APPENDIX 7: BI-BOROUGH PLAY SERVICES REVIEW – SUCCESS CRITERIA – OPTIONS 1-4

OPTION 1: Retain in-house services and establish a bi-borough play service
Criteria / Benefit / Weakness / Summary
Likelihood to deliver savings and value for money / A bi-borough service could reduce management and central costs. / In-house services have high management and infrastructure costs. / Unlikely to deliver significant savings without having a major impact on front line services.
Synergy with Early Help Strategy / Responds quickly to family needs due to staff expertise and close links with localities. / Lacks full integration with school objectives, in some cases. / Meets the needs of a high number of families.
Sustainability of Model / Front line staffing structure is fit for purpose. / Services have an embedded model of play that lacks the flexibility required to enhance sustainability. / In-house services are very unlikely to establish sustainable childcare models.
Quality / Good quality in most cases. / Some schools have rejected the in-house model due to quality concerns. / The in-house services are popular with most host schools and deliver good quality childcare and community play services.
Impact on Fee Levels for Working Parents / The existing fee structure is seen as affordable by service users. / Subsidies are targeted at families on benefit and working families rather than children in need. / The high cost model will lead to high fees to parents if subsidies are reduced.
How ‘doable’ is the option – time and practicalities? / Very ‘doable’. / Will not deliver significant savings. / The existing model can be retained but will not deliver on key objectives of the review.
Reputational Risk to Council / Limited, but depends on levels of savings required. / If savings are required the impact on services will be significant and may lead to poor services.
OPTION 2: Support schools to take on responsibility for after-school and/or holiday childcare services.
Criteria / Benefit / Weakness / Summary
Likelihood to deliver savings and value for money / High for school-based childcare. / Transitional funding may be required for a period of 3 years. / The level of council subsidy will reduce significantly over time.
Synergy with Early Help Strategy / Fully integrated into school’s objectives and working practices. / Schools can tend to focus on the needs of the school community rather than the wider community. / Schools are key partners in delivering early help strategies and can support this through childcare.
Sustainability of model / Schools are likely to contribute more of their own resources to a school-managed service. / Holiday childcare could close as it is more expensive to operate and less likely to be a school priority. / Schools have a strong track record of sustainable childcare, but holiday provision may reduce.
Quality / Existing play workers will transfer to schools, retaining expertise. / The council-led strategic focus on childcare and community play may be reduced. / Schools are very likely to provide good quality childcare on-site.
Impact on fee levels for working parents / Fees reflect the cost of running the service and subsidies are targeted at children in need. / Targeted support for low-income families may be required to support employability. / Fees are likely to increase by approximately 50% during term-time (RBKC and WCC), and 50% during holidays in RBKC.
How ‘doable’ is the option – time and practicalities? / Most schools have an existing infrastructure to support childcare services. / Some schools may decide not to take on responsibility for the service, resulting in closures. / Schools are likely to take on term-time childcare services if they are supported to do so.
Reputational Risk to Council / Most service users will be satisfied with a school-managed service once it is implemented. / Some services could close. The councils’ commitment to play will be perceived as being diminished. / A campaign is likely. There is a high risk of resistance from service users, which is likely to reduce if alternative provision is secured.
OPTION 3:Seek external providers for the full offer of school-based play and community play services through atender process.
Criteria / Benefit / Weakness / Summary
Likelihood to deliver savings and value for money / High. Several potential providers exist. This includes community and adventure play services. / The market is not fully developed and competition to provide services may be limited. / The councils can determine the level of service required and seek providers, including schools.
Synergy with Early Help Strategy / This can be fully reflected in the service specification for potential providers. / Services in areas of disadvantage may require greater support to be sustainable. / It is possible to contract out services whilst retaining an early help targeted place programme.
Sustainability of Model / Providers will be selected on the basis of sustainability. / The councils will be expected to provide some limited transitional support to providers. / Should produce sustainable services based on the councils’ specifications.
Quality / Existing staff will transfer to the new providers. / Services will be more fragmented, requiring a greater level of monitoring from each council. / Diverse providers should be able to retain quality, but this will require monitoring from each council.
Impact on Fee Levels for Working Parents / Fees reflect the cost of running the service and subsidies are targeted at children in need. / Targeted support for low-income families may be required to support employability. / Likely to increase by approximately 50% during term-time (RBKC and WCC), and 50% during holidays in RBKC.
How ‘doable’ is the option – time and practicalities? / Camden Council delivered a similar approach and some services were outsourced by existing staff members. / The market is relatively under-developed and the outsourcing process may take some time. / Very doable, but will require careful planning and robust specifications.
Reputational Risk to Council / Service users are likely to support new providers once they are established. / This approach may be perceived as undermining play and closing the in-house services. / A Campaign from service users ispossible.
OPTION 4: In-house services to establish a new social enterprise or a joint venture with an existing external organisation.
Criteria / Benefit / Weakness / Summary
Likelihood to deliver savings and value for money / Could deliver savings, but would require a change of culture and a clear business plan. / There has been a lack of intent to tackle infrastructure costs and increase income. / Considerable work is required for in-house services to produce a viable business plan to spin out.
Synergy with Early Help Strategy / Retains the strong links with localities teams. / Lacks integration with school objectives, in some cases. / The in-house services have a good track record of delivering early help places, in partnership with schools.
Sustainability of Model / A bi-borough spin out service may reduce some central costs and the front line staffing structure is fit for purpose. / Services have an embedded model of play that currently lacks the flexibility to ensure sustainability. Core costs are inherently high. / Major work is required to establish a viable proposition for a spin out arrangement or joint venture.
Quality / Good quality in most cases. / Reduced resources combined with change management issues may impact on quality. / It will be a challenge to retain quality in a spin out organisation.
Impact on Fee Levels for Working Parents / Fees will be determined through the contract with the new organisation/providers. / The business planning so far does not properly address likely increases in fee levels. / The spin out provider would have to change the approach to fees to become sustainable.
How ‘doable’ is the option – time and practicalities? / A joint venture provider may add to the capacity of the in-house providers. / A large-scale spin out will take time to establish and requires major organisational change. Bi-Borough spin out is even more complicated. / This is a complex proposition and there has been limited progress to date.
Reputational Risk to Council / A successful spin out could be seen as innovative and support the development of services. / High risk if the project fails. / This approach requires further developmental work to address risks.