1. The Early Years, Children’s Centres and Family Support Review Purpose of today’s session: To share headlines from the analysis work including data analysis, quality research and engagement events To share and test our initial thinking on what the options could be To consider the impact of these options on children’s outcomes. To consider the impact of these options on finances and there value for money.

2. Background to the Review As part of the 2013/14 Service Reviews, Members recommended The Early Years, Children’s Centres and Family Support Review: SAFEGUARDING, SUPPORTING AND EDUCATING YOUNG PEOPLE Green Paper, 2013. The Review was set up to look at how early years services can produce improved outcomes for children and their families, providing the best value for the money available by answering a number of fundamental questions. –What is the current early years picture? –What is the mission of early years services? –What is the impact of early years services? –What should the future should look like?

3. Key Questions Early Education Is access to provision and quality fair, equitable and value for money? What the analysis tells us –Children’s outcomes are most affected by where they live (levels of deprivation) and whether or not they attend early education. –There are variable unit costs for each type of setting (average spend per child ranges from £2,790 to £7,993). –There are no differences in children’s outcomes at Early Years Foundation Stage between different types of settings. Issues that require further investigation –The analysis has raised the question – do we need to know children’s starting point in order to measure value for money? –We need to see further evidence from providers to see that higher funding is tackling higher deprivation needs.

4. Key Questions Children’s Centres & Health Is the provision of children’s centres equitable, accessible, effective and value for money? Are statutory organisations paying for the right areas of children centre delivery? –To improve children’s outcomes and narrow the gap, there needs to be a stronger focus on targeting engagement work to reach the families that need it most. –Universal provision to be delivered from children’s centres by a multi- agency approach, including health and community groups. –Potentially rationalising children’s centres based on robust analysis of local need. Transfer of HV into local authority in 2015/16 will enable a more integrated approach to early years. –We need to start a dialogue with health colleagues on the role of Health Visitors and Children’s Centres as a key role in the multi-agency approach.

5. Key Questions Financing Early Years Part A DSG financed £6m –Do we think this was value for money in 2014/15 and how much are schools forum prepared to fund in 15/16? The city council has to ensure statutory duties are met. –In addition DSG have historically funded support around early education – is this value for money? (Foundation Stage Parenting Support, EY Consultants) –The council would not be able to cover the costs of some of these areas so often it will be DSG funded or cut. Part B, additional £5m savings required –To come from reducing, re-modelling children’s centres and/or potential to discuss further funding with schools forum and public health.

6. Ideas/models from the Early Years Reference Group Reference Group on 6 th June 2014 provided the following ideas for EY –Children Centres - Multi-agency approach/integrated working/ ‘hub’, with a key worker for families –Number of Children Centres to meet local needs –Health Visitors role to be key at the universal provision and their capacity to be looked at in new way; Council to focus resources –A shared vision, with a network of support across the sector –Early Education; – 2, 3 and 4 year old part time places delivered in a integrated way Ideas are being shaped into options for future Reference Group also asked the question of costs and finances for new model

7. Option 1 Do Nothing Deliver services as currently configured This would mean –£11m overspend for Birmingham City Council. –Children’s outcomes would not improve –Equity and access to services would not improve –Narrowing the Gap – we would not improve for Birmingham This is therefore not an option

8. Option 2 Cut Services To make £11m Savings = £6m of 14/15 DSG funded services, £5m additional savings. –Stopping central services currently funded by DSG –£5m from reducing children’s centres budgets, by efficiency savings, reducing overheads, reconfiguring services and refocus and targeting of services, so stopping delivering universal element –Some early potential ways to reduce costs are: 0.4m following more integrated working between CC & HV (new Birth visits) Potential 0.9m saved from achieving breakeven on BCC childcare or cessation of BCC childcare. Exploring charging of services for those who can afford it

9. Option 3 Service Re-design 1 DSG provides £11m financial support moving forward –Continue to fund £6m agreed for central functions that contribute to school readiness –Provide additional £5m financial support for CCs which provide parenting support/school readiness Redesign: –Deliver part time places to 2, 3 and 4 year olds from Sept 2015, which would enable a saving to DSG in 2015/16, and £4m/ £4.5m fully realised for 2016/17 –Involve topslicing the DSG by £11m (will need to determine from which blocks) and/or reduce the average cost per place –Children Centres re-position to provide more 3 and 2 year old self funded provision –CC redesign to a multi-agency approach for universal services, building social capital, and to build capacity to deliver support to early education entitlement providers – a saving for DSG

10. Option 4 – Service Redesign 2 Mix between cuts and DSG support DSG to continue to fund up to 5.5m for early years: Those central services and children’s centre functions which are of most value to early education entitlement and school readiness Deliver part time places to 2, 3 and 4 year olds from Sept 2015, which would enable a saving to DSG in 2015/16, and £4m/£4.5 fully realised for 2016/17. Involve topslicing the DSG by £5.5m (will need to determine from which blocks) and/or reduce the average cost per place Remaining 4.5 to 5M look at reducing costs: Saving 0.4m following more integrated working between CC & HV (new Birth visits) Potential 0.9m saving from stopping subsidising BCC childcare, or looking to a break even model Restructuring or ceasing functions in both central and children’s centres, focusing on statutory requirements, reducing any duplication, focusing on targeted resources, multi-agency approach/social capital for universal

11. Questions To help us shape our re-design options, can you help answer the following questions around those support functions which are currently part funded by DSG. Which functions best contribute to help improve outcomes for children? What do you value most as a function to providing effective support? How do we best deliver that function, giving best value for money? The details of these functions are on the next slide…..

12. Central Funded Functions Support for PVI Settings (including Childminders) Costs for central cost that only support PVI settings, including area like: Early Years Teachers, quality, inclusion, safeguarding, workforce development, learning and welfare £ 4,924,766 support for Children's Centre cost for central costs that only support Children's Centres, including areas like: strategic Management, monitoring, asset management and events £ 655,803 Support for EEE operational cost of FEF. £ 47,587 Staffing and infrastructure Costs that support the running of early years sector, that are not split by function of provider, includes: Leadership, admin, sufficiency, information, systems, EY development £ 1,244,700.00 Family Support staffing and delivery (delivery to hard to reach families and PHP) £ 896,422.00 Parenting Support for settings - language development (practitioners trained) £ 85,405.00 Parenting support for parents (parents on course) £ 157,999.00