ITEM NO. 11

REPORT TO: Cabinet Member Children’s Services Cabinet DATE: 17 May 2006 18 May 2006 SUBJECT: Re-Structuring of Children’s Services – Identification of ‘Areas’ for local delivery WARDS AFFECTED: All affected

REPORT OF: Bryn Marsh, Strategic Director Children’s Services

Bryn Marsh CONTACT OFFICER: 0151934 3525 Graham Taylor 0151 934 3678 EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL: No

PURPOSE/SUMMARY:

To present to Elected Members proposals for the defined areas that will form the basis of local neighbourhood delivery structures.

REASON WHY DECISION REQUIRED:

To respond to the new statutory requirements for delivering children’s services, new partnerships, including with schools; implementing the Every Child Matters” agenda and to prepare for the new inspection regime.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

That the Cabinet Member approves that as a result of detailed analysis of Ward information including demographic, attainment, socio economic and other data: and that after consideration of ‘natural’ communities, that the “areas” be: i. South Sefton: including the Wards – , , , , , Netherton with Orrell and St.Oswalds; ii. Mid Sefton: including the wards - , Harrington, , , , , Sudell and ; iii. : including the Wards – , , , , , ,

That the Cabinet Member approves structure model A2 and that this is reviewed in 12 months.

That a suitable site be obtained in the North of the Authority to provide facilities for the mid and North Sefton Teams.

KEY DECISION: No

FORWARD PLAN: Not appropriate

ITEM NO. 11

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Following the expiry of the call in period for the minutes of this meeting

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:

Cabinet has already agreed to the principle of working in ‘areas’ and this report responds to the request for information on which ‘areas’ can be chosen.

IMPLICATIONS:

Budget/Policy Framework: This report contributes to the development of effective services to Children

Financial: Cost of establishing the area bases will vary depending upon the sites. At present funding has been found for the refurbishment of the Good Shepherd – Sterrix Lane sites, which should accommodate both an area team and other service providers. Other sites will have to be funded from existing resources. Legal: None

Risk Assessment: Failure to respond could result in an adverse inspection (JAR) in 2006/7, which might lead to the Children’s Services being either outsourced or externally directed. Asset Management: Not appropriate

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/VIEWS PERSONNEL DIRECTOR STAFF

ITEM NO. 11

CORPORATE OBJECTIVE MONITORING:

Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1 Creating a Learning Community √ 2 Creating Safe Communities √ 3 Jobs and Prosperity √ 4 Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5 Environmental Sustainability √ 6 Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7 Improving the Quality of Council √ Services and Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People √

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS RELIED UPON IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT

ITEM NO. 11

1. BACKGROUND.

1.1 In 2005, Children’s Services provision underwent some significant changes as a result of the new Children Act and a plethora of guidance from the DfES. This built upon the “Every Child Matters” and “Next Steps” documentation. All of which was reinforced by the publication of the new inspection framework which brought about two new elements of inspection – the annual performance assessment (APA), a self-evaluation of each local Authority’s educations and children’s social care services and the Joint Annual Review (JAR) a three yearly HMI assessment, including visits, of a Council’s provision for Children including all the contributions of all the local partners, particularly the local PCT(s).

1.2 Sefton undertook its first APA in May/June, the formal ‘letter’ from OFSTED, indicates that Sefton is operating across all children’s services above the ‘satisfactory’ category. The service is already well down the line in preparing for the JAR which is taking place alongside the Council’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), and should be completed by the end of June with a report by September.

1.3 At the end of 2005 there were a number of changes to the structure of the service. Some have been relatively minor as a result of small changes in responsibilities, or re-alignment of provision, whilst some have been significant and driven by changes in statute. The recent revisions and amendments to the Inspection Framework and additional guidance from the DfES associated with the Children Act now require that we look afresh at our service delivery mechanism and consequent structures to delivery that service.

1.4 Cabinet agreed at its meeting 15 December 2005, to adopted a new structure. This included proposals to take account of the new national requirements to assess the needs of and provide services for ‘neighbourhoods’. (This is an ill-defined concept of ‘areas’ of significant similarity across a number of statistical and other objective parameters. In Sefton this could mean Wards or more significant geographical areas such as ‘Crosby’).

1.5 It was also agreed that Children’s Services structures should support the needs of communities and reflect Ward boundaries, Area Committees and the social coherence of neighbourhoods

1.6 It was further agreed that any ‘area/neighbourhood’ delivery structure should support the delivery structures and mechanisms of our partners not least the forthcoming single PCT.

1.7 A new Sefton PCT will, through necessities of scale, have to operate across “areas” within Sefton. There is a declared willingness to look towards partnerships with the local authority and provide some real coherence on area identification with those local authority structures. The intention is clear to have co-terminus local authority.

1.8 Cabinet approved Annex A1 and A2 as possible ways forward. ITEM NO. 11

2. Area Rationale

2.1 Required is a major mind shift in the way most people will be working, (see Annex B). This shows the new context in which the service will have to operate. The Council as Children’s Services Authority (CSA) will have to provide professional leadership and accountability in a number of school related and social care aspects. Officers, with other key partners, will also have to coordinate the five outcome areas including the associated targets and performance indicators. This element will have close links with the Children and Young People Thematic Group. There are also a number of national workstreams for the CSA to action, some with very tight deadlines.

2.2 To accommodate the requirement to provide locally delivered services according to neighbourhoods needs, Sefton CSA will have to provide an area/community basis for most of its front line service delivery. Key Senior Officers will have to manage these area/community teams.

2.2 What is certain is that the new context for Children’s Services could involve a single person having a range of Leadership, Management, and Coordinating responsibilities each with a body of staff and a range of different accountabilities. This is wholly in line with the developments envisaged in the National Children’s Workforce Reform strategy.

2.3 It is proposed that no more than three areas would be manageable. However the ‘natural’ communities must be reflected in the “areas”.

3. The “Areas and/or neighbourhood” Team

3.1 Each area team will consist of a multi-agency team with a core membership, which will be enhanced with additional officers depending upon need. As a minimum this would include staff from: Educational Welfare, LAC. LDD, Assessment and Family Support, STEPS, Attendance and Behaviour, SureStart, Childcare, Youth, EiC (BIP), Out of School Hours, CAMHS. The principle function of these teams is to ensure that children and their families can be supported, hopefully before moving into crisis

3.2 There is also likely to be some co-location of other teams split more by geography than directly by need – e.g. S&E and advisory services, portage services for pre-school children with disabilities, Complementary education. Some services will always remain as a central resource but could be located in an area base. It will not be neat or simple

3.3 It is believed by your Officers that either structure Annex A1 or A2 is operable. However it may be that it would be necessary for practical reasons, not least accommodation, to locate two of the teams together.

ITEM NO. 11

4. Statistical Analysis

4.1 Decisions around areas/communities have required analysis of Ward and other data. The report on this analysis is attached at Annex C.

4.2 There was also a more subjective analysis of special educational service usage by school. This added nothing to the discussion except that schools across the borough have a similar usage of special educational services.

4.3 There is a popular understanding that the natural areas in Sefton are recognised as: Southport, , Crosby, , , Litherland, Netherton; with arguments for finer distinctions around the likes of , Hightown, and .

4.4 A grouping of area committees boundaries would result in. Bootle, Crosby- Maghull, Formby-Southport,:

4.5 In any analysis there must always be the proviso that the management arrangements/delivery must address the separate communities within any groupings - Formby is not the same as Ainsdale, Linacre/Derby is not the same as Netherton nor are their community needs.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 Cost of establishing the area bases will vary depending upon the sites. At present funding has been found for the refurbishment of the Good Shepherd – Sterrix Lane sites, which should accommodate both an area team and other service providers. Other sites will have to be funded from existing resources.

6. Consultation

6.1 Extensive consultation has taken place with schools and partners, including PCTs and voluntary organisations.

6.2 There have been no negative responses.

6.3 The PCT have welcomed the idea and have indicated that this would “facilitate a commissioning strategy based upon intelligence of the demographics of each individual area and the population needs”.

ITEM NO. 11

7. Recommendations

7.1 That the Cabinet Member/Cabinet approves that as a result detailed analysis of Ward information including demographic, attainment, socio economic and other data: that after consideration of ‘natural’ communities, that the “areas” be: i. South Sefton: including the Wards – Church, Derby, Ford, Linacre, Litherland, Netherton with Orrell and St.Oswalds; ii. Mid Sefton: including the wards - Blundellsands, Harrington, Manor, Molyneux, Park, Ravenmeols, Sudell and Victoria; iii. Southport: including the Wards – Ainsdale, Birkdale, Cambridge, Dukes, Kew, Meols, Norwood

7.2 That the Cabinet Member/Cabinet approves structure model A2 and that this is reviewed in 12 months.

7.3 That a suitable site be obtained in the North of the Authority to provide facilities for the mid and North Sefton Teams.

Annex B – Operational ITEM NO. 11 Context This is the context in which the service has to operate. Senior managers must operate in different Service Management roles, and on many occasions, at the same time Leader - Professional Accountability

Schools Young People Inclusion Vulnerable

0-14 14-19 SureStart Youth

Early Secondary Years, 14-19 Manager – Community Operations Primary CommAreaun i1ty 1 CoAmream un2 ity 2 Community 3

Area Committees

Work Children’s Trust, Safeguarding; CYPP; CAF; Single Child Record; LAC; Youth Matters; LDD; JAR, Streams Workforce Remodelling and Reform; New relationship with Schools, EIP.

E E n P c H a jo o W o e c y c s n a S h o it e lt a ie a n iv l o h v n t l m y fe d rib e b i e e c u in tio g n

Coordinator - ECM

Annex A1 This is a proposed structure focused on area/neighbourhood delivery

Director Children’s Services

Children’s Trust Director

Schools Children’s Resources

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

operational and professional operational and professional operational and professional responsibilities responsibilities responsibilities

Family Support, Assessment, Family Support, Assessment, Family Support, Assessment, EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, EiC, EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, Attendance and Behaviour, EiC, Attendance and EiC, Attendance and S&E, SureStart, Extended Behaviour, S&E, SureStart, Behaviour, S&E, SureStart, Schools Team, OSHSS, Extended Schools Team, Extended Schools Team, Youth/YOT, Disability Support, OSHSS, Youth/YOT, OSHSS, Youth/YOT, CAMHS Disability Support, CAMHS Disability Support, CAMHS

Strategy, Support, Outcomes and Performance

2

Annex A An alternative structure Director Children’s Services

Children’s Trust Director

Schools Children’s Resources + Independent Reviewing

AD Mid Sefton and, Southport AD Bootle

Family Support, Assessment, Manager Mid Sefton Manager Southport EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, operational and operational and EiC, Attendance and Behaviour, S&E, SureStart, professional responsibilities professional responsibilities Extended Schools Team, OSHSS, Youth/YOT, Family Support, Assessment, Family Support, Assessment, Disability Support, CAMHS EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, EWO, STEPS, LAC, SEN, EiC, Attendance and EiC, Attendance and Behaviour, S&E, SureStart, Behaviour, S&E, SureStart, Extended Schools Team, Extended Schools Team, OSHSS, Youth/YOT, OSHSS, Youth/YOT, Disability Support, CAMHS Disability Support, CAMHS

Sterrix Campus Mid or North Base

Strategy, Support, Outcomes and Performance 3 ITEM NO. 11

Annex C CHILDREN'S SERVICES

AREA BASED STRUCTURE An exercise to group wards based on a set of characteristics

Report prepared by: Ingrid Summersgill Business Support and Information Manager March 2006

ITEM NO. 11

Contents

Executive summary ...... 302

1 Introduction and background ...... 303

2 Structure of dataset and methods...... 304

2.1 Data collection ...... 304

2.2 Analysis design ...... 304

2.3 Standardisation of variables...... 305

2.4 Cluster analysis...... 305

3 Results ...... 306

3.1 Amalgamations from each model ...... 306

3.2 Geographical links ...... 306

3.3 Grouping all wards ...... 307

4 Conclusions...... 309

Appendix...... 310

Table 1 – Wards in Sefton...... 310

ITEM NO. 11

Executive summary

This report details the analysis conducted to support the definition of the boundaries of the areas under an area-based structure for delivery of services within Sefton Council Children’s Services.

The aim of the analysis was to group together the 22 wards into distinct areas, each of which contained wards that were similar in their characteristics.

The analysis, which comprised a statistical analysis using a variety of economic and other data, and a supporting geographical analysis, resulted in a suggested grouping of three areas.

In the case of all but one ward, there was either statistical or geographical evidence for inclusion in a particular area. This evidence was particularly strong in the south of the borough, the east of the borough and some parts of the north of the borough.

ITEM NO. 11

1 Introduction and background

Within Sefton Council Children’s Services, the way in which services are provided is reviewed on a regular basis. As part of this review process, in autumn 2005, the Senior Leadership Team proposed a new departmental structure that was agreed by Cabinet in December 2005.

The new structure was designed to deliver services using an area-based template, so that services for local children, young people and their families would be delivered on a local basis, rather than from only one central point.

It was agreed that for this structure to be most effective, the optimum number of areas was three. This was in line with a number of services that already operated in three delivery structures.

The next step in the process was to define the boundaries of these areas. As a first step in this process, a statistical and geographical analysis of the 22 wards within the borough was undertaken. The aim of the analysis was to group together the 22 wards into distinct areas, each of which contained wards that were similar in their characteristics, with a view to ascertaining the optimum grouping for the three areas. A list of the 22 wards in Sefton is attached as an appendix.

The results of this analysis are detailed in this document.

ITEM NO. 11

2 Structure of dataset and methods

2.1 Data collection

Data at ward level were collated from a variety of sources.

The initial dataset comprised 22 observations, one for each ward, and 30 variables. The variables comprised information in a number of categories including population, economic activity, measures of deprivation, health and education. Sources included Census 2001 data, unemployment statistics and data from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

2.2 Analysis design

There are several options that can be used to ‘group’ data in situations such as this.

Factor analysis (and specifically, Q Factor analysis) is one method that could be used, but as a general rule of thumb, is only recommended when there are at least five times as many observations as variables. In this case, there were actually fewer observations (22 wards) than variables (30), and so would not be appropriate. Additionally, Q Factor Analysis is not utilised very often because of computational difficulties. Another method that could be used is Principal Components analysis but the assumptions around its use are similar to those for Factor analysis and so, again, would not be appropriate here.

Cluster analysis is a widely used method of grouping cases and is similar to Factor analysis in its objective of assessing the structure of a dataset. However, the principal value of cluster analysis is the structuring of data into ‘natural’ groupings, performed on the basis of similarities or dissimilarities. Unlike other classification methods, no assumptions are made about the group structure. A cluster analysis was therefore performed.

Within cluster analysis, there are also a number of separate options to define the model.

Firstly, there is a choice of whether to use hierarchical or non-hierarchical methods. Since the latter requires an initial identification of the start point (or seed) from which to start the process, which was not appropriate here, hierarchical methods were chosen.

Secondly, there is a choice between agglomerative methods and divisive methods. Agglomerative methods start from a basis of no clusters at all and add in each observation – in this case, ward – one-by-one, to eventually form one cluster containing all observations. Divisive methods start from the basis of one cluster and remove each observation one-by-one to eventually have no clusters at all. Effectively, agglomerative methods are in fact divisive methods in reverse. As most computer packages use agglomerative methods, these were chosen here.

ITEM NO. 11

Thirdly, having selected the use of agglomerative methods, the next choice is which method of linkage to use. There are five possible choices: Single Linkage, Complete Linkage, Average Linkage, Ward’s Method and the Centroid Method. Ward’s Method was chosen as it does not depend on extreme values to the extent of some of the other methods, and noting its tendency to combine clusters with a small number of observations and produce clusters with the same number of observations. It should be noted, however, that, to some degree, the choice of method is subjective.

2.3 Standardisation of variables

Prior to performing the cluster analysis, all variables were standardised by converting original values to z-scores. This has the effect of eliminating the bias introduced by differences in the scales of the individual variables.

2.4 Cluster analysis

A number of individual cluster analyses were undertaken, using a different subset of variables in each case. The first model used all variables and the subsequent models used different combinations of variables. These subsequent models were chosen using a combination of statistical techniques and subjective methods. The statistical techniques involved the removal of outliers, clustering of variables, correlation matrices and elementary linkage analyses to identify where variables were very closely linked (and therefore where a reduction in the number of variables was possible without losing information). The more subjective method was to group variables with a common theme (for example, information relating to young people).

ITEM NO. 11

3 Results

3.1 Amalgamations from each model

The earlier in the clustering process cases (wards) are grouped or amalgamated together, the more ‘alike’ they are statistically.

Each of the separate models produced a slightly different set of clusters. This is not unexpected, given the different factors in each model. In each of the models undertaken, there were, however, some common themes.

In the majority of cases, the following wards were grouped together at an early stage in the clustering process, indicating their ‘similarity’ in statistical terms:

1 Church, Derby, Ford, Linacre, Litherland, Netherton and Orrell, and St Oswald. 2 Cambridge and Dukes. 3 Kew and Norwood. 4 Ainsdale, and Ravenmeols. 5 Molyneux, Park and Sudell.

For the remaining five wards, the results were less clear-cut, but in some cases, Manor and Blundellsands tended to be grouped together, as did Birkdale and Victoria (with Birkdale and Victoria tending to group with Kew and Norwood at a later stage in the process). There was no clear pattern for Meols, although there were some groupings of Meols with Molyneux, Park and Sudell at a later stage in the clustering process.

3.2 Geographical links

From 3.1 above, there emerged some ‘statistical’ clusters, however, grouping on a purely statistical basis could produce three areas that would not make sense from a geographical (and therefore service delivery) point of view. The next stage in the process was therefore to link the statistical analysis with the geography of the borough to produce a possible structure that could be defined by three areas.

It was clear from the groupings obtained, that there appeared to be evidence of a ‘natural’ grouping in the south of the borough comprising the seven wards of Church, Derby, Ford, Linacre, Litherland, Netherton and Orrell, and St Oswald (group 1 from 3.1 above). By combining groups 2 and 3 from 3.1 above, a grouping emerges in the north of the borough (Cambridge, Dukes, Kew and Norwood), and a further grouping from the ‘middle’ of Sefton can be obtained by adding grouping 5 (Molyneux, Park and Sudell) with Manor and Blundellsands (a grouping that appeared in some of the models).

ITEM NO. 11

This second stage of the process, linking the statistical analysis to the geography of the borough, resulted in the grouping into three areas of 16 of the 22 wards in Sefton.

Of the six wards remaining unallocated to a group, three, (Birkdale, Victoria and Meols) did not appear to be strongly associated statistically with their geographical neighbours, and their allocation to a group was therefore made principally on a geographical basis.

Birkdale and Meols were allocated to the ‘northern’ group, given their geographical position and, in the case of Birkdale, some statistical association with Kew and Norwood. The allocation of Victoria was considered later in the process.

The remaining three wards (Ainsdale, Harington and Ravenmeols) were linked statistically, but in geographical terms could be allocated to either the ‘northern’ group or the ‘mid-Sefton’ group. The allocation of this grouping of three wards was therefore considered later in the process.

At this stage in the analysis, 18 of the 22 wards were allocated to one of three areas. The remaining four wards were Ainsdale, Harington, Ravenmeols and Victoria.

3.3 Grouping all wards

In the case of Victoria ward, statistically, there was no strong association with any of its geographical neighbours, and as it sits on the boundary of two of the areas (‘mid’ and ‘south’), there was no strong geographical evidence to join it to either of these two areas. On the basis that the statistical analysis showed no evidence of association between Victoria and the seven wards in the ‘south’ grouping, Victoria was therefore added to the ‘mid-Sefton’ grouping.

The allocation of the three remaining wards of Ainsdale, Harington and Ravenmeols was the most difficult to determine. Using the geographical and statistical analyses only, the allocation would be relatively straightforward and would be to the ‘mid-Sefton’ grouping, given the geographical location of the three wards as a group, and the statistical relationship seen between this group and other wards in the ‘mid-Sefton’ grouping later on in the clustering process. However, traditionally, Ainsdale ward has formed part of the town of Southport and there are long established social and other links with the area. Such strong links do not exist, however, for the remaining two wards in the grouping (Harington and Ravenmeols). With this in mind, though noting the statistical evidence of a grouping of the three wards and the statistical association of this grouping with other wards in the ‘mid-Sefton’ grouping, Ainsdale ward was allocated to the ‘northern’ grouping and Harington and Ravenmeols to the ‘mid-Sefton’ grouping.

ITEM NO. 11

The area groupings obtained from the analysis are detailed below:

Area 1 North Area 2: Mid Area 3: South (7 wards) (8 wards) (7 wards) Ainsdale Blundellsands Church Birkdale Harington Derby Cambridge Manor Ford Dukes Molyneux Linacre Kew Park Litherland Meols Ravenmeols Netherton and Orrell Norwood Sudell St Oswald Victoria

ITEM NO. 11

4 Conclusions

The statistical analysis of the 22 wards in Sefton using a wide variety of data and a set of models produced a number of possible small ‘clusters’ or groupings.

Whilst a number of possibilities can be expected given the different factors in each model, some common themes did emerge, and there was therefore clear evidence of a strong association between some wards. This was principally between seven wards in the south of the borough, some of the wards in the east of the borough and some of the wards in the north of the borough.

For the remaining wards, there was some evidence, though not strong, for associating these wards with a particular area, but in the case of three wards, there was no evidence of statistical association. However, in the case of two of the three wards, there was strong geographical evidence.

The statistical analysis, linked to the geography of the borough resulted in the allocation of 18 of the 22 wards to one of three areas. There was only one ward where there was neither strong statistical nor geographical evidence for inclusion in one of the three areas.

The final grouping of the 22 wards in Sefton into three areas from this analysis resulted in areas that almost mirror the parliamentary constituencies, with the exception of Victoria.

It should be noted, however, that there were limitations to the study, particularly in the type and level of data available at ward level, and the subjective nature of some of the information. A different set of data and different models could produce different results, although due to the nature of the data and information being used, it is anticipated that a completely different result would be unlikely.

ITEM NO. 11

Appendix

Table 1 – Wards in Sefton WARD 1 Ainsdale 2 Birkdale 3 Blundellsands 4 Cambridge 5 Church 6 Derby 7 Dukes 8 Ford 9 Harington 10 Kew 11 Linacre 12 Litherland 13 Manor 14 Meols 15 Molyneux 16 Netherton & Orrell 17 Norwood 18 Park 19 Ravenmeols 20 St Oswald 21 Sudell 22 Victoria