« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 5: The Planning Process
'To do integration properly is harder and takes more time' (Key Planner)
Introduction
Interviews with key people involved in the planning process for Sure Start services (or the process within which Sure Start type services were planned) were conducted in 30 of the 32 local authorities. These respondents were in senior positions in the Local authority, for example as Manager for Early Years and Childcare. The location of the participating planner depended on the structure of the Local authority. Some were located in education, some in social work and some in often recently configured departments that cut across previously separate domains. In some cases the nominated planner was one and the same as the Sure Start Contact person, but separate interviews were carried out as the main focus was different. The interviews were conducted by telephone and lasted between 20 and 60 minutes, with most taking about 30 minutes. Interviews were recorded and notes then taken from this recording under different themes and input into N6 for subsequent analysis. Analysis focussed on responses to each of the main topic areas comprising the interview schedule. Firstly, we asked for a description of the planning process, whether this had changed since 2001, how integrated the respondent thought the planning process was, and what they thought had helped and hindered that process. Secondly, we asked about how planning decisions were actually made and which groups had particularly benefited from Sure Start Scotland funding and whether there were groups who were not yet benefited from Sure Start type services. Thirdly, we asked further questions about joint working and key appointments and lastly we asked about how the Local authority consults with and involves service users (this topic was covered in Chapter 4). Specific examples of good practice in joint working at planning and delivery level were also given as illustrative examples of the different ways in which local authorities are moving towards integrated planning. Respondents were candid in their answers about what had often been a process of rapid change within their local authority, highlighting progress, changes in culture, structures and practice as well as discussing difficulties.
The Planning Process
Almost all respondents reported that there had been specific changes in the ways in which decisions and planning for early years services, including Sure Start, were effected within local authorities since 2001. Although a few said that integration was quite well established before 2001, they too reported greater embedding of Sure Start within overall integrated planning and delivery; structures may not have changed as they already supported joint planning, but the overall culture is changing, as the following key planner noted:
'The integration of service delivery (joining social work and education) has necessitated integrated planning. There has been political commitment… towards holistic vision for children'
A language and structure of integration seemed to be embedded in most cases, with a move towards more strategic decision making for Sure Start in the wider planning context. For many, this involved a move towards integrating Sure Start within overall early years planning and delivery and a movement away from a project based approach to Sure Start. For example, in Stirling a number of budgets are brought together within the Integrated Children's Service, with Sure Start money being used to focus on early years' provision in conjunction with other budgets. In other local authorities, Sure Start remained a distinct domain with its own budget and planning or steering group, but this also tended to be integrated into the wider planning process. For example, Sure Start may be a subgroup of the Child Care Partnership with input upwards to the Children Services' Plan, as in North Ayrshire, with Sure Start 'part of the bigger picture now'. In Dundee, a Sure Start Implementation Group, which has wide representation, including from the private sector, makes planning recommendations which then feed into the Early Years' Childcare Partnership and the Children's Services Planning Executive Group, and then finally to the education and social work Committees of the Council. Some local authorities noted the two way process between higher level planning and the working of subgroups, whether a Sure Start group, locality group or other kind of subgroup. Sure Start is increasingly integrated within an overall approach to Early Years. Other policy drivers such as the Community Planning and Integrated Children's Services were often identified as the key processes through which Sure Start was integrated into overall planning structures for early years and children's services. For some, considerable change in planning structures has occurred since 2001:
In Highland, a range of planning partners are working towards a new structure that involves devolved area based planning through Area Children's Services Forums; Sure Start planning and delivery occurs within this embedded context. This feeds into the Joint Committee on Children and Young People. Each area also has a Childcare and Family Resource Partnership, to broaden the focus beyond childcare. The whole process reflects a considerable degree of change; it involved a full time planner supporting strategic moves towards integrated planning. New joint posts, good electronic systems, a range of planning partners, involvement of many agencies, discussions to achieve consensus on a definition of vulnerability and indices of rural deprivation were all noted as supporting this process described as a period of 'frantic activity and growth' with 'people believing in it'.
For others, change has been more incremental, but nonetheless working towards an integrated agenda:
In East Lothian the early years services are mainly planned at first line level. The Integrated Service Planning for early years feeds into the Family Support Group of the Children Services' Planning process. The decisions are made in the Chief Officers' Group of the Children Services' Planning. In 2001 the Childcare Partnership was very much in its infancy; it has now become much more integrated. The Early Years' Planning Group has become more established and sits alongside the Childcare Partnership, and has more responsibility for the Early Years' Planning. Very close links between the two groups was reported. A range of agencies are involved, although as in Highland this does not include the private sector. A commitment on the ground and a will through the Council were both described as supporting this process.
Across the local authorities, then, these changes were often strategic and grounded in the development of new infrastructures to support cross-boundary working for Early Years' activity, including Sure Start. Aberdeen City is another typical example of the kinds of structures that have been developed. They have established an Early Years Integration Group and have moved Sure Start into that group. Other constituents include representatives from health, voluntary sector, education, community learning, social work and the Child Care Partnership. That group is then part of a wider structure consisting of a Children and Young People's Management group, which comprises officers at senior level within the Council, Voluntary Organisations and health. They meet monthly. Above that there is an overarching Strategic Planning Group, consisting of councillors and chief officials from partner organisations.
As noted above, in a number of the other local authorities, the joint working practices for existing committees have been strengthened. For example, in Orkney the planning process for Sure Start is conducted through the existing Childcare Partnership with contributions from education and social work. There is a Sure Start sub-committee of the Child Care Partnership that meets annually and influences Sure Start planning. This process feeds upwards through the Education Committee and the Service Improvement Plan.
A few local authorities had already quite well established integrated planning structures before 2001. For example, West Dunbartonshire had already integrated social work and early years education, but a continuation of existing planning processes, started through an Interim Childcare and Education Plan, was reported to increase integration and joint planning. A Joint Strategy Group which includes social work, education and health works with the Children's Services Committee.
Although the development of new committee and group structures facilitates planning and decision making and, undoubtedly, supports joint working, it is not the only factor influencing the extent to which respondents felt that the planning process was fully integrated. While all reported that there was, for the most part, better integration between sectors than before, many said that there was still some way to go, not least because recent changes needed to become bedded in. Comments such as being 'well on the road' , 'extremely good integration now', 'A lot better in the last year, still more work to be done to develop further integrated children's services', 'integration with health improved immensely in the last 12 months' illustrate this change in ethos and culture. Some cited a 'real change in thinking' and a growing culture of 'collective ownership'; other data, outlined elsewhere in this report, support these reports of collective change, for example the extent of joint funding and joint working at service delivery level. The following example shows how service expansion and development brought agencies together to provide an integrated centre with joint working:
West Dunbartonshire
Under original Sure Start there was an under 3s unit in a regeneration centre which included a community café, classes, library and training. Across the road was an existing nursery for age 3-5. Now it is completely joined up into one Early Education and Childcare Centre and managed by one Head of Centre. Original referral from health; social work had always been involved, then brought in community education, CPN and Lennox Partnership (employment). This was described as a good basis for joint working, with lots of individual examples of joint working around this Centre.
Different partners seemed to be increasingly involved in planning at both the top and bottom ends of the process. The following example was provided in the interview as an illustration of joint working in the planning of a new service:
East Ayrshire
The planning process for a new capital build resulted from several people and agencies pulling together across the LA and SIP, looking at audited level of need and funding. All were round the table for service delivery specification for the centre: Local Public Health practitioner, social work, leisure and communication. It provides 0-5 early education and childcare, baby clinic via local health centre, breast feeding and support group and social work use it for reviews and parent access groups. There are regular centre meetings for staff; family care workers have parents' group meetings. In addition, by different funds, there is an early years addiction worker - takes referrals of children affected by addiction and works with children and the community.
In the 2001 mapping exercise, many barriers to integration and joint working were cited; this current mapping exercise still identified barriers, but the overall message seems to be that integration is becoming established and structures and cultures are changing. Many different partners and agencies were involved in joint planning at a number of different levels. In some local authorities these partners ranged widely, including, as in Highland, the Northern Constabulary, Highland and Island Enterprise amongst others in the Joint Committee. In all local authorities working across Council agencies, and with the voluntary sector and health was reported as becoming increasingly well established, although joint working with health remained difficult in a few local authorities. The private sector continued to be involved at Child Care Partnership level, but rarely at other levels. The extent of voluntary sector involvement varied depending on how Sure Start was being delivered and whether planning at the higher level had been opened up to the voluntary sector. The lack of an umbrella organisation for the private sector was mentioned by one planner as militating against strategic involvement; the same was also reported as influencing voluntary sector involvement. Where a voluntary sector was a major provider in a local authority, they were sometimes in key positions, for example as chairs of relevant planning groups. Health was also sometimes in such positions, indicating collaborative working and power sharing which might open up discussion. The need for openness and transparency, and a willingness to listen and work towards shared agendas regarding young children and their families were all cited as important in supporting integrated planning. For example, one key planner said, 'Everyone on the Sure Start Steering Group is equal' and another, 'we have won the battle in promoting the all round needs of children'.
The planning process in the case study areas involved in this mapping exercise was subject to further inquiry through interviews with different planning partners. The details of these are provided below.
The Planning Process in the Case Study Areas
Introduction
The interviews conducted for the case studies covered similar issues to the main planner interviews but also aimed to get different perspectives on the planning process. The questions included: the respondent's involvement in the planning process for Sure Start Scotland; their views on integration and factors perceived as helping and hindering; how planning decisions are made; views about joint working across sectors; examples of good practice at service delivery or planning level; and questions about user involvement. In both case study areas, a telephone interview was conducted with a respondent from health; in Aberdeen City another interview was conducted with a representative from the voluntary sector and in West Lothian from education.
Aberdeen City
According to the key planner interviewed for this mapping exercise, Aberdeen City is in the early stages of joint work. Sure Start planning takes place in the Early Years' Integration group; a recent move. This has representatives from health, voluntary sector, education, community learning, social work and the Child Care Partnership. It is part of a wider structure - the Children and Young People's Management Group - which comprises officers at senior level from within the Council, health and Voluntary Organisations. Above that there is an overarching Strategic Planning Group consisting of councillors and chief officials from partner organisations. There has been movement towards integration since 2001 with the establishment last year of the Early Years' Integration Group which means that agencies out with the council are now involved. Overall, planning is now much more integrated although Sure Start is still a separate stream. Initiatives are underway to integrate funding, for example to give a more coherent structure to crèche provision throughout the city. The driver for integrated planning was described as the Aberdeen futures scenario with multi-disciplinary neighbourhood teams in three areas of Aberdeen, supported by Change Managers to drive integration forward in Early Years. 'Aberdeen futures has created a context of integrated working between services and with partner organisations. This is a fairly well developed approach to local service delivery with integrated planning'. Overall, openness and trust are reported to underpin integration and this was a point taken up by the other respondents who described such commitment as both present and important.
There was a sense given in both the additional interviews for this case study area that the planning process was moving towards integration, but that it was not yet completely there. Health was not included in Sure Start planning at the beginning. Although there is now an Early Years' Integration Manager and Early Years' Integration Group which meets every 4-6 weeks, the respondent from health noted that much money had already been allocated. On the positive side, there was evidence of involvement of health visitors and a willingness to improve; the linking of the Integrated Early Years Management Group and the Sure Start Group was given as evidence of this. From the point of view of the health respondent, factors that hindered the integration of the planning process related to internal reorganisation within health; that there was no designated person with this agenda as part of their remit and therefore much depended on good will. Factors that were reported as helping related to that good will - a 'general willingness of people to work together'.
The respondent from the voluntary sector also felt the planning process was much improved; although the Early Years' Management Group does not yet have budget control, it is moving towards it. The key planner said that integrated budgets were the aim. The Early Years' Management Group was considered to function very well with representatives from all sectors - 'a comfortable group with free exchange of information'. This group was once part of the Child Care Partnership; although now separate it remains connected to it. There has also been strategic planning overview for at least the last two years. This respondent also felt that there was greater integration of planning but that it would be easier if there was one pot of money rather than different funding streams, with merging of budgets. However, overall 'there is more positive than negative'.
In terms of the planning process itself the interviews suggest a robust process with everything discussed well and evaluations reviewed. There are needs assessments and areas of deprivation are targeted. Three priorities have been identified by the Management Group for the delivery of Sure Start - children who are vulnerable because of their geographical location; children with special needs; children disadvantaged by circumstance, including teenage mothers, travellers and substance misuse in parents. Provision that was first made is continued if it meets the aims. If there is an increase in funding, people bid for money. A combination of targeted and universal services is provided.
Gaps in services were identified by respondents: parents with learning difficulties; services for very young mothers; the need for a more integrated approach especially around education and employment. One respondent felt more could be done to involve service users. Both had reservations about Sure Start being within education. The key planner mentioned that families outwith the priority areas would not be benefiting from Sure Start.
Examples of joint working on the ground include crèche facilities in family centres; a voluntary sector organisation working in a multi-agency way involving social work, education and health. The same voluntary organisation is involving service users in deciding what type of groups they want from the choice available ( e.g. assertiveness work, baby massage, safety in the home). Another example is the provision of a Special Needs Crèche within a nursery school, which also has a family centre. A range of staff from across different agencies are increasingly working together. Within one of the designated areas, Sure Start is working with the New Community Schools team to support local families; this means that what is delivered to families is now coordinated rather than piecemeal as it was before.
Parents are not involved or consulted regarding the broader planning process, but through those delivering services, so they are involved at local level. However, as neighbourhood / community planning develop, Sure Start will be involved in that. Parental involvement and localised and integrated planning is set to develop further over the next few years.
West Lothian
Planning in West Lothian is well integrated with a Children's Services Management Group (with an Early Years' Subgroup); a Sure Start Steering Group which inputs to the Management Group and to the Integrated Early Years' Service Joint Working Group. Having 'one encompassing Early Years' Sub Group of the Children's Services Management Group, is an attempt to pull together in a more integrated way existing planning groups and ensuring that they consider not just initiative funding but all resources contributing to Early Years' Services in West Lothian'. Because the local authority is small, the same people are involved in different groups and also the Child Care Partnership. The health respondent noted that it would have been better to have had more integration from the start, but there is a 'good buzz' about Sure Start. This respondent talked about the common agenda between the Local authority and health, and that Sure Start is part of this.
Planning decisions are made robustly, with small area statistics and surveys used to establish need. The Children's Services' Management Group has good representation across sectors and uses evidence well to make sure services are targeted to the most needy and making a difference. Greater integration is being achieved as new builds, especially, are able to promote it. It was reported by the respondent in education that West Lothian had operated with a Sure Start type approach before the introduction of Sure Start. Joint working was described as good - with the private sector involved in early years and the Child Care Partnership. Attaching health visitors to early years centres was described as a 'great way forward', although there are still a few difficulties involving health at planning level. Integration was described as being ahead in early years compared to other parts of the service.
An example of good integrated working at planning and delivery level is the Joint Working Group planning early years centres. This group includes representatives from education, social policy, Sure Start and Early Years Centres Managers. The centres are holistic and have health visitors attached to them. There are now 5 early years centres, with education in a family centre building. Other examples of innovative practice include working with fathers and young mothers.
Service users are involved in Early Years and the Child Care Partnership although it is difficult to get representatives; they are not involved in planning decisions that take place at a higher level. An example of involving and empowering parents was given by the education respondent: the use of a training tool to get to know parents, getting feedback on the area and then feeding this through the community team. This has brought about real changes using the democratic process with a parent deputation up to committees - for example the introduction of 'buggy buses'. Parents are being listened to and heard.
Conclusion
Overall in both case study areas there was considerable progress towards integrated planning, although integration has been established for longer in West Lothian, partly due to a pre-existing Sure Start type approach. There were closer links with health have been developed at planning and delivery level and, it seems, between education and social policy. However, in Aberdeen City there was a strong commitment towards integration and positive movement in that direction, with the establishment of the Early Years' Integration Group and the links with neighbourhood/community planning. The detailed information from these areas identifies issues common across many of the other local authorities: progress towards integration, greater involvement of health but with some barriers remaining, examples of good practice as new or expanded services are planned for, use of evidence to support the planning process, a commitment to integrated working, and the involvement of parents at local level.
Factors that help or hinder integrated planning and joint working
The key planners interviewed were asked to identify factors that helped or hindered integrated planning. Some of these have been touched on in the discussion above; this section provides a little more detail on these factors. Although there has undoubtedly been significant developments in terms of the involvement of health in both the planning and delivery of services, driven partly by the health improvement agenda, barriers were still reported to exist regarding effective joint working. In some cases the fact that there were not co-terminous boundaries between health and local authority areas made joint planning difficult; it was also reported that it was not always clear who the key person in health should be on joint bodies. Planning structures were different in health and internal reorganisation within health boards has hindered joint working. However, there were many examples of successful joint planning, and even more in terms of joint working at service delivery level. One key planner stated that 'Health is more involved but still has some catching up to do'.
Other factors cited as hindering integration included some continued debate about the different roles and needs of social work and education in some local authorities. In others, clear decisions had been made in terms of where budgets and lines of responsibility should be held, sometimes in social work, sometimes in education and in some cases through newly established departments that crossed boundaries, such as in the City of Edinburgh. One key planner noted: 'There are strengths in funding coming without anyone's name attached to it, it stimulates inter-agency activity, but there are things that social work has to do and these priorities have to be safeguarded'. Professional identities and conflicting priorities were themselves considered as hindering joint planning, for example the feeling that 'every organisation should have a bite at the cherry' which would mean that Sure Start services would not be as integrated as they might; or the need to 'give up decision making powers' for the sake of integration of planning. A few local authorities cited funding issues as hindering integration, for example if not all available funding was 'on the table' for a multi-agency group to decide strategic priorities. A few also talked about some tensions at management level over whether services should be targeted or universal, tensions relating to different professionals' stances on the issue and differing priorities. Time was also discussed in relation to joint planning, as integrated planning was certainly described as time consuming, with key people sitting on many different groups: 'There's more joint plans than we know what to do with!'; 'People don't always appreciate how much time planning takes if you are going to do it properly; it can be difficult in terms of time commitments'. However, changes in management structures and roles also meant that remits increasingly involved integration as part of the management function. Local authorities are also working towards overcoming barriers through the structures and processes of change outlined earlier. In small ways other issues can be overcome, for example Argyll and Bute use video conferencing to overcome time consuming travel in such a rural local authority; Inverclyde are looking at core competencies, hoping to blur some of the boundaries.
Factors described as helping the integrated planning process all suggest a high level of support for the changes described, despite some of the difficulties mentioned above. For example, the knowledge of all agencies involved and the commitment to understand needs and look at these co-operatively, and taking forward key policies collectively were all described as helping integrated strategic and operational planning. 'Collective ownership has been important, and it works the same on the ground'. Enthusiasm, support at senior level, involvement of elected members, and good communication were all noted as supportive - 'people believe in it'; 'there has been political commitment towards a holistic vision for children.' In smaller local authorities the fact that people knew each other and their different roles was considered helpful, but good communication and information sharing existed in large local authorities too. The next chapter discusses factors that were perceived to help and hinder the development of Sure Start Scotland more generally, drawing on the interview and questionnaire data from the Sure Start Scotland Contact Officer interviews.
New or joint appointments
Most respondents described the importance of new or key appointments in driving forward the integrated planning agenda for early years and Sure Start, although a few local authorities, especially the smaller ones, did not describe new or joint appointments. Most such appointments did not use Sure Start funds; funds such as the Changing Children's Services Fund might be used, or funding from a range of sources, including Sure Start. Some posts were linked with other strategic developments such as the New Community Schools. For example, Falkirk has Integration Support Officers for the roll out of New Community Schools. Many posts fitted into the emergent or existing structures within the local authorities as described earlier.
Although no one model emerged from the interview data, it was clear that a range of posts helped to support integrated planning through the links they afforded across agencies or their remit to drive the integration agenda forward. In many local authorities, new heads of service appointments for Early Years and Child Care, or similar, were described as enabling greater integration. Some local authorities appointed specific integration officer or manager posts. East Ayrshire, for example, has an Integrated Children's Services Manager, and Inverclyde has a cross agency post within its Integrated Children's Service Project. Posts made links across projects, across council areas (such as social work and education) and between the local authority and health. Renfrewshire, for example, has a health officer, linking health and social work; South Lanarkshire has planning officers and Glasgow a Children's Change Manager and Child Care Strategy Manager. Several local authorities also mentioned the Child Health Commissioner role in this context and some mentioned Hall 4 as providing good opportunities for driving preventive work with very young children. Several described joint funding of posts at service delivery level, for example health visitor posts in Aberdeenshire, although for other local authorities, joint delivery did not necessarily mean joint funding but joint working. The following example illustrates how difficulties associated with joint working can be overcome:
Falkirk
The CLASP project brings together Aberlour Childcare Trust, health and social work to look at the implications of having a health visitor working in an organisation where there is no health management or leadership. Leadership is less of an issue as long as one knows who leader is, but there were issues of clinical supervision and professional development. The health board worked with us to draft the job description and to work out how the person would be supported in post.
Planning decisions, priorities and needs' assessment
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, we asked the planner respondents about how planning decisions for Sure Start Scotland were made, including prioritisation and needs assessment, within the context of each local authority's planning process. Authorities differed in the extent to which budgets were devolved to local (area) or ground (service/group) level and where decisions about expanding or developing services were made. For example, in Aberdeenshire, the Sure Start Steering Group looks at bids and makes joint decisions on how to spend budget. In Fife, the local children's services groups, co-ordinated by local integration managers under the Integrated Community Schools Framework, and theme groups, drawing on local knowledge, look at proposals against the Sure Start and Changing Children's Services' Fund criteria and other funding streams. These recommendations then go up to the Children Services Group which makes the decision on whether proposals meet priority need. In other cases the upward reporting was for approval of a decision made nearer to the level of implementation. Many local authorities discussed working within priorities established within current plans, such as the Children's Services Plan, and with a range of needs assessments carried out in diverse ways. However, as noted above, all local authorities were working within or moving towards integrated planning processes that linked vertically, from ground to strategic level and often horizontally as well, involving different agencies and partners and different plans. Many described joint decision making within the context of overarching plans and priorities that had been developed in recent years.
The planning of Sure Start monies allocation draws upon a wide variety of information sources to establish need. Services that existed prior to 2001 were generally developed on the basis of needs assessments and priorities established in Children's Services Plans, with on-going review and further needs assessments for current plans. A few local authorities had commissioned research to assist in needs assessment. Some draw upon standard on-going information sources and formal needs assessments. Examples of this approach include using existing agreements such as the Regeneration Outcome Agreement and the needs assessments that informed it, or needs assessments that informed Community Planning. When formal needs assessments had been done, as was the case in many local authorities, these were made use of in the planning and prioritising process. Scottish Borders, for example, noted that they had conducted an authority wide needs assessment, not just for Early Years. This informed service development with the Welfare Benefits Advice service stemming from that. Some local authorities used deprivation indices to help identify areas of greatest need, for example in Aberdeenshire, or their own local knowledge about areas of greatest need. Other more specifically local needs assessments were used in some local authorities, such as Glasgow, where local needs assessments are conducted prior to decisions being made. Opinions are sought from a range of sectors and include local people and local forums. The following example was given by Glasgow to demonstrate the effectiveness of joint planning and working. It shows how a combination of local needs assessment, the input from local people and the joint commitment across the council and health led to the development of a new service.
Glasgow
A new family learning centre has been set up, led by a small local voluntary sector organisation. A local forum audit found that there was no under 3s provision in this area. Culture and Leisure, social work, education, health and Children's Change are all pulling together a new centre using an existing building. However, this is not Local authority led. The audit through the local forum brought about the change. This is multi-agency working on the ground. There will be a local management committee.
A few local authorities felt that there was not much specific local needs assessment work done for Sure Start, because it is just part of other broader approaches, which involved mapping services and identifying gaps more generally for children's services or in identifying vulnerable families. The audit process was also mentioned by some respondents as helping decision making. Decisions are sometimes based on the needs of a particular community or particular groups who were not currently being serviced but were vulnerable.
Several local authorities felt that an understanding of need was gained via consultation and also from service providers and from planning priorities and that this fed directly into the planning process. Perth and Kinross described a process that utilised information from the ground, through their Local Information Networks and priorities from the Children's Services Plan. Other local authorities had different mechanisms to bring in information from the ground, such as Community Wardens in South Lanarkshire. Small local authorities, such as Shetland and Stirling suggested that they knew where the gaps were, and informal needs assessments took place.
From the planning interviews and as noted in Chapter 3, a number of local authorities mainly used Sure Start funding to keep and strengthen existing services, for example 'money allocated to Sure Start is largely about maintaining existing projects'. Major funding decisions had already been made when the Sure Start initiative began and these overall priorities are now integrated into wider planning both within children's services and beyond. This provides the potential for greater joined up thinking and working. In many local authorities, Sure Start developed through centre-based provision and this continues to be a major and expanding focus, as noted earlier. While the short term nature of the funding was a criticism made in the earlier mapping, and still occasionally within this exercise, the scope for mainstreaming as funding was more assured meant that positive steps could be made to plan for service development.
Building capacity by supporting and expanding services that are already there is one way in which local authorities could plan and involve agencies delivering services. Models of service delivery were often already trying to provide holistic, one stop, flexible support to vulnerable families with young children. The challenge now was to expand this and integrate across sectors.
The planner respondents discussed the way in which Sure Start services developed to support vulnerable families and young children. A tension between providing universal and targeting services was identified in the 2001 mapping exercise. It still seemed that issues of balance between universal and targeted services pertained within an overall ethos of developing non-stigmatised services. The processes of needs assessment outlined above helped to identify gaps as well as areas of need. Local authorities tended to describe their approach as targeting in a universal context, thus supporting the most vulnerable in a non-stigmatised way. For example deprived areas might be targeted or distinct groups such as drug misusing parents or those with mental health problems; vulnerable families could be supported by additional services within universal provision and by a mix of services as Chapter 3 documents.
Funding issues
Planners raised a number of issues to do with the nature of the funding allocation process. Money is allocated from the Scottish Executive Education Department and in most cases enters the local education department via the GAE process; however, sometimes the allocation is to social work and sometimes to newly integrated departments. However, it is not specifically ring-fenced. In most local authorities this is not an issue and indeed was seen to provide greater scope for integration. In a few local authorities, the lack of ring-fencing means that Sure Start monies may be eroded under pressure of other council requirements. A few also expressed concern about other priorities to safeguard children, particularly in relation to Child Protection. As noted in the 2001 mapping exercise, lack of baseline provision hampered a few local authorities in how they could develop Sure Start in their areas. Having clear plans was sometimes cited as a way to ensure the budget for a service, and, as noted above, it is now possible for longer term planning to be made within known budgets.
The variety of funding streams of which Sure Start Scotland is a part was often described as complex and that this could have both positive and negative effects. In multi-agency working, this allows for joint funding, joint ownership and shared responsibility, but also means that many people have to be involved 'to get things established'. The continued short term nature of some funding streams was also mentioned, meaning that projects might be funded for only one or two years, and post continuity not guaranteed. Some also said that they experienced problems of recruitment partly although not entirely for this reason. However, there were also examples of mainstreaming of posts (or new posts as outlined earlier) or of 'getting used to short term posts'.
Planners spoke of a range of top-down and bottom up processes involved in the allocation of funding. Some planners gave an impression of measured, orderly, top-down budgeting processes - 'Agree funding at outset…rolling programme of services'. Others spoke of funding more responsively - 'dependent on local need and local decision making and may come back for more money'.
Several planners mentioned the need for an alternative source for capital funds. Some local authorities are still short of accommodation and this could hamper service development as the following examples suggest - 'and another major difficulty is accommodation…we inherited very little in the way of accommodation' and 'sometimes it is difficult to get capital costs e.g. for meeting rooms, so (there is a need to) put funding into physical as well as people resources'.
Groups who are benefiting from Sure Start Scotland and gaps in provision
The majority of respondents spoke of using the Sure Start Scotland funding to expand the coverage and availability of existing 0-3 services to reach the most vulnerable children and families. This could be done in the following ways - through more outreach, extending provision for very young babies, playgroups, crèches, pre-5 learning support, transitional arrangements beyond thee years, providing services for families who would not have accessed services otherwise, providing services from the family rather than the service point of view to ensure integrated support, and the development of new family support teams, or equivalent, and new or expanded centres. Supporting voluntary sector services such as Homestart and Homelink were particularly important in some local authorities; voluntary sector involvement was established in most but not all local authorities. The following example is of voluntary sector involvement in new service development:
Moray
There are a growing number of drug-abusing parents, and therefore vulnerable babies and young children. Previously mothers and babies went 60 miles away to Aberdeen, to Richmond Hill House residential unit for assessment and support. Moray are now planning for more a local service of assessment and programmes with young parents. They have bought in Richmond Hill House to do multi-agency training to underpin this. For the residential element they have a fee-based fostering service and are looking to get a couple of foster carers to take on mothers and babies in same way as Richmond Hill House. There is some SS funding in next year's budget to provide ancillary support e.g. support worker to assist foster carer in the home, support to move on to own tenancies. Also working to the 'domain model', identifying all aspects of a person's life and looking to get local services involved e.g. local psychiatric services, health visiting, social work. They are bringing together SS funding, fostering budget money, and getting different services to prioritise these cases at a local level. Social work, health and the voluntary sector are all involved.
There was a diversity of approaches concerning targeting specific areas, neighbourhoods or areas of deprivation. A few local authorities preferred not to target but to look for a local complexion on services. Others spoke of very purposeful targeting of areas of rural isolation and rural/urban deprivation. Others found that Sure Start money enabled services to reach region-wide, and penetrate into rural areas to provide support for example to isolated mothers with post-natal depression or mental health problems.
Sure Start money has supported staff training and development, enabling staff to think laterally and open their horizons and to develop specialist skills and core competencies that can cut across existing professional boundaries.
Planners were very positive about Bookstart initiatives which were seen as a highly cost-effective way of developing bonding between parent and child and also universal in approach. Aberdeenshire cited a 'Books for Blokes' programme linked to the local oil industry, where men got time off to read with their children.
As noted above, many local authorities expressed some concern over the dilemma caused by balancing universal and targeted services. Lack of funds and therefore lack of a holistic or universal approach means there are always some groups just out of the criteria for targeted services, yet may still be vulnerable, or groups that remained very hard to reach. This means that some early preventive work cannot be achieved. Some local authorities felt they were not able to provide universal early intervention, that there were families just out of targeted areas or not meeting their admission criteria, perhaps being just over the cut off point. More of the same basic services were needed to meet demand e.g. for example more open access to respite childcare or more wrap-around for 0-3 year olds.
Many also wanted to be able to provide more early intervention with the most vulnerable. Hard to reach groups were often a particular difficulty e.g. young parents and teen mums; dads were described as hard to engage and there was a lack of male staff to work with them. More rural areas faced problems due to geographical spread and small numbers to justify services for more isolated families. A few local authorities spoke of the desire to do more for traveller families while others spoke of the difficulty of catering for transient populations with substance misuse issues. A few wanted to do more for ethnic minority families or with homeless families. Most wanted to meet the needs of a range of vulnerable families by bringing them into services, supporting access to universal provision rather than developing specialist provision. A minority of local authorities thought there was no real issue of specific groups benefiting less from Sure Start, feeling that their services were meeting need.
Summary and Conclusion
These interviews suggest that considerable progress has been made towards integrated planning, where Sure Start operates within wider structures. There was evidence of needs assessments and a range of discussions and consultations that feed into the planning process. A combination of top down and bottom up approaches suggest, on the whole, a sound iterative process of priority setting.
The factors that seem to facilitate more integrated planning include an openness and a trust between the workers who are involved; good local networks and pre-existing good working relationships, the development of integrative structures and, finally, a willingness to relax professional and sectoral boundaries in order to engage openly with each other. Factors that have hindered development include different planning processes, and planning cycles within different sectors. Overall, the interview data suggest that:
- All local authorities, from whatever baseline they were starting at, have moved towards integrated planning and joint working
- Many have new structures in place to support integrated planning, linking local or thematic groups to the wider Early Years' or Children's Services Planning process
- Many have new posts, sometimes joint posts, with the remit to support integration
- All local authorities could provide examples of good joint working at planning and delivery levels
- All local authorities, with some reservations, suggested that there has been a change in culture towards integration and a willingness to overcome barriers and difficulties
- Although a range of different needs assessments informed the planning process, there were still areas of unmet need and considerable variation in how information and knowledge was generated for planning purposes
« Previous | Contents | Next »