaboration parent)

“First aid - my son has bad asthma and it really helped.” (South collaboration parent)

 

  24

6.6.6 Childminder support A small number of childminders (15 in total) attended the focus groups and reported the following benefits: • Professional support to implement EYFS • Peer support - being able to share ideas and get advice • Social aspect – meeting other childminders and parents • Professional development support such as activities to enable childminders to complete

specific qualifications • Learning new skills • Support to complete a CAF

6.7 Staffing Parents closely linked the support they received to the quality of staff and the role that they play in creating a welcoming and supportive atmosphere. Many parents commented on the knowledge and experience of staff and how this enables them to give the advice and support parents need. Many focus group parents highlighted the importance of staff as being the main contributing factor to the effectiveness of children’s centres. Some parents also expressed the view that it is important to have professionals available and not just volunteers. These views from parents are consistent with comments from staff and other stakeholders.

The professionalism and experience of the staff has always been exceptional. I have valued the emotional support other services cannot offer.” (Parent)

“If it hadn’t been for the staff I do not know where I would be – they pulled me out of a very

nasty hole.” (Parent)

“The staff of the children’s centre encourage engagement because they are run by professionals not parents.” (Parent)

Parents value the face-to-face contact with staff and many parents commented on how they are able to talk confidentially to staff about any topic that is concerning them and in ways that they (parents) often feel unable to do so with other professionals. Parents variously described the proactive approach of staff and their ‘instant availability’. Parents highly value the time and effort staff put into establishing and building good relationships, and the continuity of staff which in turn gives parents the confidence and trust to open up to children’s centre staff. “Relationship with staff means parents feel safe to seek advice - non – judgmental.” (Parent)

“Good to have the constant people who remember me and my family.” (Parent)

“Support is valuable as soon as you walk in, not just a telephone help line.” (Parent)

“You don't have to talk to a stranger.” (Parent)

“Advice from knowledgeable staff concerning childhood development without requiring an

appointment.” (Parent) Staff and other stakeholders also emphasised the importance of building relationships and the role that continuity of staff plays in this. The role of Family Support Workers in

 

  25

encouraging families to engage with social care was particularly emphasised by social workers.

The level of tenacity of workers at the centres - their level of engaging with parents - I have been very impressed. Going to the children's centres can be overwhelming for parents but in

a good way - the result is parents often agree to things that they wouldn't normally e.g. a referral - this is all down to the trust.” (Mid South collaboration stakeholder focus group

participant)

6.8 Resources, the environment and facilities Parents commented on the safe and stimulating environments provided by children’s centres and on the access to facilities that parents don’t have at home such as a garden, larger play equipment and a sensory and a soft play room. Parents from the West and South were most likely to comment on the access to safe outdoor play areas. “Garden area really important - I don’t have a garden but theirs is secure which is important.”

(Parent)

6.9 Cost of children’s centre activities A small but significant number of parents in each collaboration commented that the free / low cost aspect was very important to them. This was important not only in enabling some parents to access the service “it’s one of the few indoor activities that are free” but also in ensuring there was no stigma attached. Having said this some parents did say they would be able / willing to make a contribution towards the costs of services if this meant keeping services open. However the focus group discussion did not go into any detail about how much parents might be willing to pay and further research/discussion on this would be advised before making any decisions to charge.

“It’s better to pay £1 and go to a local centre than pay travel fares to somewhere else.” (Parent)

6.10 Concerns expressed by parents Focus groups of parents who use children’s centres were also an opportunity to gather information on concerns that parents have in relation to losing services or services changing. Many of these concerns echo the concerns raised by staff and other stakeholders. Parents were concerned that the focus of children’s centres was moving away from being universally available to being more targeted. In the East collaboration this was expressed as a concern that any family who uses a children’s centre will be labelled as ‘a problem family’. These concerns were echoed by staff and other stakeholders. In the South parents, staff and other stakeholders were more likely to express a concern that the focus on deprivation might prevent vulnerable but not necessarily poor families from accessing services.

“I don't want to be labelled as a "problem family" by coming to the children’s centre and that might happen if its only available to deprived families.” (Parent in the East collaboration)

“Any parent can feel vulnerable, I get depressed so what happened to 'Every Child Matters?”

(Parent in the South collaboration)

 

  26

“Universal stay and play  ­ people who are hard to reach will only come to something

unthreatening.” (TUSE/Central collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

Some parents were concerned that centres would close and they would have to go a centre with which they would be unfamiliar. Others were worried that the quality of the staff may be reduced or that vulnerable parents might not get the support they need. The following quotes present examples of some of the concerns raised by parents:

“My children are settled at Fieldway, I am shy so are they, we would find it hard to go along to another centre.” (Parent)

“Volunteers should not be totally allowed to replace the professional staff at the centre.”

(Parent)

“The standard given at the centre should not be compromised because of reduced funding.” (Parent)

“I am concerned for mums being isolated and a lack of support for mums & identifying

children and families who are at risk or need to learn and make friends.” (Parent)

“Working parents are worried about centres closing - we can’t afford different childcare - people wont be able to afford to go to work.” (Parent)

“Quality of staff are going to be affected = quality of care for our families.” (Parent)

“cut anything…but don’t cut the excellent staff.” (Parent)

“With the cuts there could be more demand than supply.” (Parent)

6.11 Views of Teenage parents11 Three teenage parents took part in the focus group. One had been to a children’s centre and the other two had not. Their perception of a children’s centre was a place where older parents went and where the activities were boring and not stimulating for teenagers. The one young parent who had been to a children’s centre said she felt ignored.

"Main reason I don’t use centres is because they don’t appeal to me.” (Teenage parent)

"I have a 6 month old daughter and I have heard of children's centres but I would not really go as they seem more for older mum's who have a good career, big house and everything

and go to boast about what they have got." (Teenage parent)

"I think centres are a bit dated…you just sit in a big room with toys. I want to do something more active like swimming. It's old fashioned." (Teenage parent)

“I didn’t fit in. Nobody spoke to me directly." (Teenage parent)

"They look at us differently because we are different…but we will get what we want in life it

will just take us a bit longer." (Teenage parent)

                                                        11 Due to the relatively small number of parents involved, some caution should be applied when reading this section, as the results may not be representative of teenage parents.

 

  27

These parents get their support from their GP and from the Internet. They had tried to get support from their health visitor without success because their health visitors were busy.

6.12 Deaf parents12 Eight deaf parents attended a focus group at Purley Nursery and Children’s Centre. Five of them are local to the centre, one travels from Upper Norwood and two are from out of the borough. These parents, who are part of a 12-strong group, regularly attend and said they did so because they felt particularly isolated as they did not believe that they would be included in mainstream children’s centre services.

“I do not go to other children's centres as they are all for hearing families. I went once and I did not enjoy it and felt very isolated.” (Parent)

“Other mothers don't have time to talk…we make all the effort…when my child was younger I

stopped going to the children's centre as they made no effort.” (Parent) Parents highly value the group because it gives them an opportunity to access information, advice and support

“Can come here and show how we feel, and we can get information as we can miss this information outside. It is nice to just discuss and share…the same as what hearing mothers

do.” (Parent) Parents also feel their children benefit from the group

“It is important for my child to come here and understand when he goes to school that he is not the only one with deaf parents.” (Parent)

This group of parents commented on how little support there was and how difficult it was to access. They said they would like more groups of this type.

“Only two hours every two weeks…that is nothing compared to other parents.” (Parent)

“This group has not been advertised…if we did promote it on a larger scale…it would be packed and we do not want too many here…it would become more of a social thing and we

want to keep it about the children.” (Parent)

“For deaf mothers who are new mothers there is no support in terms of breastfeeding.” (Parent)

These parents also feel that they can be financially disadvantaged both by the distances they have to travel and by the cost of interpreters

“It can be difficult to book interpreters and you have to pay so there are funding issues.” (Parent)

                                                        12 Due to the relatively small number of parents involved, some caution should be applied when reading this section, as the results may not be representative of deaf parents.

 

  28

6.13 Parents with a disabled child13 Eight parents (six mothers and two fathers) who attend the Croydon Opportunity Pre-School Group (COPG)14 took part in a focus group. Five parents had a child with Down’s syndrome, one had a child with cerebral palsy, one had a child with serious health problems and one had two children with unspecified disabilities. The parents highly value the support they receive through COPG and identify with the Oasis Academy Children’s Centre at which the group is based. Some of the parents have attended activities at other children’s centres but say they get the support they need most of the time from COPG because of the specialist nature of the group. Benefits identified by the parents include: • Developing independence for both parents and children.

“When you have had a child in hospital for a year you feel even more protective of them; but when you come here the relief is overwhelming.” (Parent)

• Parents being able to support each other “The experiences of the parents coming together with thoughts and ideas gives us the power

to get what our children need.” (Parent) • Having access to specialist family support, resources and facilities in one place

“Nothing compares to this centre; they have H.V clinics, speech therapists, occupational therapists’ physios and even the Hospital Team at Home come here, everything we need

under one roof which is so important for us otherwise we spend all our time travelling around to different places. The children feel so safe here too, it’s not so difficult for them.” (Parent)

6.14 Vulnerable parents15 Three parents who attend Homestart16 took part in a focus group. Two of the parents had used a children’ centre and one hadn’t. One parent had attended a children’s centre but had had a bad experience and had felt like she was being judged by the other parents; because of this, this parent had lost confidence to go to another centre.

“I didn't feel welcome as there were no staff…it was just parents. I was out of my comfort zone and I never went back. It felt cliquey and nobody made conversation. I know centres

are out there…I just don't have the confidence to go on my own. I know Woodlands, Aerodrome (I've seen all the buggies outside) and my child goes to the school but I don’t

have the courage to go in on my own." (Homestart parent) One parent occasionally used a children’s centre but said she felt more ‘at home’ at Homestart. The third parent had not been to a children’s centre but preferred the small, informal atmosphere of Homestart.

                                                        13 Due to the relatively small number of parents involved, some caution should be applied when reading this section as the results may not be representative of parents of a disabled child. 14 COPG is a charity that runs an educational centre of excellence for children with developmental, physical or mental special needs. It operates from the Oasis Academy Children’s Centre. 15 Due to the relatively small number of parents involved, some caution should be applied when reading this section as the results may not be representative of vulnerable parents. 16 Homestart is a charity that supports families who have at least one child aged under 5. The organization provides home visits, group work and social events through staff and trained volunteers.

 

  29

"Homestart groups are normally quite small…literally sit and chat with other parents…more comfortable than anywhere else and everyone is here for a reason." (Homestart parent)

The views of these parents underline the importance of partnerships between children’s centres and voluntary sector organisations that also work with parents and families.

6.15 Parents / carers who don’t use children’s centres – hand held unit responses

A total of 90 parents, chosen at random and who don’t use children’s centres were asked to say why they don’t and what, if anything would encourage them to do so. The responses were fixed and limited i.e. there was not scope within the activity for parents to give reasons other than those pre-programmed into the unit nor for them to elaborate or provide additional information. Of the 90 parents • 45 were aged under 25, 32 were aged 26-35, 11 were aged 35-44 and two were aged

over 45 • 41 lived in the North of the borough, 17 lived in the East, 13 lived in Central Croydon, 10

lived in the South and nine lived in the West • 10 were studying (five part-time and five full-time), 38 were working (15 full-time and 23

part-time) and 42 answered other. When asked why they didn’t use a children’s centre17 • 31 (34%) said they had not heard of children’s centres • 18 (20%) said they got their support elsewhere • 16 (18%) said they were at work or college • 13 (15%) said they had tried one and didn’t like it • 12 (13%) said other reason (the unit system was not able to explore what ‘other’ meant) When asked what would encourage them to use a children’s centre • 25 (28%) said more information • 20 (22%) said more flexible opening hours • 20 (22%) said a personal introduction • 19 (21%) said nothing would encourage them • 6 (7%) said other reason (the unit system was not able to explore what ‘other’ meant)

                                                        17 These results are broadly consistent with the findings of consultation undertaken with 150 non-children’s centre users on behalf of Aerodrome Children’s Centre “Summary of consultation of registered non-users of the children’s centre”, October 2011, Coda

 

  30

7 Views of staff and other stakeholders The views of staff and other stakeholders were gathered largely through an on-line questionnaire (completed by 256 respondents including staff, governors and trustees, voluntary and community organisations, partner agencies and local councillors). The questionnaire aimed to capture the views of respondents on the different models proposed. Respondents were asked to rate their preference for each model and were asked for comments on the benefits and drawbacks of each model. In addition a total of 203 staff and other stakeholders took part focus groups held in each of the seven collaborations.

7.1 Type of participant / respondent 203 people staff and stakeholders took part in focus groups. Of these participants, 130 were staff, 37 were from partner agencies, 22 were social workers, 18 were governors / trustees, two were childminders18, and two other. Some stakeholders represented more than one type of respondent e.g. member of staff and governor/trustee and have been double counted. Most questionnaire respondents (39%) were staff with almost equal numbers of governors/trustees (20%) and partner agencies (19%). Most (85%) were female reflecting the general make up of people who work in early intervention and family support services and most (66%) were aged 34-54.

7.2 Issues raised by staff and stakeholders Staff and stakeholders who participated in the focus groups raised a number of issues and concerns and also highlighted strengths and successes of children’s centres. Analysis of the comments demonstrates that the views of staff and other stakeholders in relation to use of children’s centre services very much echo the views of parents and these views have been incorporated into section five above. This section therefore concentrates on the views of staff and other stakeholders regarding the specific models proposed. The sections that follow draw mainly from the questionnaire responses.

7.3 Preferred model Most stakeholders who completed the questionnaires (33.5%) preferred model 2 – that of merging management of centres. However a similar number (33%) said they preferred to maintain the status quo. The least preferred model was model 6 (closing centres) with 60.7% of respondents raking this as their least preferred option. Table 12 shows the ranking for each model

                                                        18 A further eight childminders attended the parent workshops and contributed to the pinpoint exercise. Their views have been recorded in the parent/carer section and in the section on childminders.

 

  31

Table 12 ranking for each model 1 2 3 4 5 6 Response

count Merging centres 12.0%

(25) 19.1%(40)

28.7%(60)

17.2%(36)

13.4%(28)

9.6% (20)

209

Merging management of centres

33.5% (75)

28.6%(64)

14.7%(33)

8.9% (20)

11.6%(26)

2.7% (6)

224

Greater involvement of parents or voluntary groups

7.0% (15)

23.5%(50)

23.5%(50)

25.1%(54)

19.5%(42)

1.9% (4)

215

Closing centres 11.6% (26)

4.9% (11)

3.1% (7)

4.0% (9)

15.6%(35)

60.7% (136)

224

Using the centres for alternative but highly valued children’s services provision

7.2% (16)

13.5%(30)

22.4%(50)

30.9%(69)

22.0%(49)

4.0% (9)

223

Status quo 33.0% (74)

9.4% (21)

8.9% (20)

11.2%(25)

13.8%(31)

23.7% (53)

224

1 = most preferred model 6 = least preferred model A theme running through many of the replies from staff, governors and trustees, partner organisations, voluntary and community organisations and local councillors was that children’s centres are an Early Intervention and preventative service and that reducing funding or cutting services now creates a risk of higher costs to other services later.

7.4 Model 1 – Merging Centres

“The services need to be re-designed to reflect the fact that parents want to tell their story once. The changes will encourage a different approach and will focus on outcomes, which is

key. Integrated working with Health, Social Care, Housing, Midwives, GPs and Health Visitors through the FEP is a great initiative and something that will drive the CC agenda -

wish it could have a wider age range.’ (Staff member)

This was the model preferred by 12% of respondents. Benefits and concerns Apart from saving money, the benefit most regularly identified, particularly by staff and partner agencies, was the opportunity for staff to share expertise, skills, knowledge and good practice across centres. Merging centres would also help to reduce duplication across centres (identified by governors and trustees) and would help ensure that more centres were able to stay open and would therefore retain a local presence - a benefit highlighted by a range of respondents but particularly by staff. Other benefits included: • Ensures some stability for families. • Greater consistency with one respondent saying “it reduces the post code lottery”. • Opportunities for centres to specialise. • Reduced Ofsted burden and related paperwork. • Greater efficiency. • Retains some valuable staff and their expertise. • Opportunities for greater targeting.

 

  32

The concerns most regularly cited was the loss of local knowledge, identity and contact which may in turn impact on the ability of centres to understand and respond to local needs and reduce the likelihood of parents accessing services – this was a particular concern of staff and governors and trustees.

“The children’s centres have all worked hard to get to know their local communities and serve them well. There is a big difference in the ‘catchment’ of each centre. Merging centres

could mean that in some areas, the parts of communities we are striving to reach, the hard to reach, could fall between the gaps.” (Governor/trustee)

Reducing the number of staff and in particular losing experienced and qualified staff was a concern raised by staff, governors and trustees and partner agencies. It was felt that this could lead to increasing pressure on staff which in turn could reduce the quality and levels of services and make it more difficult for staff to develop and maintain effective relationships with families.

“For a lot of families it is the staff that makes them come back – that is who they build the relationship with and who they trust.” (Staff member)

There was also a concern expressed by many respondents that parents may have to travel greater distances which could reduce their willingness to engage – a concern of staff, governors and trustees and partner agencies.

“The harder to reach will be even harder to reach now.” (Staff member) There was a particular concern that this model could have a detrimental impact in the East and North of the borough:

“Fieldway and New Addington is one of the most deprived areas with a lot of families needing support. The top of the estate do not want to come down to the bottom of the

estate, so merging will not work. And the council know this.” (Staff member)

“For people in the north of the borough, not all of us can afford to run a car to travel to other centres; not all of us can even afford a bus; centres need to be within walking

distance.” (Governor/trustee) Other concerns included: • Larger centres / catchment areas and / or responsibilities could make it harder for

managers to manage. • Harder to achieve consistency. • Time would be wasted by staff having to travel across centres. • Impact on governance could lead to schools withdrawing. • Buildings and facilities may be under utilised. However some health partners were

concerned that centres may become overcrowded – “We run health clinics in children’s centres, merging them would increase numbers or we may lose contact with clients.”

Other observations/comments on this model • There was a concern that if the mergers are not handled effectively and speedily there

could be a detrimental impact. • There was a view that two centres is the maximum that could be merged otherwise staff

would be spread too thinly

 

  33

7.5 Model 2 - Merging Management of Centres “If the cuts are to go ahead, this is the best option. I feel, of all the options, this would be the

best for the families who use the centre. I do not imagine that they would see much difference to the services which are offered, which is the main factor. It may be a more cost

effective solution, sharing expertise amongst staff. It would ensure that families see the same staff, that trustful relationships are developed between families and staff, which can be given

as much time as it takes. Each setting can then tailor their sessions to meet the needs of their community. It is imperative that the retention of front line staff are preserved.” (Staff

member)

“The merging of management of centres may be feasible where the centres are smaller or the need is less, however in areas of social deprivation it is vital that Managers have a full

overview of one centre and are able to be on site for a significant period of time. In our experience it takes years to build up trust with some families to enable them to engage.

Having merged management would impact this significantly.” (Staff member)

This was the most popular model preferred by 33.5% of respondents. Benefits and concerns Apart from saving money, the benefit most regularly identified was that of continuity of provision, staff and therefore of relationships within local communities. This benefit was highlighted by many respondents including staff, governors and trustees, partner agencies and voluntary / community organisations. Another benefit of this model, highlighted by staff, partner agencies and local councillors, was that coordinated management and centralised administration systems should make more effective use of resources, be more efficient and contribute to cost savings. This in turn could lead to less redundancies and cuts in staff hours, more effective strategic management, less duplication and better quality services

“[this model] allows the maximum resourcing to remain where it should be: at the frontline” and “will enable centres to co-ordinate services so that each centre can do what they do best

but still offer a complete range of services.” (Governor/trustee) A further significant benefit highlighted by staff, governors and trustees and partner agencies was the opportunity to share staff expertise and skills. Other benefits included: • Better response to needs of small communities. • Opportunities for other staff to take on leadership role. • Funds assigned to more targeted provision and the needs of the local community. • Potential for ‘fresh blood” to be recruited into management/leadership . • Capacity for good and outstanding centres to enhance the provision at other centres. The concern most regularly cited by staff, governors and trustees, partner agencies and local councillors was the workload of managers resulting from a reduction in management posts. These respondents were also concerned about the loss of experienced and qualified staff.

“How effectively can one manager 'lead and manage' 4-5 Centres? The job is time intensive and requires considerable knowledge and commitment. “ (Staff member)

 

  34

“Managers are less likely to be involved with running sessions and would not need to travel back and forth between centres on a daily basis. A good manager would be able to be

responsible for organising services and budgeting for 2-3 centres” (Voluntary and community organisation)

Related to this, and a concern of staff and partner agencies, was the issue of managers not being available on-site when needed. This was a concern of staff, particularly staff from larger centres or centres where there is a greater number of families with complex needs. Staff were also concerned that managers may lack an understanding of the needs of the local community (particularly if that manager was from a different area) which would make it more difficult for staff to develop and maintain effective relationships with families and that this model could lead to a reduction in levels and/or quality of services a concern shared by local councillors.

“It would be like walking into Sainsbury’s you won’t know the staff.” (Staff member)

“Less disruptive than merging centres, though it is also likely to mean a dip in the standard of provision offered.” (Partner agency)

Governors and trustees were particularly concerned about centres losing their autonomy. Other concerns included: • Potential for new management/admin to have skewed loyalties. • Likely reduction in universal services which respondents thought was false economy and

ran counter to the "Early Intervention" approach supported by Croydon. • Potential for conflict within different management teams. • Potential for delayed communication. • Difficulties for small centres in meeting targets and Ofsted compliance. Other observations/comments on this model • “Children's Centres and their staff have been uncertain of the future and the way forward

since November 2010. Centre managers are being asked to work collaboratively and put plans in place to make cuts but this does not make for good working relationships and it seems there is a great deal of animosity between the centres. If management is merged this needs to be done completely openly, clearly and fairly. The co-ordinating centre and therefore overall manager cannot be chosen as it has done in the current set up of the local authority making that decision. If the local authority is to decide which is the co-ordinating centre then the overall manager needs to be appointed transparently and not just because they are the current manager of that lead centre.” (Staff member)

7.6 Model 3 - Greater involvement of parents or voluntary groups  

“I think this can be done in moderation but I think it is incredibly unrealistic to expect volunteers to have the knowledge and skills to assist with some of the issues that families

attending the centres may have, as well as all the safeguarding practices that will need to be managed.” (Staff member)

“Parents can have a big role supporting the professional staff at children’s centres but they

need to supplement the staff team not make up the bulk of it.” (Staff member) This was the model preferred by 12% of respondents.

 

  35

Benefits and concerns Apart from saving money, the benefit most regularly identified was that of parents taking ownership and being more involved for example in determining how children’s centres run and the services that they provide – this was identified as a significant benefit by staff. Respondents also thought that this would help to retain the local ethos and accountability. “I think there are many parents, childminders or other voluntary sector leaders that are happy to run sessions as long as the venue is provided and this venue offers the correct facilities in

line with what families and children need and the professional early years team nearby if needed. So if this makes significant reduction in spending then it's a good option.” (Voluntary

and community organisation) A significant benefit highlighted mainly by staff but also by governors and trustees, local councillors and partner agencies was the opportunity for parents to gain experience, skills, qualifications and confidence which in turn could improve their employment potential. In addition parents were seen as a source of knowledge, skills, expertise and creativity and who could provide an insight into the needs of other parents.

“Potential to tap into innovative, creative, flexible responses and lever an amazing extended pool of resources.” (staff member)

“Parents are the client base who use the service therefore they can have involvement into the running and organisation suggesting ideas and methods that would best suit parents.”

(partner agency) Voluntary sector organisations saw this model as providing an opportunity for them to be more involved with children’s centres. However they were also concerned that that they might be perceived as a low cost and/or inferior option. (Some respondents did in fact make negative comments about voluntary sector organisations although none of them gave any evidence to substantiate their concerns). In a number of replies it appears that respondents are not clear about the difference between the voluntary sector and volunteers. Other respondents saw better engagement of the voluntary sector as a positive outcome, particularly in relation to opportunities to increase volunteer involvement.

“Voluntary Sector groups provide a broad spectrum of relevant and cost effective services, exhibiting a wealth of expertise and understanding. Volunteering would be encouraged and

used effectively with a fast response to needs and current issues.” (Voluntary and community organisation)

Other benefits included: • Parents could help other parents feel more welcome and build local networks. • Less chance of vulnerable and isolated families of 'slipping through the net' if they are

part of a network of organisations. • Opportunity to provide more services. • Enables centres to stay open. • Opportunity to develop a mixed business model for collaborations that make best use of,

depending on location, regeneration and statutory funding with income generation (through social enterprise models and private finance). Examples included charging for services, and sub-letting spaces. However there was a general consensus that this approach needed time to develop.

“Any changes to the business model of Children Centres is not something that can be

imposed with very little notice in response to a crisis but could be part of a long term plan.” (Voluntary and community organisation)

 

  36

Overall there was a general consensus and support for the ethos of greater involvement of parents and the voluntary sector however there were some concerns. The greatest concern was that volunteers would be used as a replacement for paid staff, a concern raised mainly by staff but also by governors and trustees and some partner agencies and voluntary sector organisations. Staff were also very concerned that volunteers would be expected to support high level, complex and vulnerable families.

“I like the idea of more involvement of parents etc., but feel this should be an EXTRA to the staff not an INSTEAD of.” (Governor/trustee)

“Experience, training and professionalism are priceless. I am concerned that 'mum's army'

will not provide the excellent services now on offer.” (staff member)

“We need a management and staff that are trained and know how to support families. Not parents doing there best. That's how toddler groups are run and is often the reason they

close and the toys are dirty!” (Voluntary and community organisation)

“If the managers and/or qualified staff are not on site who takes responsibility if the voluntary worker fails to give the right care?” (Governor/trustee)

Many respondents but mainly staff were concerned that volunteers would be seen as a cheap option and that insufficient consideration would be given to the costs of training and supporting volunteers including ensuring that they had appropriate CRB disclosures.

“This is a good idea but you still need the core staff and management to co-ordinate this.” (staff member)

There was also a high degree of concern that this model would not work for all parents or in some parts of the borough, notably areas of high deprivation. Some parents for example need support and are not in a position to give it. It was also noted that parents have many other commitments which would take precedence over their volunteering and lead to them being unreliable volunteers. Whilst it was noted that this was often for good reason such as childcare, employment, sickness etc. it would lead to unreliable services particularly for the most vulnerable families. Staff, governors and trustees, partner agencies and voluntary sector organisations shared this concern.

“The risk is that those areas that are in most need of effective and well-managed children's centres are more exposed to the risk of inadequate participation by parents and voluntary

sector groups. Over time it will be possible to build capacity that allows for greater participation by local community groups but that capacity needs nurturing as it does not

presently exist across all communities.” (Governor/trustee)

“In the more affluent parts of Croydon (South and parts of Central) I think this model could work well. There is a lower incidence there of families with a high level of need, and there

would be a greater number of parents who can afford not to work who might be able to offer time to the Children’s Centre. In the North, East (less affluent parts of Central) and West of

the borough I think that this model would be more difficult.” (Staff member) There was a concern, expressed mainly by staff, that parents would not be willing to disclose personal/sensitive/confidential information to volunteers and/or that their information would not be viewed impartially. “The reason the centre works well is because the service users can go there for support from

people who will not judge them. The also need to know that they will get support from

 

  37

professionals. The service users may not feel comfortable or confident in engaging with parents or the voluntary sector.” (Partner agency)

Some staff, partner agencies and governors and trustees were concerned that parent-run groups may have a tendency towards being ‘cliquey and exclusive’ which would be to the detriment of all parents.

“Parents can be 'too local' for others to feel able to 'off-load' without judgement and can become a 'closed shop' to new families.” (Staff member)

“If this is about those with the loudest voices coming together to run a service I believe that

this has the potential to be less inclusive.” (Governor/trustee) Other concerns included: • There would be a loss of reliable and skilled staff. • Practicalities of recruiting and supporting sufficient numbers of suitable volunteers. • Parents may have conflicts of interest that they would not be able to manage. • Might be peaks and troughs in volunteer involvement which could adversely affect the

delivery and reliability of services. • This model could become disorganised and lack momentum. Other comments on this model • It takes away the responsibility of the council to look after and provide a service for its

people. • Some centres already have lots of volunteers. • Volunteers would be better at supporting universal services. Staff and other stakeholders who took part in focus groups also raised similar issues to those expressed by questionnaire respondents. Whilst there was broad support for better involvement of volunteers, including parents as volunteers, staff and other stakeholders were keen to ensure that volunteers were carefully chosen and appropriately trained, supervised and supported. “Parent champions are a good idea but they need support and encouragement from a skilled

professional otherwise they feel 'abandoned'.” (West collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

“Real role for local people to get experience of volunteering, get aspiration to work - see

opportunities in childcare sector. There are good models locally - paid and unpaid - we must not lose sight.” (BAPP (Mid-South) collaboration stakeholder focus group participant)

7.7 Model 4 – Closing centres  “This seems to be the best option, in terms of securing the future of the remaining centres. If the choice was between a merger of centres of varying quality, and the closure of a centre with poorer quality to ensure the future of another with higher quality, the latter would be

preferable. The prime determinant of which centres to close shouldn't necessarily be whether they are located in an area of deprivation, but rather whether they can demonstrate that they

have the expertise and quality of provision (demonstrated through Ofsted and by other means), and whether they can demonstrate effective community reach, particularly into those

deprived areas.” (Partner agency)

 

  38

This was the model preferred by 11.6% of respondents. The main benefit of this model, identified by staff, governors and trustees, partner agencies and voluntary and community organisations, was that it would allow funding to be focussed on areas where there is greatest need, this was generally considered to be the more deprived areas of the borough where parents were thought to be less resilient and less able to travel or pay to access services. However most respondents also felt strongly that outreach, information, advice and signposting services should be available across the borough to all families. “Less deprived areas will not need as much support for the services as a high deprived area.

these parents will be able to travel to different areas to access support.” (Staff member)

“In order to close the gap for the most deprived children, where money is so limited due to the economic climate, funds must be targeted where they can have most impact. Therefore

centres in less deprived areas should be closed in order to meet the needs of the most needy.” (Partner agency)

“If there exists a need to prioritise then resources need to be targeted to the most deprived

sectors of the community.” (Governor/trustee) The other main benefit of this model was that savings could be made.

“Allows the centres that remain to have a large enough budget to actually operate.” (Governor/trustee)

The overwhelming concern of this model related to how deprivation and vulnerability would be used to determine whether or not centres closed. This issue, which is in two-parts was the most commonly highlighted concern by staff, governors and trustees, partner agencies, and voluntary and community organisations and local councillors. The first issue is that vulnerable families living in less deprived areas would be disadvantaged by this model.

“The drawback is that areas are 'less deprived' rather than 'not deprived'. Therefore deprivation still exists albeit on a smaller scale and it can be argued that for vulnerable

families in these areas, there is a need to maintain a point of access to local services. There still needs to be some kind of service that can be used as a 'gateway' to further information

and support where it is needed.” (Staff member)

“Most areas, because of the economic climate, now have growing areas of deprivation. It is short sighted to close centres in 'less deprived areas' as the situation is rapidly changing.”

(Governor/trustee)

“Areas in Croydon are so varied that there aren't many, if any, areas that are solely 'less deprived' so you would be limiting access to people who do require the service.” (Partner

agency) The second issue is that families who might be defined statistically as being ‘less deprived’ have needs and vulnerabilities including post-natal depression, domestic violence, parenting support needs, health, family break-ups, drug and alcohol abuse etc.

“Less deprivation is not the same as no need.” (Staff member)

 

  39

“Generally having children, often with no family support around, can be isolating and can lead on to worsening physical and mental health for adults and children.” (Partner agency)

“A centre ought not to be closed because it is assumed that the local community is able to

look after itself.” (Governor/trustee)

“There are lots of pressures on families now and even those families in what are not considered deprived areas still have issues which are often hidden and so Children's Centres

are really important for them.” (Partner agency) Some respondents, staff in particular, articulated this as children’s centres losing the universal right of access.

“Children centres should be for all children not just for the poor.” (Governor/trustee)

“No matter what your social or economic status all families with young children need support and not just at difficult times. Social opportunities aside, children's centres offer valuable non-

judgemental advice. Closing centres would be the most unpopular decision.” (Governor/trustee)

Another major concern was that families would have to travel further which might act as a barrier to them accessing services and could result in vulnerable families ‘slipping through the net’.

“Not all families have cars and in the south there are many hills which makes walking long distances very difficult with small children and buggies.” (Staff member)

Other concerns included • Centres in deprived areas may become over crowded which could put some families off

attending and could reduce quality. • Short-term financial savings were being made at the cost of longer term social costs and

costs to other services as the early intervention and preventative work of children’s centres would be lost.

• The result of this model would be a postcode lottery. • Would result in increased stigmatisation of services being for 'disadvantaged' people or

‘problem families’. This in turn would lose the additional benefits that come from having families from different social and economic backgrounds supporting and learning from each other.

Other comments on this model • Centres should be closed based on their level of performance not on whether they are

based in an affluent area.

7.8 Model 5 – Using the centres for alternative but highly valued children’s services

“This would be a very beneficial option in terms of a holistic approach to some of the significant gaps in provision we have in Croydon - we have very few resources and

accessible places for children with complex needs and disabilities; particularly early years settings. If this option could increase the number of places available for pre-school children this would alleviate a significant problem within the borough and utilise the facilities which would perhaps otherwise be closed. Short term this might incur further costs in terms of

 

  40

staffing and equipment, but long term this would cut down on costs currently paid out to send children out of the borough or would provide places for children currently not able to access a setting at all due to their complex needs. This would also address other issues families face

such as isolation and need for respite as carers.” (Partner agency)

Children’s Centres ARE highly valued children's service provision!” (Voluntary and community organisation)

This was the least preferred model preferred by 7.2% of respondents. A number of respondents said that they were unclear what this model was trying to achieve and/or needed more information about possible uses before they could comment on it. Suggestions for alternative uses were: • SEN resource base. • Nursery provision, particularly for increasing the number of places for children aged two. • Additional classroom space for school. • Training centre. Many respondents, particularly staff, felt that delivering specialist provision was what children’s centres either were doing already or should be doing and some could not see if or how this model would be any different to the current arrangements.

“Links and partnership with such provision should be a part of a well run CC as a matter of course.” (Staff member)

“This should be used to run alongside a children’s centre as one could compliment the

other.” (Governor/trustee)

“Would be good to have these incorporated within current model and again may offer useful and helpful collaborations.” (Partner agency)

Benefits and concerns The main benefit identified predominantly by staff but also by governors and trustees and partner agencies was the continued use of buildings. Although few respondents preferred this model overall many did say it would be in preference to buildings not being used at all. Another benefit raised was the opportunity to continue offering services in the local community. Again whilst many did not favour this model, many respondents did feel that if there couldn’t be children’s centre services then some services were better than no services. Other benefits included • Opportunity to generate income. • Creates new services for, and meets the needs of, children with disabilities. The main concern in relation to this model was the loss of children’s centre services to families. Staff, governors and trustees and partner agencies were particularly concerned that families would not have access to the range of services currently available.

“The benefits would be that the centres would be used for very valuable services, but again families in these areas would suffer from lack of full services and although they would be

served by outreach many families rely on coming to the centres to meet others. “(Staff member)

 

  41

“The most vulnerable families will not be able to access support and outcomes for children in these reach areas will not improve with far greater financial consequences later.”

(Governor/trustee) Many respondents also felt that having centres just for specific groups would be divisive and many thought that existing children’s centres should be supported to be more inclusive if there is a need for more services for disabled children.

“This will miss many mainstream families who do not 'Fit in a box'.” (Staff member) A number of respondents also thought that if specialist services were needed, these should be in addition to not instead of children’s centres.

“If there is a need for these services it should be provided additionally not at the expense of children centres.” (Governor/trustee)

“This could be added in but should not be an alternative.” (Partner agency)

Other concerns included • Still means closing children’s centres with the associated job losses and the breakdown

of relationships with families. • Costs associated with adapting premises if they were already accessible or suitable for

children with disabilities. • The children’s centre purpose would be lost.

7.9 Model 6 – Maintain status quo

“This is the best option as schools are already seeing the benefits of children attending children centres in terms of attainment and behaviour. Any change will bring us back to the

bad old days of under achievement.” (Local councillor)

“The drawback of this model is that it is clear that Croydon can't afford it. We need to plan for a future that the borough can pay for. There are many good points about the existing

systems but if we can't afford it then we need to plan something that we can afford. There are some Children’s Centres that are working very well to provide services for their local

communities. There are some Children’s Centres who are still just beginning to coordinate all the support needed for families - that part of the status quo is something that needs to be

acted on and improved.” (Staff member) This was the second most preferred model preferred by 33% of respondents. Benefits and concerns The main benefit of this model was that it would enable the current range of provision to continue. Many respondents thought that this was the best option for this reason. However a significant number thought that whilst maintaining the status quo was the preferred option they also felt that the current ways of operating need changing and that children’s centres need to be ‘less insular’, more targeted and more creative, that there needs to be less duplication and greater partnership working, particularly with health professionals. “Short term it would be financially difficult but can be justified in the long term because of the known benefits of early intervention - a couple of children not in care for 5 years would cover

the costs shortfall now.” (Staff member)

 

  42

“Staying as we are means security for staff and children alike. I realise that money is tight and that cuts have to be made, but this is not one of these places. Please leave well alone.”

(Governor/trustee) The overwhelming concern of this model is that it does not yield any cost savings and is likely to be unsustainable and unviable.

“It would be fantastic to leave things as they are; unfortunately with the proposed cuts this would be impossible, which is a great shame as it will have a huge impact on everybody,

especially vulnerable families who rely on the children’s centre to survive.” (Staff member)

“I can only see drawbacks with this as it would only be a short-term 'fix' and therefore is an inappropriate alternative.” (Staff member)

“In it's present state the system is not commercially viable as it will deprive other areas of

Council funding.” (Governor/trustee) This model was included in the options as it is a requirement of the local authority during consultation. However many respondents were not aware of this requirement and therefore this model attracted a number of comments questioning why it had been included if it is not a financially viable option. A number of respondents, predominantly staff, thought that there was too much duplication in the current structure. Other comments on this model • There might be an option to charge some families for some universal services. • The current arrangement of 26 separate centres is far too wasteful in terms of

management and admin costs.

7.10 Other ideas Finally staff and stakeholders were asked for other ideas that they have that would support families more. A number of respondents chose to repeat what they had said already in answer to the previous questions, particularly where they were reluctant to see any funding reductions. Respondents, presented a wide range of ideas and views on how children’s centres could continue to support families. The most common response from staff, governors and trustees and partner organisations was better partnership working (sometimes describe as multi-agency and integrated working) particularly with health professionals but also with voluntary, community and faith sector organisations. This also included partner organisations taking greater responsibility for completing CAFs. The Family Engagement Partnership (FEP) was thought of as an important mechanism for achieving greater involvement of other agencies and one respondent suggested making health jointly responsible for meeting targets. The second most common response was for children’s centres to undertake more outreach.

“We need to continue to work with other groups in our community such as local faith groups and also to continue to run outreach sessions in environments that our more vulnerable

families feel comfortable even if we deem them not as suitable as our nice new CC buildings.” (Staff member)

 

  43

Many staff thought that better and more accurate data, particularly live birth data and information on the demographics and needs of families in reach areas was essential to delivering effective services in a time of economic austerity. Including in this was more research on why some families use children’s centres and others don’t. Making more effective use of estart was also considered a priority for centres. Some respondents suggested that centres involve parents more for example as volunteers and to undertake peer support. Staff thought that parents should be listened to more and their views and ideas used to shape services. A small number of respondents thought that parents should be asked to make a small contribution to costs of services and one respondent suggested a membership scheme “a bit like a gym membership, paid monthly” (voluntary sector organisation) for those who could afford it. A number of respondents commented on the type of services and provision that should be delivered through children’s centres. Approximately equal numbers thought that there should be more targeted provision and that there should be both universal and targeted provision. The importance of well qualified, and experienced staff able to create a welcoming atmosphere and provide appropriate levels of support for families, including those with more complex needs was emphasised, mainly by staff and governors and trustees. Ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of experienced family support workers who are better able to deal with complex families and safeguarding issues was also felt to be important. Better leadership and management both from the local authority and within children’s centres were raised by a small but significant number of respondents (mainly staff and governors and trustees and partner agencies). issues in relation to leadership and management included avoiding underspends, improving communication, implementing change more quickly, creating greater consistency across centres (e.g. through the use of standardised forms, job descriptions etc.) and creating and communicating a vision for children’s centre services. Other ideas included: • Better information for parents and professionals, available in one easily accessible place. • Improving how children’s centres measure and demonstrate impact. • Better performance management of children’s centres by the local authority – to include

areas such as reach/volume attendance for children and families, level, quality and range of service provided, effective management of budget, grading from Ofsted, capacity to develop, vulnerable families supported.

 

  44

8 Next steps Feedback sessions, mainly for parents, were held in each of the collaborations as follows: Table 13 feedback sessions Collaboration Date and time Location North West Tuesday 13th March, 9.30 – 1..00 Norbury Manor North East Tuesday 13th March, 1.30 – 3.00 Ecclesbourne South (Byron, Chipstead Valley and Sanderstead)

Wednesday 4th March, 9.30 – 11.00 Byron

South (Woodlands) Wednesday 4th March, 1.30 – 3.00 Woodlands East Thursday 5th March, 9.30 – 11.00 Family Centre West Thursday 22nd March, 1.30 – 3.00 Canterbury Road Mid-South Monday 26th March, 9.30 – 11.00 Aerodrome Central Thursday 29th March, 1.30 – 3.00 Woodside Deaf Parents Group Tuesday 1st May, 10.00 – 12.00 Purley Nursery School

and Childrens Centre These feedback sessions followed a common format that began with a Council officer reminding the participants of the context for the consultation and the models that had been put forward. This was followed by a summary of the findings detailed in this report and a discussion with parents on how closely the findings reflected what they had said at the initial focus group.

“Until now I hadn’t realised that children’s centres were trying to meet the needs of so many different groups of parents. That’s really hard to do. Thank you for trying.” (parent during the

South feedback session) A Council officer then presented the model that was being put forward for that collaboration. The feedback session concluded with the Children’s Centre Managers presenting the service timetable from April to July and the collaboration inviting parents to take part in the next steps of the resdesign. A report summarising the findings from the consultation and making recommendations was presented to Cabinet by the Head of EIFS in April 2012 for Cabinet to agree the way forward. Assuming cabinet approves the recommendations, children’s centres and collaborations will continue to work towards their agreed model to ensure implementation by 1st September 2012.

 

  45

Annex 1 Questions and Answers from the consultation Questions from parents Question Response Could the groupings be looked at differently - particularly Canterbury Rd and Ecclesbourne? Why isn't Peppermint and Canterbury Road linked with Ecclesbourne it's very close?

Collaborations were determined in discussion with children’s centres. The aim was to bring together centres where there was a ‘natural community’. It is impossible to get a perfect fit however. There may be some changes to reach areas and/or collaborations following the consultation.

I walked from Gonville to Norbury Manor Primary, took 45 minutes. Why should I walk that far?

By undertaking the consultation focus groups we have been able to gain the views of families and understand the issues they may face when accessing services. Collaborations of children’s centres will continue to deliver services locally to ensure families do not have to travel.

The children centres are wonderful - are they being fully utilised as a business centre or for families e.g. crèche - income generation - drop the kids off while you go shopping? Kids parties (sat/sun)?

From September it is anticipated that there will be greater flexibility in terms of how resources are used and more opportunities for children’s centres to make better use of space for example as resource bases for disabled children, to work in partnership with other agencies to run a wider range of activities and to hire spaces for children’s parties.

What is there for fathers? Each collaboration runs a number of activities specifically for fathers – the best way to find out what’s available is to contact the nearest children’s centre.

Can we look at the way the money is spent now to see if there is any problems there? (South)

The proposed budget for the south area is based on the funding formula which has meant significant reduction in the area. However in developing the new service model opportunities have been built into to enable other providers to deliver from the centres, and creative ways of working with other collaborations will help make sure that sufficient services are delivered.

Had sessions with Jane for ideas on how to raise money eg hiring out etc so will this be fed into the consultation?

These ideas will be used going forward by the collaboration as part of the service development and will be discussed at the consultation feedback session. The ideas and input of families into service design is vital and all the children’s centre collaborations have a parents forum where ideas can be shared and considered.

Why change a service that works and everyone feels is important? There is a need to redesign services due to restrictions in funding and

 

  46

also the change in focus of children’s centres. There needs to be a balance of services so that all families who would benefit from support have access to services that meet their needs

How can you quantify or put a price on the changes to a families life a cc makes?

It is very clear from the consultation process how much children’s centre services are valued. This is why there is a commitment to keeping services but to make efficiencies that do not directly impact families.

Many parents use the services and their voices need to be heard - can we get a finance person along to the next one?

In the next phase of development there will be support for the collaboration to develop a sustainable budget.

Can you look at what Liverpool city council have done? Thank you – we are looking to learn from other local authorities so that as collaborations develop they use best practice from other areas.

Staff are really doing a good job, how is it going to affect them? Collaborations are bringing in support for staff so that they are fully consulted with and have opportunities in the new structure that reflect their skills and experience.

Questions from staff and other stakeholders Question Response HR issues Will there be redundancies?

Can you guarantee that the managers will keep their jobs?

Each collaboration has been asked to put forward an option or options for future staffing arrangements to include a Family Engagement Partnership Coordinator and Family Support staff. In addition consideration should be given to the strategic and operational management of centres within the collaboration. The numbers of staff and of the different types of staff will vary from collaboration to collaboration. Once the structure has been agreed an HR restructure process will begin. This will involve job matching to determine what posts can assimilated into the new structure. Following this there will be consideration of the individual post holders and the extent to which their skills and qualifications meet job specifications. Once this process has been carried out within each collaboration a review will take place across collaborations with a view to filling vacancies, from within existing postholders. The aim of this job matching process is to ensure a fair and transparent process. The expectation is that redundancies will be kept to a minimum but these cannot be ruled out.

 

  47

We are hearing that there will be one manager and one family worker shared across the collaboration, is this right?

See above answer - the number of posts will vary from collaboration to collaboration.

Will we have to apply for jobs? The HR process will involve job matching to determine what posts can be assimilated into the new structure and what posts have an 80% match. Following this there will be consideration of the individual post holders and the extent to which their skills and qualifications meet job specifications. If there are more people than posts then individuals will have to apply for positions in the new structure – this be done initially within each collaboration and then across collaborations.

Is there a specific percentage of the funding that is going to be cut from New Addington, and if it isn't a lot should we be losing staff?

This is a service redesign which means that services need to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged families in the community. In addition the government is introducing Payment by Results which has strict national targets that have to be met. The redesign may therefore require a similar number of roles in a particular collaboration but the nature of those roles may be different to what they are at present.

 Question Response Volunteers Does volunteering help – it can become unreliable to run a centre? Staff already have the roles and are good at their job but why not use the money being used for volunteers to safe guard the jobs for the staff The big society – use other people who are not professional – is this what we are doing? Will there be a pressure on this? Will volunteering be structured? The support has to be there for volunteers Volunteers have can get trained

Each collaboration will decide if and how volunteers are used. Volunteers need effective training, supervision and support. They are not a replacement for trained and competent staff. However volunteers can play an important role in helping to deliver services. For example they can provide peer-to-peer support enabling parents to share experiences and learn from each other. In return volunteers can get useful experience that can help them towards employment. There are already a considerable number of volunteers supporting families in children’s centres, working with the centre staff. There is also a successful accredited training programme in Croydon which volunteers are encouraged to undertake to support them in their role.

Who will fund volunteers? A funded training programme has been commissioned to enable 45 volunteers a year to train and take up a volunteer placement. Children’s centres provide supervision and support for volunteers while they are learning alongside the course tutor and when they have completed their training. Funding for expenses will be met by the children’s centre collaboration.

 

  48

Will there still be training for staff and what will the volunteers do? Each collaboration will decide if and how volunteers are used and what they will do. There is a wide range of activities that volunteers could support and their involvement will depend on the individual volunteers. Staff will continue to receive training.

 Question Response Funding issues Is the money being cut from New Addington to supplement the leafy south? Is the pot of money weighted towards the need in a particular area?

A funding formula has been used to redistribute funding where there is greatest need. The funding formula is based on the number of under 5s living in each children’s centre’s reach area and gives weighting to those living in the most deprived areas.

Is there a chance that funding can be cut again in the future? Why has cc funding been cut so much?  Are other services being asked to save the same % of savings?

All council services are expected to make savings and the reduction in funding for children’s centres is line with the overall cut to the council’s funding

How do the things that parents want and value work with PbR? Payment by results or PbR is being piloted by the Government with a view to being rolled out nationally from April 2014. PbR will ensure that funding targets those families most in need. Implementing PbR will not be optional and therefore we must ensure that we maintain a balance between universally accessible services and targeting the most vulnerable families.

With PbR being a possibility in the future how does that balance against what parents have voted for as the most important?

Children’s centres will have to respond to the needs of parents as evidenced by a needs analysis. As far as possible collaborations will combine the findings from the needs analysis with the wishes of local parents to ensure that some services are universally available whilst also targeting the most vulnerable families.

What are the options of charging for services? The Local Authority will be working with children’s centre collaborations to identify a consistent charging policy.

 Question Response Partnerships Are we linking up enough with services who have targets to meet e.g. health and how they can utilise the centres?

Children’s centres have always worked in partnership with other agencies, health in particular. Many centres have health visitors and

 

  49

midwives delivering a range of ante and post-natal services and voluntary sector agencies supporting health and well-being. The expectation is that these partnerships will be strengthened through for example the Family Engagement Partnership.

Can we work in line with local youth club or school? The core purpose of children’s centres is to focus on child development and school readiness, parenting aspirations and parenting skills, child and family health and life chances for children under 5 and their families. It is important therefore to work in partnership with schools and youth provision and commissioned family support services to provide holistic support for families where there is an identified need.

Can there be links with local pre-schools Links with local pre school groups and schools are recommended and pre school groups should be made aware of services available to families with young children and how families can access them.

Are you taking into account the voluntary sector & what are they doing? In many collaborations the voluntary sector plays an important role in supporting children’s centres to deliver services to the most vulnerable families. This role will continue in the new structure with most collaborations being able to commission or buy services from voluntary sector organisations. Children’s centre collaborations will also work closely with family support services commissioned by the Council.

 Question Response Use of buildings Explore uses of the building. If it was open to the community e.g. elderly then could there be mixed funding from older / younger people

Some alternative use of some children’s centre buildings is being discussed – for example a resource base unit for disabled children. The priority for children’s centres however is families with children aged under five years. In some children’s centre buildings alternative use might be possible and, where it doesn’t compromise the delivery of services for families with young children, children’s centres are encouraged to enable community use.

 

 

  50

 Question Response Service provision What is the overall aim? Is it that only deprived families can access services?

The Government has revised the ‘core offer’ of children’s centres into a core purpose of improving outcomes for young children and their families, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged families, in order to reduce inequalities in child development and school readiness; supported by improved parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills and child and family health and life chances.

If it is targeted help only how will the average family get help? See above. In addition children’s centres are working creatively with parents, volunteers and other organisations to ensure there are services that all families can attend. Each collaboration will have a service model unique to it. Ideas that have been raised during the consultation include: parent-led groups, charging for some services to supplement others, social enterprise approaches, fundraising for specific activities etc.

If services stay that are funded by health 'Baby Boost' how will we get them referred there if the other services are not there?

The Family Engagement Partnerships are intended to build on existing relations with health and improve and ensure referrals to children’s centre services

Who will make the decision on what stays where? The decision will be made by the collaboration – by the governing bodies of the organisations responsible for delivering the services. However, these will need to be ratified by the local authority as the body with statutory accountability for ensuring the sufficiency of children’s centre services.

Should the teams be more mobile and go to the places where the vulnerable families are? Should we use the staff to go to the family?

Outreach is certainly encouraged in order to ensure that those families who are less able to access services are supported to do so.

Will the parents be put off if they have to go on a waiting list? It will be important to try not to keep those parents who need help waiting long for services so centres will prioritise those in greatest need.

If all of one particular service is at one CC will the parents travel? There will be a range of services across each centre in each collaboration. Managers are developing service plans that ensure services ‘rotate’ around the centres.

 

  51

What is the universal provision required in the south of the borough? What are the children's centres there to do? Where does the targeted work happen? We are well placed for this set up.

The south collaboration is working on how to ensure there are sufficient universal services across the three centres and also to encourage groups and volunteers to support delivery of universal services such as stay and play groups. Targeted work will happen in the centre but also include home visiting as needed. There is already a strong family support team in place and the south is well placed to support targeted work.

 Question Response Demography Demography - demand for places - will the report reflect this - can the financial pocket pick this up?

The new funding formula reflects different demographics across the borough. There will be a greater emphasis on targeting resources on areas and families with greatest need and a greater emphasis, through the Family Engagement Partnerships s for example, on partnership working to maximise resources.

I run a parent /toddler group - you are working on 2010 stats - the demographic has changed - I get that cuts have to be made but for this area there are going to be more vulnerable families - how is this going to be measured?

A needs analysis for each children’s centre is being developed and will be ready by the beginning of April. This is based on the best available demographic data pooled from national and local government sources ad from health. The needs analysis will be updated later in the year to take into account the 2011 census data and will then be refreshed annually. PbR will also drive the use of needs analyses to monitor how effectively children’s centres are reaching the more vulnerable families.

Have we had discussions about future budgets? We have more children coming.

It is hoped that the current budget will be retained and not be reduced further in the next three years. However the future depends on the national government settlement to the authority.

 Question Response Health Are all GP's aware of children's centres? Children’s centres and health professionals already do a lot of work to

ensure that GPs and other health providers are aware of children’s centres. This is an ongoing process which the Family Engagement Partnerships s will support and improve. The FEPs will be key in driving how health professionals work with children’s centres and will

 

  52

become a central point for referrals. GP's / health visitors doing referral how? Do we need to communicate this new process more?

The family engagement partnership will provide a mechanism to refer children and families to children’s centres or other commissioned services to identify their needs and provide appropriate support. The process is currently being developed and tested in the North of the borough and children’s centre collaborations are working towards developing local FEPs by September 2012. There will be an event in July to communicate information about this process and partners such as GPs, Health Visitors and Midwives will be fully informed.

 Question Response Community events Can councillors come and talk to the community about the decisions? There are a number of local ‘question time’ events at which councillors

take and respond to questions from local residents.  Question Response Structure and models Can you guarantee that the Centres will stay open – East collaboration One of the options is to close centres. However this likely to be the

preferred option for only a few centres and again only where there a collaboration can demonstrate it can deliver sufficient services from remaining centres and/or community venues. There are only two designated children’s centres in the East collaboration plus the Family Centre which is a linked site which serves the New Addington estate and it is expected that they will remain open.

When will we know what the structure will be? Models will be shared in outline during feedback sessions to be held in each collaboration in March. A Cabinet paper will be produced for the April meeting also outlining the models in each collaboration.

Concerns that cabinet will make changes when consultation recommends services remain as they are. If the outcome of the consultation is "leave things as they are" would the Council do this or would they force through something we don’t want? Will the Cabinet listen to us or are we doing a consultation for

Many councillors have been involved in the consultation process and Cabinet members have been given an indication of the outcome of the discussions as well as the recommendations. Clearly the voice of parents has come through very strongly and the Cabinet is keen to be able to respond positively to the views expressed.

 

  53

consultation sake? What is the procedure for people raising objections to the proposed structure? What will the notice period be / what is the timescale? HR processes are in place, in negotiation with the trade unions, that

will ensure staff are consulted and given appropriate notices. The new structure will be in place for the beginning of September 2012.

If the managers have to cover more than one centre how will their time be managed?

It will be for managers and staff to work out the best way to allocate time across the centres.

How have CC boundaries be set and why can’t they be changed? The boundaries have not been set in stone and part of the consultation was to allow consideration of them. On the whole the current boundaries work for local communities but of course collaborations need to work together especially with their border areas

Will the changes impact on all centres? All centres will be affected to some degree by the changes. Have the council looked at capping senior salaries to make the impact less in front line services?

The management structure is certainly quite ‘lean’ and has been minimised to enable more frontline delivery. Salaries are set on the basis of an evaluation of the needs of the post and there is a council wide system for doing this. Pay is determined by the needs of the work.

How are you engaging particularly vulnerable parents? Vulnerable groups have been engaged in the consultation in the same way that all groups have been involved. In addition to the focus groups run at children’s centres a number of other specific groups were run for deaf parents, young parents and other vulnerable parents.

Decision making process for CC's - who will make the decisions? The decision will be made by the collaboration – by the governing bodies of the organisations responsible for delivering the services. However, these will need to be ratified by the local authority as the body with statutory accountability for ensuring the sufficiency of children’s centre services.

Are the models going to be “forced” onto the collaborations? Are they going to be discussed and formed together?

Part of the consultation was for centres to work in partnership and develop strong relationships on which to build – there is no evidence of coercion, there have been many comments about how centres have learnt from each other

Will there be one FEP per collaboration? Will need to be considered for the North

There will be 5 Family Engagement Partnerships.

 

  54

Question Response General questions Are you taking into account the voluntary sector & what are they doing? The voluntary sector has always been an important partner in

engaging with and providing services for families. Some for example run children’s centres, others will be able to use children’s centre premises to deliver services and some will be directly commissioned by collaborations. The voluntary sector will also be providing services commissioned by the council from children’s centre venues.

Leads of centres and governors are getting together to look at how things can work going forward what is the timeline?

The new structure will be in place for the beginning of September 2012.

If we disagree with the proposed structure, is there a procedure for this? The structure will be developed by each collaboration with decisions made by the governing bodies of the organisations responsible for delivering the services. As part of the HR processes, staff will be consulted on the proposed structures and will have any opportunity to put forward alternative models.

How do you measure vulnerability? Measuring vulnerability is difficult as it is a subjective rather than objective measure. To a large extent we take our measure from that used by national government using one of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)19 known as Indices of Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI)20.

Why cant the people making the decisions be at the consultations? Different decisions are made at different levels. The decision to reduce funding for children’s centres was made by Croydon’s Cabinet as a result of cuts to local authorities imposed nationally. Decisions regarding the redesign of children’s centres are made by officers from EIFS and by collaborations. Many of these decision makers have attended consultation events but it is not possible for them to be at them all. This consultation paper, which presents the views of parents, staff and other stakeholders, will be made widely available and will be used to develop the final paper that goes to Cabinet in

                                                        19 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) measures relative levels of deprivation in small areas of England called Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs). The IMD includes 37 different indicators across income, employment, health, education, skills and training, housing and services, living environment and crime. 20 The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) measures the proportion of children under the age of 16 in Super Output Areas (SOAs) living in low-income households i.e. those in receipt of means tested benefits. 

 

  55

April 2012 . How is the consultation going to be fed back to the cc's? Feedback sessions, one per collaboration, took place in mid March

2012. How is the work on super output areas going? By this we assume you mean the needs analysis. This is well

underway and an interim report to support PBR will be ready for each children’s centre by the beginning of April. A full report, taking into account the new Census data will be available during the Autumn 2012 term.

Does Ofsted not need a registration for each site, as facilities will be site specific, regardless of which activities are run and who is managing?

A children’s centre is a place or group of places not an individual site.