ITEM NO: 11 Report To: EXECUTIVE CABINET

Date: 28 March 2012

Executive Member/Reporting Officer:

Councillor Allison Gwynne, Executive Member – Children and Families.

Claire Bibby, Assistant Executive Director – Schools, Youth and Community Services.

Subject: YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICE

Report Summary: This report sets out the results of extensive consultation with service users, staff, elected members and others undertaken between December 2011 and February 2012. A Key Decision is sought about the future shape of the Youth and Family Service. The recommendations set out in the report would produce an offer which would:

Fulfil the statutory Children’s Centre offer;

Provide a better-targeted youth offer while preserving a limited amount of universal service;

Provide targeted support for families experiencing emerging difficulties, particularly by participating in the current area programme and other neighbourhood developments;

Change the balance of the work of the service so that it focuses less on the direct delivery of services and more on developing and supporting community, voluntary, faith and other local groups to make this provision in partnership with or instead of statutory agencies;

Commission, de-commission and re-commission specialist services in a coherent way with partners.

The savings will be achieved by reducing non-staffing budgets and a 10% reduction in the number of posts.

An Equality Impact Assessment is included in the report.

Recommendations: That Executive Cabinet approve the recommendations of the attached.

Links to Sustainable Community Strategy:

The Youth and Family Service provide early intervention/prevention activities for children, young people and their families. The effective operation of this part of the Council’s business will reduce demand and save costs, as well as ensuring good outcomes for individuals and communities.

Policy Implications: There are no policy implications of this report.

Financial Implications: (Authorised by the Borough Treasurer)

The Youth & Family Service review has proposed efficiency savings target of £0.550 million to deliver in 2012/13 and on an on-going basis thereafter, as part of the wider Council savings for this year.

The outcome of the consultation responses will achieve this

target (subject to job evaluation of new posts) for 2012/13 and on an on-going basis.

The Resource Management Service within the Directorate of Finance will support the Children, Learning and Economic Services Directorate to monitor the delivery of these savings during the 2012/13 financial year and beyond.

Legal Implications: (Authorised by the Borough Solicitor)

In determining how to proceed the Executive Cabinet has a number of considerations it must take into account:

Has proper consultation been carried out? In considering any consultation which has been undertaken to date members need to reassure themselves that it meets the following requirements:

needs to be undertaken at a time when proposals are still in the formative stages

must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give informed consideration and an intelligent response

must give adequate time for consultees to formulate a viewpoint

must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken.

The Council is entitled to put before those consulted a narrow range of options or just a preferred option and invite comments on these. The report clearly sets out the details of the extensive consultation. The report sets out all the options that have been considered besides the recommended one with reasons for rejecting them.

Does the report give members sufficient information to discharge the public sector equality duty? The new duty is contained in section 149 Equality Act 2010 and obliges public bodies such as local authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act; to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who don’t and to foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who don’t (which involves tackling prejudice and promoting understanding). It is essential that the impact of the proposed decision on different groups is understood and recorded so the decision makers have full awareness of the issues. An assessment of the equality issues and competing interests of the various affected parties are set out in the report at section 4. Under Section 49A local authorities have to ensure the duty is exercised in substance, with rigour and an open mind

It will be necessary for the service to work closely with HR to ensure that staff are properly consulted through the restructuring process and that the necessary services are achieved and the proposed outcomes for better service delivery are achieved. It is important that staff also understand that where changes are not to be or the staus quo prevails that this will continue to be subject to review particularly in light of the financial climate and the need to deliver statutory services

within significantly reduced funding. In particular it may be the case that staff become subject to cross cutting reviews and restructures as to business support and hence why it is best that no further action taken at this stage – para 3.16(o) refers.

Risk Management: Failure to provide adequate effective early intervention/prevention activity will result in an increasing number of children and families developing complex needs. These will need more costly intervention from, for example, social care, out-of-school and community safety services, and lead to disruption in home life and poorer outcomes.

Access to Information:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Claire Bibby, Assistant Executive Director – Schools, Youth and Community.

Telephone:0161 342 3822

e-mail: claire.bibby@tameside.gov.uk

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICE 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This review is part of Tameside’s Big Conversation with residents about the shaping of

services in the future. It aims to strengthen the work of the Youth and Family Service in a context where we need to use our resources increasingly efficiently.

1.2 An initial consultation report was produced in December 2011, outlining proposals about improved targeting, better use of buildings and moving on with collaborative working.

1.3 During December 2011 and January 2012, these proposals were the subject of consultation with the public through the Big Conversation website, as well as with a number of special interest groups and organisations.

1.4 This report makes recommendations about the detail of the next steps for the Youth and Family Service on the basis of that consultation.

2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

Information received from the Big Conversation website 2.1 112 contacts were made through the Big Conversation website. Of those who provided

personal data, nearly three-quarters were members of the public or representing community or voluntary groups and one in four were male. 70 per cent were aged 30-59. 92 per cent were White British.

2.2 Of those who provided responses:

70 per cent had used the Youth and Family Service or knew someone who had done so.

80 per cent had been satisfied or very satisfied with the service they had received from the Youth and Family Service: “Children's centres-excellent support, volunteer opportunities and training which led to employment.” “The Staff involved are very keen to make a difference and very willing to go that extra step” “Duke Street Multi Media Project in Denton- fabulous value for money and excellent service for young people in the area.”

27 people made comments about “other themes or proposals”. Most of these were disagreeing with changes to services and suggesting an increase in a universal youth and children’s centre offer, or made comments which were not directly relevant to this review (for example a comment about the high cost of CRB checks) although there were also some useful comments about other aspects: “As I understand it, current research indicates that there is a great advantage in providing significant bias in use of resources to children under six, in terms of the greatest long term benefit to society and the individuals concerned. This report does not seem to include this bias, is this out of scope for the report?” “I don’t think it is ok for these groups to just end or for parents to have to run them.” “Home visits are not always appropriate, families may become more isolated. Centres provide a contact point with a range of professionals without pressure but also a place to meet new people and share/discuss issues. For young people, the youth centres and teams provide somewhere to go without appointment and with no pressure. Workers can build relationships and confidences in a safe environment with additional services on hand.”

In terms of what buildings should be called, the most popular response was “Neighbourhood Centres”.

36 per cent of respondents would be interested in supporting their local children’s centre or youth centre by volunteering, and nearly one in four people who answered this question would be interested in helping their local community run centres.

There were 18 suggestions of local groups which might want to become involved in partnership working to deliver services.

Denton, Droylsden and Ashton were felt to be most in need of services (half of respondents identified one of these three areas).

In addition to the responses on the Big Conversation Website, written or verbal

responses were received directly from the following groups:

Area SENCOs; Administrative officers; Ashton Team; Childcare advisers; Denton/Droylsden/Audenshaw Team; Duke Street Music Group; Early Years workers; Headteachers and Chairs of Governors; Home-School Support; Homestart; Hyde/Hattersley/ Longdendale Team; Micklehurst School Governing Body and HT; Music and Multi-media group; NHS Tameside and Glossop (commissioning directorate); Oakdale School Governing Body;

8 Parents’ groups (including one men’s group); Senior Practitioners (Youth); St James – meeting with HT and Chair of Governors; St Peter’s Partnership; Smallshaw/Hurst Partnership; Stalybridge/Dukinfield/Mossley Team; TMBC Elected Members; UNISON; UNITE; Young Carers’ Managers; 19 Young People’s Groups; Youth and Family Service Senior Practitioners; Youth Forum; Youth Offending Team

Equalities data was not collected from the participants in these groups.

2.3 Responses were also received directly from 5 individuals. 2.4 A summary of the comments and themes which arose from all these consultations can be

found at Appendix 1, together with a consideration of the issue. Many of the responses were broadly welcoming of the proposals. There was no response which indicated that the changes outlined should not be pursued, or that there was no place for the Youth and Family Service in the future map of provision across Tameside, although there were direct criticisms of some particular suggestions. A number of inaccuracies in the original document were corrected. There were a number of direct questions, which have been addressed in this report or in staff briefing notes.

2.5 Young people, through Tameside’s Youth Forums, made comprehensive comments about

the activities that they value, and suggestions about ways of capitalising on these, identifying youth centres as safe and positive places to be, where they felt confident and accepted. The role of youth centres in limiting “hanging around on streets and drinking” was emphasised. Young people value opportunities to talk to youth workers about things which worry them. Some young people want the opportunity to do things with their families, while others value being able to undertake activities separately. They want centres to be open for longer hours. Some were looking forward to volunteering, especially those who were older, while others felt that they would not want to do anything which was not paid. The Youth Forum summarised the views of each youth group, and three parent groups, on a “Carpet of Truth”, which was presented to senior officers.

2.6 The Equality Impact Assessment has been updated following the consultation, and the revised version is attached at Appendix 4.

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Improved targeting 3.1 There was broad support for the proposals made in this section of the report. It is

recommended that:

a) Youth and Family Service activity will be focussed on Phase 1 Children’s Centre areas; Groups which have protected characteristics in terms of the Equality Act 2010; Neighbourhood projects such as the Local Integrated Services pilots.

b) There will be an increase in outreach and community work. c) The service will develop its relationship with the emerging Consortium and

develop commissioning plans with them and with other partners.

3.2 A number of responses questioned whether there was a clear and shared understanding of community development work – and indeed whether this is the correct title for the activity which was proposed in the original report. This meant that it was difficult for respondents to give a view about which groups of staff might be involved in this area of work, and what functions they might undertake. It is recommended that:

d) Facilitated workshops will be arranged for a broad cross-section of staff so

that a shared agreement is reached about the scope and function of community development/neighbourhood work, resulting in a clear view about which members of staff should be included in the job group; a further formal decision will be made about this role before the end of April.

3.3 The service retains a strong commitment to developing apprentices. The current

apprentice posts will continue to be linked to this area of work. Better use of Buildings 3.4 Many service users spoke warmly about the buildings that they use, as being places they

feel safe and welcomed, and whose familiarity and positive experiences help them feel confident and supported. There was also recognition of the benefits which might come from a closer relationship between, for example, schools and children’s centres. Greenside Primary School already has the governance of the Children’s Centre on its site, and this was seen as successful. Two organisations expressed an interest in discussions about the potential for different arrangements for running Children’s Centres and some youth activity which are not on school sites. In some cases there is already discussion with schools about using some space for the current increase in primary places required from September this year. It is recommended that:

e) The Youth and Family Service will undertake discussions as follows, with a

view to developing service level agreements to ensure the continuing delivery of the children’s centre core offer, but enabling partners to manage the running of the relevant Children’s Centres/youth activity:

Broadbottom Primary School Fairfield Primary School Hollingworth Primary School Homestart Linden Road Primary School

Micklehurst Primary School New Charter Housing Trust Oakdale Primary School Poplar Street Primary School Rosehill Primary School

Lyndhurst Primary School

St Peter’s Partnership

3.5 Children’s Centre activity will continue to be led by the Council in the following Children’s

Centre areas: Waterloo Denton South Flowery Centre

3.6 There was an omission in the consultation report: the use of the Quality Development

Centre (QDC), which is the former Audenshaw Library building, was not discussed. The use of this building will be reassessed, as it may be that the QDC building should be vacated if there is sufficient training and office space elsewhere.

3.7 There was some thoughtful and detailed feedback from St James’s Primary School, on the

basis of which it is recommended that:

f) The Children’s Centre space at St James’s will be made available for alternative use. This space may offer the potential for providing additional capacity for 2-year-olds, and the market will be tested to determine whether this is a viable option.

3.8 It was suggested by one respondent that the Cycleops building could be opened for wider

use, to provide an income stream for the Youth and Family Service. Unfortunately, this building does not belong to the Youth and Family Service, who pay rent and associated facilities management charges for the use of this building. It is therefore recommended that:

g) Over the course of the year, discussions will be undertaken with the

headteacher and chair of the Management Committee of the Pupil Referral Service about moving the Cycleops project to Whitebridge College;

h) The existing Duke of Edinburgh sessions will move from the Cycleops

building when the bike project moves. The new location will be secured by discussion with the Senior Development Manager.

3.9 There was strong support from the Hurst/Smallshaw Partnership and from local youth

groups for Blocksages and Broadoak Youth groups, citing the lack of other facilities, the local integrated services pilot in Hurst and the value of a safe place to go. Broadoak Community Centre is used by a range of groups and services, while Blocksages is only used for youth sessions, of which there are only two each week. It is therefore recommended that:

i) Youth provision will continue at Broadoak Community Centre in 2012/13, to be

reviewed at the end of the year in the light of the 2013/14 budget position; j) Youth provision will continue at Blocksages until the end of August 2012

while arrangements are made to transfer the youth offer made in Dukinfield to other local facilities.

3.10 The new Hattersley district centre is due to open in the summer, (this is the subject matter

of a separate report about the regeneration of Hattersley) and the users of the Cyber-café have been given notice for July when it is intended that the defunct District Centre will be demolished.

k) The youth offer will continue at the Cyber-café until July, and the possibility of

using the new District Centre will be explored.

3.11 There is no Children’s Centre activity underway in either Post Office House in Hyde, or the New Charter offices in Newton or Millbrook. l) The Youth and Family Service will formally withdraw from Post Office House,

and from the New Charter offices in Newton and Millbrook, as soon as it practicable.

Progressing collaborative working 3.12 During the consultation period, many respondents spoke of the value of interventions they

had experienced which had been part of the universal offer. Others spoke of the value of their close partnerships with people from other organisations or groups, and of the part that volunteering plays, not in replacing provision but in enhancing and complementing what is provided. It is clear that there is much good practice already in operation in the Borough. The Youth and Family Service will continue to support others to take a more active role in the organisation and running of activities across the age-range. In moving forward with collaborative working:

m) The Youth and Family Service will take an active role in the development of

neighbourhood working arrangements and will participate fully in the development of the Hub (see paragraph 3.1.2).

Staffing (a proposed staffing profile can be found at Appendix 3) 3.13 In the original report, options were presented for each group of staff. During the

consultation, it became clear that one of the groupings of staff included an inappropriate group, in error. The original consultation report identified youth locality workers as potentially joining in the further work about community development workers. This was an error. The report should have identified youth co-ordinators as the appropriate group for this further work. This is reflected in paragraphs 3.4 2 (groups for whom there will be no change) and 3.4.6 (further work on the role of community development/neighbourhood workers).

3.14 For some groups, there will be no change to the current situation for 2012/13. These

groups are: Apprentices CAF administrators Customer Care Co-ordinator Families Information Service (already the subject of the Hub review) Locality Managers Senior Development Manager Strategic Lead Youth Locality Workers Youth Workers ‘You Think’

3.15 Area SENCOs, Children’s Centre Teachers and Consultants: the purpose of these

posts is to secure the quality of education provision and support for children with additional needs in Children’s Centres and Early Years settings. The original report set out the challenges which have been experienced in recruiting to teacher and consultant posts. Three options were set out. In the course of consultation a fourth suggestion was made on which these three groups will be consulted. This is that a new post of Early Years Professional should be developed, which will ensure that there is good quality support for settings for the development of literacy, communication, numeracy, social skills, personal development and inclusion. Six such posts would be offered. These posts will be open to Area SENCOs, Children’s Centre Teachers and Consultants. Because this is a solution

which was not in the original report, and therefore staff have not had the opportunity to comment on it, it is recommended that:

n) There will be further consultation about a post of Early Years Professional,

which will replace the Area SENCO, Children’s Centre teacher and Early Years Consultant posts by the end of March 2013.

3.16 Business support: there had been options in the original paper about harmonising the

business support posts. In the consultation, however, it was pointed out that these posts had been evaluated through pay and grading, and that the higher grades had additional responsibilities, which are still required. It is recommended that:

o) There should be no immediate change to the contracts of the existing

business support staff. However, as staff turn over naturally, their posts will be reviewed to ensure that they meet the needs of the changing service.

p) Business Support staff will be expected, by negotiation, to work across the

Youth and Family Service to meet the needs of the whole service as these change.

3.17 q) There will be a revised job description for Childcare Advisers which will

include the tasks of the Childminder Network Co-ordinator, and the latter post will be deleted.

There will not be any reduction in the total number of posts. This new job description will

need to be re-evaluated since the two posts are at different grades. All eight post-holders will be eligible to apply for these new posts.

3.18 Community Development Workers/Early Years Workers/Youth Co-ordinators: there

were suggestions in the original paper that these jobs might be combined into a unified Community Development Worker post. The consultation revealed that there were real concerns that there is not a common understanding about the role which is required here. This has been discussed in 3.1.2 and a recommendation made about further work to determine the scope and function of this area of work, following which a further decision will be made about the current job roles which might be included in the role of community development/neighbourhood worker, in the context of the wider corporate neighbourhood working review.

3.19 Training adviser: r) This post will be moved to the Children’s Workforce Development area of the

Council’s operation. There was no dissent about this proposal in the consultation. 3.20 Customer Care Officers: There are currently 12.63fte Customer Care Officers in post.

These customer-facing staff are needed in those centres where we are concentrating or supporting the delivery of Children’s Centre activities. Because of the partnership arrangements that have been outlined above, it is recommended that:

s) The number of Customer Care Officer posts will be reduced to 11. 3.21 Senior Management: Soon after the Youth and Family Service was formed, it became

clear that there was a need for a named deputy in each area, as the range of the Locality Manager job was too broad to enable them to undertake their borough-wide responsibilities and also provide consistent leadership and management within their locality. A job role of Assistant Locality Manager was developed, to replace the two Senior Practitioner posts which had largely been left vacant for operational reasons. This post was graded I on NJC

terms and conditions. As it was being advertised, questions were raised about these posts, and it was decided to defer a decision about the management structure until this review. The review has concluded that these posts are indeed necessary, to provide support for the Locality Managers in their wider role and ensure effective leadership within localities.

Comments have been received during the consultation period that the appointment of Assistant Locality Managers would introduce an additional layer of management, and this has been considered. The revised service unit structure at Appendix 4 seeks to provide the management capacity which is currently lacking.

3.22 There have also been comments about the perceived ‘top-heavy’ nature of the recommended service. Consideration was given to the post of Head of Service also acting as a Locality Manager and reducing the number of these to 3. In addition to responsibilities with respect to the Youth and Family Service, the Head of Service also has responsibility across the local authority for behaviour and attendance (this includes the Pupil Referral Service, Behaviour for Learning and Inclusion (BLIS) and Home/School Support) and Education Psychology and Learning Support. Given the extent of these other responsibilities, it was not felt to be a practical move for this post also to have Locality Manager responsibilities. The revised staffing structure has four fewer middle manager posts in total than the current structure. Each Locality Manager will continue to have a cross-Borough strategic role, as well as supervisory responsibility for approximately 40 staff. Three middle managers in each team are not felt to be excessive to provide good supervision to these staff. It is recommended that:

t) Four Assistant Locality Managers will be appointed. These posts will be open

for applications from existing Senior Practitioners. 3.23 There was feedback from the Youth Senior Practitioners and their professional

representatives during the consultation that they felt they need to stay on JNC terms and conditions. Arguments for this were about the provisions of the Pink Book that Level 2 Support workers (in Tameside these are Co-ordinators) should be managed by professional youth and community workers who will provide strategic leadership and operational guidance, and about the need for good leadership for the youth offer.

3.24 This has been carefully considered. The Pink Book does not say that managers supervising Level 2 Support workers have to be on JNC terms and conditions, although in Tameside this has previously been the practice. The provision about supervision is not specified for Level 1 Support workers, or for those on the Professional scale. Senior managers within the Youth and Family Service who are doing the same job should be earning the same salary on the same terms and conditions, and it has been concluded that the need for this outweighs the argument for retention of JNC terms and conditions.

3.25 The potential impact of this has been evaluated in the Equality Impact Assessment. Youth workers, Locality workers, the ‘You Think’ team and the Senior Development Manager will retain JNC terms and conditions, as will Co-ordinators if they are not included in the new role of Community Development/Neighbourhood Worker (see 3.4.6).

3.26 A new job description for a Neighbourhood Development Manager has been developed, which the existing Senior Practitioners will be eligible to apply for. There are currently nine Senior Practitioners, and they will be eligible to apply both for these posts and for the four Assistant Locality Manager posts (see recommendation s) above).It is recommended that:

u) There will be eight Neighbourhood Development Manager posts, replacing the current Senior Practitioner posts, which will be deleted.

3.27 Seconded posts: in order to progress neighbourhood working and the flexible

commissioning of services, it is recommended that:

v) The resources which support the current secondees from BLIS, Home-School

Support, Education Psychology and Learning Support and the Youth Offending Team are transferred into the Youth and Family Service.

4. IMPACT 4.1 Equalities: see Equalities Impact Assessment at Appendix 3 for the full EIA.

In summary, there are some potential negative impacts on the following service users with protected characteristics, through the increased targeting of services, better use of buildings and increased collaboration:

Single parents who are currently targeted for universal support through Children’s Centres;

Parents who are unemployed and who might receive reduced work-related support through a Children’s Centre, who might have to travel further to access this;

Young people from poorer families who might not be able to access opportunities for positive activities if the locations for providing these are more thinly spread about the Borough, or if it becomes necessary to put a financial charge on attendance;

Families from the Bangladeshi community in Hyde; Youth workers with JNC conditions of service who may be eligible to apply for NJC jobs

in the management structure. And the following groups of staff with protected characteristics through the potential need to travel further to work:

Lower-paid staff.

4.2 The following mitigation measures will be in place for service users:

Focussing activity in those parts of the Borough where needs assessment shows that there is most need;

A focus on equality groups; Continued delivery of the Children’s Centre core offer; Increased encouragement of local support groups and better partnership with the

voluntary, faith and community sector; Where buildings are used for all age-groups, ensuring that the environment is suitable

for all; Active encouragement of the use of the Flowery Centre by members of the Bangladeshi

community in Hyde; And for members of staff: Continued consultation; Clarity of roles; Training; Careful consideration of staff deployment to accommodate travel to work as near to

home as possible, and to minimise business travel. 4.3 Potential positive impacts have also been identified in:

Local solutions are likely to have more ‘buy-in’ and relevance to local people; Buildings which are better used providing a better environment for staff and service

users; More coherent services providing a benefit both to individuals and families which use

those services, and to staff who are involved in providing services or signposting to services;

Better inter-generational understanding and positive contact through the joint use of buildings.

4.2 Budget: it is estimated that these proposals will result in a reduction of £550,000 in the

Youth and Family Service budget of £4.095 million currently used for this purpose. 4.3 All service users will also be affected in the following ways:

The way that universal services are provided will change, so that the balance shifts towards universal services provided by others;

There will be a rationalisation of the places where service delivery takes place. It is anticipated that this will give a better quality experience in a more effectively-used location.

4.4 All staff will also be affected by:

A reduction in the number of posts A change in balance of the type of work which staff do, moving away from more

direct provision to more community development and commissioning; The development of new job descriptions for community development workers and

senior community development workers to replace those currently in use for some groups of front line workers and for senior practitioners. This will have an impact on youth workers, as the new job descriptions will have NJC terms and conditions, whereas youth workers currently have JNC terms and conditions. This is not addressed in the Equality Impact Assessment as it is not considered that this change will impact disproportionately on groups with protected characteristics (youth workers are more likely to represent the demographic profile of the general population than the rest of the Youth and Family Service). The effects of this will be mitigated by working closely with HR and the the relevant unions (GMB and UNISON) to ensure that the outcome, the timing and the phasing of this proposed change is undertaken carefully and taking the views of staff into account.

APPENDIX 1: Specific issues raised in consultation responses through the Big Conversation and also from those received directly.

Issue Consultation Summary Themes Consideration Improved targetting Changes in the type of work undertaken

Suggestions about how to make these changes effective: support and training identified

Noted: these suggestions will be built into the future model of support and training.

Service delivery A request for easy access to informal advice; A suggestion that provision should be aimed more at children under the age of 6 years.

It is expected that the development of the Hub will assist this. The importance of work with very young children is acknowledged, and we will continue to provide good quality interventions for this age-group.

Better use of buildings Environments and facilities Need to ensure these are appropriate for different

groups, with sound management; concerns about the dual use proposed – clash between case/group work and admin; view that there is too much admin work being done in centres at the expense of community use

These are all matters which will be worked on with staff as we decide exactly how to use the buildings which we occupy: there are some useful comments here which will determine the shape of our activity.

Cessation of youth sessions at Broadoak

Desire for this to continue; offer to accommodate Cycleops at Broadoak Community Centre

We will investigate this in more detail.

Collaboration on the delivery of Youth and Family services

Expressions of interest from: St Peter’s Partnership about St Peter’s Children’s Centre; Homestart about Hattersley Children’s Centre; Fairfield Primary School about Fairfield Children’s Centre; Rosehill School about Rosehill Children’s Centre. Suggestion that Astley Sports College could be better used by the Youth and Family Service

These expressions of interest will be followed up by personal contact

Office accommodation Young Carers are currently at Duke Street and would need alternative accommodation if this building were closed

Noted

Proposal to deliver Dukinfield Children’s Centre services from Oakdale as the main hub

View that joint use of the Oakdale Children’s Centre will mean that the Lyndhurst accommodation is still required

Discussions will continue with Oakdale School to determine the extent of joint use and the implications for delivery from Lyndhurst

Proposal to deliver Children’s Centre activities

A view that this building is unsuitable for Children’s Centre delivery

from Mossley Youth Base Staffing Grading of admin posts Concern about proposals to have a common grade for

all admin workers All posts within the service will be reviewed when a vacancy arises to ensure that future job roles are appropriate for the changed service.

Development of new roles for community development workers and senior development workers

Dilution of expertise must be avoided; changes to terms and conditions for some JNC staff would not be welcomed; JNC Pink Book says that Level 2 support workers (in Tameside terms, these are Co-ordinators) ‘will be line managed by professional youth and community workers who will provide strategic leadership and operational guidance’.

It is only Level 2 support workers to whom this applies. The Pink Book does not state that managers need to be employed on JNC terms and conditions, although there has been an assumption that this has been the case.

Staff roles Desire for increased clarity about roles Noted: this will be helped by work on the service specification.

Customer care / admin There was a request for a clearer distinction between these roles

Noted. This will be done.

Seconded staff Reassurance sought about specialists from other teams continuing to be commissioned; terms and conditions and secondment terms need to be ‘addressed’

There is currently an intention to continue with the range of specialist staff. The Early Intervention Grant, which funds this activity, is only identified to March 2013.

Proposals about the role of childcare advisers and other education support staff for Early Years

Suggestion that there should be a new role of Early Years Professional which would sit alongside the Children’s Centre teachers; Preference for option 1; Concern about ensuring the quality of pre-registration training for childminders.

This is a useful suggestion. We will pursue Option 2. See Key Decision document. Noted. This will be worked into the future model.

Proposals to develop a common job description for some groups of frontline workers

Comments and suggestions made about some specific areas which would need to be addressed in these job descriptions.

These have been noted. Further work is to be undertaken with staff to explore this.

Youth Offending prevention A comment that there is a need to strengthen the specification of the work of the YOT prevention workers in the Youth and Family Service so that it is more closely aligned with the aims of the Youth Offending Team

The work on the service specification will address this.

Moving on with collaborative working Partnership working Comment that existing partnership working is not Noted. This was not the intention: we could not

adequately reflected or valued in the report successfully undertake our tasks without our partners. Volunteers There is a need for more opportunities – and a wide

range Noted. This will be part of the future model.

Outreach Concern that outreach might replace, rather than complement the youth offer within centres; Differences of view about the efficacy of outreach.

There will clearly still be in-reach in the future. Noted. We will build on what has been successful.

Working across school and home

Respondent’s experience had been very positive: this was felt to be a good development

Noted. This will be built into the future model.

Training for transition This is essential; a request to continue multi-agency training

Noted. This will be built into the future model.

Joint working with other agencies

Health services expressed a desire to continue talking about this

Noted. This will be built into the future model.

Health Visitors Strong support for their role in Children’s Centres Noted. We will build on what has been successful. Other comments Equality Impact Assessment No analysis of staff by gender, age or ethnicity This has been updated. Service Specification A number of comments about the need to develop this Agreed. This will be developed with staff. Consultation Concerns about the level of consultation with young

people This has been extensive (see above)

Vision Request for a 5-year vision for TMBC for the future This comment has been passed to Executive Team. Connexions Concern about loss of advice and guidance, with the

reduction in the contract There have been a number of changes to the legislation about information, advice and guidance, including the passing of some responsibilities from the local authority to schools. We continue to work to find effective ways of providing this with schools, within current budget constraints.

Governance Suggestion for a space where agencies/practitioners operating in each designated ‘neighbourhood’ meet regularly/frequently to pro-actively manage case management with individuals and families where ‘private troubles’ are becoming/have become ‘public issues’; Links could be made to other local groups which have existing case management systems.

This is a useful suggestion.

CRB checks A view that this puts people off volunteering CRB checks are part of the safeguarding framework: this is everybody’s business.

APPENDIX 2: STAFFING PROFILE – a comparison of the number of posts in the current structure and that proposed for the new structure.

Post Grade current fte new fte

Administrative assistant apprentice 4.00 4.00

Area SENCO H 4.00 0.00 – further consultation on the role of Early Years Professional

Assistant Locality Manager I 0.00 4.00

Business Support C 3.00 3.00

Business Support E 1.30 1.30

Business Support D 1.00 1.00

CAF administrators D 4.00 4.00

CAMHS Workers (seconded PCT) PCT 2.00 2.00

Childcare Adviser F (current) 7.00 8.00 (new job description to be graded to encompass this role and

that of Childcare network co-ordinator)

Childminder network co-ordinator G 1.00 0.00 (see comments on Childcare Adviser post)

Children's Centre Teacher Soulbury 4-7 4.00 0.00 - further consultation on the role of Early Years Professional

Community development worker E 9.50 0.00 - subject to further consultation

Community development worker apprentice 4.00 4.00 Community Development/Neighbourhood worker New role 0.00 ?40? - to be the subject of workshops and consultation

Co-ordinator (youth work) JNC12-15 5.50 0.00 - subject to further consultation

Customer Care Co-ordinator E 1.00 1.00

Customer Care officer D 17.00 11.00

Early Years consultant Soulbury 7-11 4.00 0.00 - further consultation on the role of Early Years Professional

Early Years Professional New post 0.00 6.00 Subject to further consultation; new post to be graded

Early Years worker E 25.00 0.00 - subject to further consultation

Education Psychology (seconded) Soulbury 2-7 4.00 4.00

Education Welfare Officer (seconded) G/H 4.00 4.00

FIS / PPS admin C 1.00 1.00

FIS / PPS Support Worker E 1.00 1.00

FIS / PPS Manager H 1.00 1.00

FIS information and support officer D 3.66 3.66

Health Visitors (seconded PCT) Band 6 2.00 2.00

Locality Manager SUM1 4.00 4.00 Locality Worker JNC19-22 7.00 7.00

Neighbourhood Development Manager new post 0.00 8.00 (to be graded)

Senior Development Manager JNC23-26 1.00 1.00 Senior Practitioner (Community Devt) I (TUPE) 1.00 0.00

Senior Practitioner (Early Years) H 4.00 0.00

Senior Practitioner (Youth) JNC28-31 4.00 0.00 Senior Practitioner (Health and Partnerships) H 7.00 0.00 – currently all vacant Strategic Manager Soulbury 1.00 1.00

Teaching Assistant (seconded BLIS) G/H 4.00 4.00

Training adviser E 1.00 0.00

YOT Practitioners (seconded) G 4.00 4.00

Youth Worker JNC3-10 12.60 12.60

YouThink JNC12-15 2.90 2.90

YouThink JNC23-26 1.00 1.00

Total 168.50 151.50

APPENDIX 3: PROPOSED SERVICE UNIT STRUCTURE – this provides an example of the potential structure within each locality. The current structure is not identical across teams because of the response to local needs, and the differences in scope of the teams (eg the Families Information Service is managed through the Denton/Droylsden/Audenshaw team, while ‘You Think’ is managed through the Hyde/Hattersley/Longdendale team).

APPENDIX 4: EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Name of EIA Further development of the Youth

and Family Service Is this a new policy? No

Service / Business Unit Service Area Directorate

Youth and Family Service Schools, Youth and Community Children, Learning and Economic Services

Start Date Completion Date (Expected) Completion Date (Actual)

November 2011 March 2012 To be completed by Corporate Performance

Lead Contact / Officer (extension)

Service Unit Manager Responsible Publication Date

Nick Caws (2225) Claire Bibby To be completed by Corporate Performance

Is this a Service Review EIA or a Service Delivery EIA?

Service review

If linked to a Service Review please indicate using the Service Review code (where applicable)

Name (lead contact first)

Job title Service EIA Trained – Y/N

Nick Caws Head of Inclusion and Personalised Learning

Schools, Youth and Community

Yes

Claire Bibby Assistant Executive Director

Schools, Youth and Community

Yes

Summary Box This is an Equality Impact Assessment of a service review. It has shown that there are some potential negative impacts on the following service users with protected characteristics:

Single parents of either gender who are currently targeted for universal support through Children’s Centres;

Parents who are unemployed and who might receive reduced work-related support through a Children’s Centre, who might have to travel further to access this;

Young people of both genders from poorer families who might not be able to access opportunities for positive activities if the locations for providing these are more thinly spread about the Borough, or if it becomes necessary to put a financial charge on attendance;

Families from the Bangladeshi community in Hyde, who may be less likely to travel to a Children’s Centre which is not in their immediate neighbourhood;

And the following groups of staff with protected characteristics, through the potential need to travel further to work:

Lower-paid staff of both genders. The following mitigation measures have been suggested for service users:

Focussing activity in those parts of the Borough where needs assessment shows that there is most need;

A focus on equality groups; Continued delivery of the Children’s Centre core offer; Increased encouragement of local support groups and better partnership with the voluntary, faith

and community sector; Where buildings are used for all age-groups, ensuring that the environment is suitable for all; Active encouragement of the use of the Flowery Centre by members of the Bangladeshi community

in Hyde; And for members of staff by Continued consultation; Clarity of roles; Training; Careful consideration of staff deployment to accommodate travel to work as near to home as

possible, and to minimise business travel, as well as existing agreements about financial support in cases where the place of work is changed.

Potential positive impacts have also been identified in:

Local solutions are likely to have more ‘buy-in’ and relevance to local people; Buildings which are better used providing a better environment for staff and service users; Better co-ordinated and targeted services providing a benefit both to individuals and families which

use those services, and to staff who are involved in providing services or signposting to services; Better inter-generational understanding and positive contact through the joint use of buildings. Background & Scope

This service review is the second phase of a review which was undertaken in 2010 and which resulted in the formation of the Youth and Family Service, which includes the Children’s Centres offer and the Youth offer. The assessment covers both service users and staff. The Youth and Family Service has been operating since April 2011, providing early intervention activity for children, young people and their families. Early intervention here refers to children and young people up to Level 3 of the Tameside Children’s Needs Framework. It does not relate to the work about Tameside’s most complex families being carried forward through, for example, the Family Intervention Programme, although the families who receive interventions from the Youth and Family Service are undoubtedly complex. We propose to make better use of resources by:

1. Improved targetting: Focussing activity on more vulnerable and complex families. Working with young people where they are, including increasing outreach in hotspot areas Contributing to Total place and Local Integrated services areas Increasing partnership with schools and colleges, and with the voluntary, community and

faith sector. Increasing the focus on community development work Actively encouraging local groups to participate in universal and preventive activities Recognising and valuing the contribution of other providers

2. Making better use of buildings Providing activities in the right place Exploring collaborations with other agencies and providers Maximising the use of facilities

3. Moving forward with collaborative working ‘Mainstreaming’ seconded staff

Increasing the generic skill set Engagement with a wider range of partners through neighbourhood working

The policy objectives of the review are:

Efficient use of resources

Neighbourhood working

Working collaboratively the voluntary, community and faith sector The scope of the Equality Impact Assessment covers the changes which it is proposed will come into effect in April 2012, and some proposals which may take longer to implement (for example, those which relate to the production of a single job description for Community Development workers). An analysis of the demographic profile of the staffing of the Youth and Family Service by ethnicity, age-group (10-year bands) and disability was undertaken. This showed:

80% of the workforce is female;

There is no significant difference in the number or proportion of male of female workers by 10-year age-bands between age 20 and 49, although there are slightly fewer in the 50-59 age-band;

3% of the workforce are aged under 20 and 3% over 60;

2% describe themselves as disabled.

6% of the workforce are from a BME group.

Anticipated impact on customer groups & rationale Overview: The aim of this review is to ensure that the best quality and most effective early interventions are continued for the children, young people and families which are most likely to require intervention from Level 4/5 services if they have no support at this stage, to prevent as many children and young people as possible developing more severe difficulties. This will reduce the financial load on acute services and benefit families. The review aims to achieve this by:

targetting interventions more effectively on those children, young people and families who need them most;

ensuring more efficient use of the youth bases and children’s centres which the service currently uses for service delivery;

extending collaborative working, building closer partnerships with other agencies, other Council service delivery teams, voluntary, community and faith groups, and parents.

Employees will reduce the extent to which they provide universal services, and will find themselves increasingly involved in the identification of families which are most vulnerable to poor outcomes. The change of emphasis onto collaborative working will also mean that the focus of their work will be more on building partnerships and encouraging and developing community activity than on direct service delivery, although some of this will still be in their menu of activities, especially since there is still a legal requirement for a universal children’s centre offer. It is anticipated that the impact on those families who receive a service will be positive, providing a holistic and family-centred response to their needs. Specific impacts: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SERVICE USERS Negative impacts There is a danger that young people’s needs might not be met as effectively in the new situation because of the change in the scope of provision and the more effective use of buildings might make access to youth work and support for parents with young children more difficult. Children’s Centres have provided a non stigmatised accessible provision to all families in the borough. A more targeted

focus could lead to some families feeling they are unable to access what still exists as a statutory universal provision. It is possible that making better use of buildings will result in centres which are less exclusively suitable for single age-groups (eg “youth” environments might not be suitable for those with very young families). There may be a specific impact arising from the withdrawal of service delivery from Post Office House in Hyde, as this is the only Children’s Centre provision in an area of Hyde where there is a concentration of families from an ethnic minority. This could impact negatively on outcomes for all children, young people and their families. There may be a rise in anti-social behaviour because of the reduction in universal youth work, which would have a negative impact on communities’ perceptions of crime and dissatisfaction with Tameside as a place to live. The effects may be felt disproportionately by the following: Single parents who are currently targeted for universal support through Children’s Centres; Parents who are unemployed and who might receive reduced work-related support through a

Children’s Centre, who might have to travel further to access this; Young people from poorer families who might not be able to access opportunities for positive

activities if the locations for providing these are more thinly spread about the Borough, or if it becomes necessary to put a financial charge on attendance;

Families from the Bangladeshi community in Hyde. Mitigating against potential negative impact The effect of this impact will be minimised by focussing activity in those parts of the Borough where needs assessment shows that there is most need, to ensure that there is a not a disproportionate impact on those who are economically disadvantaged. Activity will also be focussed on equality groups such as those who have disabilities, or who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. As a minimum, information, advice and guidance to families, signposting to appropriate parent support services in the community and promoting participation in community activity, will be clearly identified as a consistent, universal provision across the children’s centres, available and accessible to all families. Where it is necessary to reduce staff resources to some universal activities such as parent and toddler, stay and play activity, every centre will support parents and carers in establishing their own forums for coming together in an environment that supports their children’s learning. This will build on several good examples where this already takes place in centres. Where buildings are used for all age-groups, care will be taken to ensure that the displays, equipment and facilities are suitable for all. Access by members of the Bangladeshi community in Hyde to Children’s Centre services will be provided at the Flowery Centre, and ethnicity monitoring will take place of the use of this. Positive impacts The increased focus on community development work is intended to result in an increase in youth work and support for parents provided by local groups, tailored to the precise needs of localities by those who know the area best. This may have a positive impact on children, young people and families, as local solutions are likely to have more ‘buy-in’ and relevance to local people. The more effective use of buildings should have a positive impact on both service users and staff, as buildings which are better used are likely to provide a better environment than those which are only opened for a shorter time each day or week. It will be possible to concentrate on ensuring that they are well-maintained, warm and vital places to be. The effect of increasing collaborative working should also have a positive impact, as this will ensure that coherent services are provided in a fewer number of places, which should have a benefit both to individuals and families which use those services, and to staff who are involved in providing services or signposting to services. It is possible that the better use of buildings will result in better inter-generational understanding and positive contact.

Monitoring arrangements The views of young people will be sought through the Youth Forums and those of parents through the Children’s Centre parent forums on an ongoing basis to assess the impact of any changes. The Strategic Manager and Locality Managers will monitor the use of buildings, and the views of staff on the impact of service change on children, young people and families. Feedback from partners will provide information about the wider aspects.

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON STAFF Staff in the Youth and Family Service have provided and facilitated service delivery which will not be maintained. This change may result in staff feeling that there is a negative impact from the proposed changes, which could impact on morale and through this, service effectiveness. Employees will find that they will work in different ways and with new groups or individuals. There will continue to be a focus on supporting children and young people in a family context, which will mean being alert to the needs of parents and proactive in ensuring that these are met, in a way which they have not previously done. There are obvious staff development issues here, and issues about the management of change. In general, there are no obvious relative detrimental effects on groups of staff with protected characteristics. The redesign will generally impact equally on staff in all equality groups. The exception to this is where staff who may be economically disadvantaged may be asked to work in a part of the Borough which is further away from their home, increasing their travel to work costs. A question was raised in the consultation about the potential impact of the proposals about staff currently on JNC terms and conditions for whom there was a proposal that they should move to NJC terms and conditions, which are perceived to be less favourable. It is the case that JNC staff receive more days leave per year than NJC staff. The suggestion was made that this would impact disproportionately on women. The proposals concern 4 Senior Practitioners, all of whom are women, in the case of the proposals about Senior Development Workers, and 11 Co-ordinators (5.5 fte posts), in the case of the discussions about Community Development/Neighbourhood workers. 54% percent of those currently on JNC terms and conditions are women; these proposals affect 9 women and 6 men, which is broadly in line with this proportion, and it is concluded that there is no significant disproportionate effect on women through the proposals about JNC workers. There may be positive impacts from this service review – these have been included in the service users section above where they are shared with service users. In addition, staff experiencing the effects of increased collaboration and better use of buildings may find a positive impact on morale through closer working with others, and seeing people who had not previously been involved in community activity being empowered to become engaged. Mitigating against this potential impact Continued consultation with staff on the new service delivery model. Clarity on the roles of team members. Training in community development where this is needed. Increasing collaboration with other groups (see below). Careful consideration of staff deployment to accommodate travel to work as near to home as possible, and to minimise business travel. Monitored by Strategic Manager, Locality Managers:

Ongoing views of staff expressed, for example, in supervision and staff meetings; Sickness absence; Increase in partnership agreements with other agencies and groups.

Analysis of evidence & impact: Data sources / evidence used Extensive consultation was undertaken during the establishment of the Youth and Family Service in 2010/11. The information in the section above reflects the learning that was gained through that consultation. It is considered that this basic information-gathering does not need to be repeated.

Consultation for this review will therefore focus on the specifics of the review proposals.

Consultation & Engagement

Consultation was undertaken during December 2011 and January 2012:

Who How Members of the public Tameside website Elected members Circulate consultation document personally Parents Summary for discussion to Children’s Centres parent

forums Children and young people Summary for discussion to Youth Forums Staff Circulate consultation document to individual staff

personally; staff meetings Trades Unions/ professional organisations Circulate consultation document; corporate consultation

group Other agencies Circulate consultation document

Conclusions drawn from evidence & analysis of the effects on equality

There are a number of equality risks in this move. Mitigating approaches have been indentified and these will be implemented as the model for redesign is progressed. This Equality Impact Assessment will continue to be developed until March 2012.

Taking action

Issue Action Lead officer

Timescale Equality LPI Further comment

Risks identified above

Monitoring of the effect of this service review

Claire Bibby

November 2011 –March 2012

Monitoring progress

Overall responsibility rests with Claire Bibby, Assistant Executive Director, Schools, Youth and Community. Monitoring will be undertaken through regular supervision meetings and the results discussed with Jim Taylor, Executive Director, Children, Learning and Economic Services. Contact officer(s)

Nick Caws, Head of Inclusion and Personalisation (nick.caws@tameside.gov.uk) Sign off Signature of Service Unit Manager Date

20 February 2012

Signature of Assistant Executive Director / Assistant Chief Executive Date

20 February 2012