Agenda item

(To receive a report from Sara Gregory, Commissioning Manager – Children’s Strategic Commissioning, which invites the Committee to consider a report on the Re-commissioning of Best Start Lincolnshire Services: Early Years and Family Service and Inclusion Service, for children in their early years and their families within Lincolnshire, which is being presented to the Executive for a decision on 05 July 2022)

Consideration was given to a report by Charlotte Gray, Head of Service - Children's Strategic Commissioning, and Sara Gregory, Commissioning Manager – Children’s Strategic Commissioning, which invited the Committee to consider a report on the Re-commissioning of Best Start Lincolnshire Services: Early Years and Family Service and Inclusion Service, for children in their early years and their families within Lincolnshire, which was being presented to the Executive for a decision on 05 July 2022. The following matters were reported:

·   The Best Start Lincolnshire: Early Years and Family Service comprised:

o   Early childhood activities, which ran from children’s centre buildings.

o   Skills development for parent/carers with vulnerable children aged 0-19, and 0-25 with SEND.

·   A commissioning review of the Best Start Lincolnshire Services commenced in August 2020.

·   The current annual value of the contract was £1,871,712.

·   The Best Start Lincolnshire: Inclusion Service was currently delivered by PAB Languages Ltd at an annual cost of £65,000.

·   Both contracts commenced 1 July 2017 and were due to cease 30 June 2022. Both were extended to 31 March 2023 by an exception to the Council’s Contract and Procurement Procedure Rules due to the pandemic. There was an option to extend both contracts for a further three months to the maximum agreed exception period.

·   Health checks of Lincolnshire children showed that those aged 2-3 were in better health than the national average.

·   Attendance of Children’s Centres was low, but registrations were high. Greater engagement was being encouraged and feedback had suggested that a hybrid offer, of both specific local and general central events, was favoured by parents.

·   The new contract model included no significant changes, but had some minor changes based on the feedback that had been received to help encourage greater engagement.

During consideration of this item, the Committee raised some of the following comments:

·       The market engagement undertaken so far had indicated that there was a sufficient market to have multiple providers bid for the contracts and there would be an element of competition. For the current contracts, there had been four provider bids for the Early Years and Family Service, but only one provider bid for the Inclusion Service, which was the reason why the tender process would again consist of two lots so that the market was not restricted for the Early Years and Family Service.

·       A maximum contract price would be included when the tender goes out to market so that bidders know that they have to be within that financial envelope. As detailed work was undertaken in advance around feasibility and the cost of the service based on what needed to be delivered, then the evaluation of the bids could be weighted towards quality rather than price. Assurance was provided that even with the efficiency saving, the financial envelope would be sufficient and there had been no cost pressures within the current service. There had been underspends in the current contract relating to staff turnover which would have been either reinvested back into the contract or clawed back into the Council.

·       Bringing the services in-house had been explored but a key barrier was that historically these services had been delivered by the community and voluntary sector. If the services were in-sourced, there would be significant implications on the staffing costs for those transferred to the Council as they would be eligible for the Local Government Pension Scheme. This would mean that the volume and capacity of support that the Council could offer would be reduced. In addition, families like working with these community and voluntary organisations and see their independence from children’s social care as positive.

·       As part of the engagement strategy, social media was key for communicating with families. This was very targeted about children’s centres and promoting sessions on a daily basis. In addition, there was promotion of children’s centre activities within the communities such as in local shops and doctors’ surgeries. It was suggested that the promotion of children’s centres should be improved as this would help increase attendance, and in response it was confirmed that this expectation would be clearly articulated within the specification and when the tender goes out to market, and the Council would work with future providers to improve communications and make it feel more local to local communities.

·       The initial contract period would be for three years with an opportunity to extend it for up to a further two years depending on performance. A five-year contract length was standard across the Council as many things could change within five years and there were restrictions on varying a contract within procurement regulations.

·       The proposed saving of £212,000 would support budgetary pressures elsewhere in Children’s Services. This proposal would not have a detrimental effect on families as skills development would be provided by the Council’s Adult Skills and Family Learning Service instead and a range of other services were still being maintained. These services would also sit alongside the proposed Family Hubs and the Supporting Families programme.

·       The pandemic had affected young children’s development in communication and language skills and social skills, as the lockdowns had limited their exposure to other people. Sessions were being held in children’s centres which were focused on communication and language skills to help young children catch up and be ready for school. There was currently no progress data available, but once released there would be an opportunity to evaluate and benchmark where Lincolnshire was compared to the national figures and prioritise accordingly. It was recognised that this was an issue across the country which was being considered at a national level.

·       Connections with primary schools were being made at a strategic level through the different service areas, and through children’s centres which were mainly based on school sites so were well connected within local communities. Feedback was being obtained from primary schools to understand where there may be progress gaps in young children starting school. 90% of three-year-olds were in an early years setting accessing the free 30 hours so there was also a connection between primary schools and early years settings around transition. More young children who were not in an early years setting were being seen at a children’s centre, but it was recognised that an area that could be strengthened going forward was the provider working more with local schools.

·       Hard to reach families would be engaged through trusted professionals, such as health visitors, family health workers and early health workers, who would try to guide and assist families to access support in children’s centres. In addition, if siblings of families were attending schools or early years settings, then a pop-up children’s centre could be held to bring services into the community so that families could access support.

·       Children’s centres was a strong national brand which was widely understood by families. However, it was recognised that the term ‘children’s centres’ had negative connotations for some Eastern European communities. The inception of Family Hubs would provide an opportunity to revisit the branding.

·       As of January 2022, there were 37,284 under fives registered with children’s centres. Of these, 9.8% identified as White, Eastern European, or Eastern European or White Other; 71% identified as White British; 9.2% identified as other ethnic community groups and 10% chose not to identify their ethnicity.

The Committee requested that an update report be brought to a future meeting on the impact of the pandemic and post pandemic recovery including detailed information on progress data, immunisations, and health visiting.

RESOLVED:

1.That the Committee supports the recommendations to the Executive as set out in the report

2.That comments made be passed onto the Executive for its consideration.

3.That an update report be brought to a future meeting on the impact of the pandemic and post pandemic recovery including detailed information on progress data, immunisations and health visiting.