bulletin
Sure Start Children's Centres - ensuring value for money
28 July 2009
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)
recently released a report produced by HEDRA (a management
consulting organisation) into whether value for money in children’s
centres could best be achieved by introducing a benchmarking
system, and whether such a system could also be used to ensure that
children’s centres deliver the DCSF’s key objectives. The report
was based on research carried out in seven local authorities with a
total of 18 children’s centres.
The report
The report followed a National Audit Office study undertaken in
2006 which had commented that it was difficult to establish whether
children’s centres were using their funds cost effectively. This
was often due to the infancy of some of the services, because
centres were still in transition, for example, they originated as a
Sure Start Local Programme or Early Excellence Centre.
The information was collated from a number of sources, including
relevant DCSF documentation relating to Sure Start Children’s
Centres, variations of data collecting templates, contact with the
seven local authorities and children’s centres, interviews with
members of staff, a collection of financial data and discussions
with two organisations, namely Barnardos and Action for
Children.
The findings
The report made a number of findings, the most significant of
which was the degree to which management of financial arrangements
and structures varied between the local authorities examined in the
report. These differences included:
- Differences in delegation levels
- Limited cost data available at both children’s centre level and
at local authority level
- Strong potential for some activities to be pooled and
subsidisation to come from, for example, school activities and
health centre provisions
- Variations in operating management structures
- Difference in core services, for example, some were provided
in-house whilst others were on site
- Different levels and types of resources provided by local
partners
- Differences in the degree of development of service
provision
- Different levels and quality of data collection at both
children’s centre and local authority level
- A wide range of different partnership arrangements
Is benchmarking viable?
The report suggests that the lack of consistency of structure,
service offering and financial reporting means that a national
benchmarking system for children’s centres is, at present, simply
not a viable option.
The report further concluded that there is still a strong
consensus that any benchmarking system must be able to be compared
with the way current children’s centres operate. It has also been
suggested that some local authorities believe this means that any
system developed must be done so locally in order to reflect the
variations in local practices. The report considers whether local
development of systems is not necessarily required (by using the
school’s benchmarking system as an example). However, it did
recognise that local children’s centre practices are far more
varied than in the current school system and therefore the design
of a benchmarking system brought into force must take into account
the considerable variations in the way the children’s centres are
run.
How else could money be saved?
Whilst the report takes an overall view on the proposal for
benchmarking, the case studies make for interesting reading.
However, one area the case studies did not appear to touch upon is
the issue of the costs of formalisation of the contractual
documents and administrative processes. These need to be put in
place, not only to formally document the partnering arrangements,
but also to legally permit occupation of the children’s centre
buildings themselves and regulate the relationships between local
authorities and the children’s centre partners.
All of the local authority case studies contained within the
report gave a background to the particular local authority case
study, as well as information on resourcing, partnerships, services
covered, governance arrangements and performance management.
Interestingly, in the performance management section of each of the
case studies, there were considerable variances in whether or not
service level agreements (SLAs) or commissioning contracts were
entered into. Some local authorities had no SLAs or contractual
documents in place, whereas others did. In addition, some parties
had written Designation Agreements between the lead agency of the
children’s centre and the local authority, setting out the terms
and conditions of the agreement.
At no point in the case studies was there any mention of, for
example, lease agreements or contractual documentation relating to
the occupancy of the buildings themselves.
As there is a clear variation between local children’s centres
and the respective local authorities, in relation to the
formalisation of relationships - whilst the report did not mention
this in detail - it would seem sensible and indeed cost effective
to consider that, over time, if there were to be introduced some
form of benchmarking system to tackle the value for money issues in
children’s centres nationally, the question may arise as to where
else cost savings could be effectively made. Local authorities
could consider that an additional way to tackle the costs
implications of the formalisation of SLAs, Designation Agreements,
Commissioned Service Agreements, leases, Day Care Operating
Agreements and other contractual documentation, would be to work
closely with other local authorities and children’s centre partners
or possibly even the DCSF, to come up with standardised documents
which could be entered into between the parties on a relatively
straight forward and cost effective basis.
By way of example, where a children’s centre is built on local
authority land (for example a community school site) it will be
important for the local authority to ensure that the governing body
of the school transfer control of the premises by way of an
appropriate Transfer of Control Agreement. An SLA may then be
required between the local authority and the children’s centre
service provider and, if that service provider is to have exclusive
use and possession of the children’s centre, a lease should be
granted to the service provider, in order to properly document
their rights and obligations as a tenant.
Further complications can arise where the children’s centre
services are delivered from part of a larger building. Here there
may be additional management and operational regulations to comply
with (in which case a Building Management Agreement may be in
order) or where, for example, a service provider is assuming
responsibility under an SLA for all of the children’s centre
services but does not provide one element, for example, day care.
It may be the case that in such a situation a licence or a lease to
that third party day care provider is needed in addition to a Day
Care Operating Agreement between those parties. A Day Care
Operating Agreement could tackle issues such as minimum service
levels, OFSTED Regulations, service monitoring, confidentiality and
other matters.
This is of course just one narrow area which could be considered
as part of a larger approach to procure more cost effective
spending in children’s centres. Whilst the scope of the HEDRA
report was not intended to encompass every possible aspect of the
question of benchmarking or cost saving, the report does contain
very interesting information. It not only addresses the direct
questions raised in the report, but also gives food for thought as
to other areas local authorities and children’s centre partners may
be able to pool their resources to drive further cost efficiencies
into the system.
Mick Suggett and Stewart Gregory are based in our
property department, with the public authority & health
team.
talk to us
save to PDF
The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of
general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries
of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive
statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not provide a substitute for it.