Intro: The Registration & Inspection Unit is responsible under the Children's Act for the regulation & inspection of provision. In 1998 the Unit proposed changes to the standards and consulted upon them. Notwithstanding the comments, concerns were registered by a number of providers at the Partnership meeting on 1 October 1998. This has led to further meetings and a welcome reconsideration as set out in the report below - agreeing Option 2 (essentially deferring the controversial bits). Sorry - not all the background reports are available - contact Imelda Richardson at the Unit, or Roger Bates; Bob Lewis, or Lil Bowers from the Partnership for more background info (or send them in)
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 25 JANUARY 1999
REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION POLICY CHILDREN'S DAY CARE SERVICES
(Report of Director of Social Services) (Citywide)
Purpose of Report
1 To answer the criticisms raised by the Bristol Independent Providers Network of:- Social Services Committee report of 2/3/98, which proposed policy changes, to raise the standards of service available for 0-8 year olds in day care in Bristol, and the Social Services Committee report of 13/7/98, which reported on the findings and outcomes arising from the consultancy process undertaken with parents/carers of children using day care in Bristol.
Background
2. The government agenda has placed regulation as a national priority for Social Services Departments and at the centre of its White Paper "Modernising Social Services". The results of this should be stronger protection for vulnerable children, and great assurance that high standards will be met everywhere. This will give greater clarity and consistency for service providers as to what standards they will be required to meet. There will be three tiers of standards; through legislation, through national standards imposed by regulation or Section 7 guidance and local standards imposed by the proposed Commissions for Care Standards.
3. Although the DfEE Consultation on the Regulation of Early Education and Day Care is not expected until early 1999, it would be unusual if it did not also fit within the pre-existing government agenda for better regulation.
4. The tensions involved in providing high quality and affordable child care will exercise the consultation outcomes. However the Welfare to Work, Sure Start initiatives and introduction of the Working Family Tax Credit and Child Care Tax Credit in October 1999 will not only increase demand for good quality day care but also enable finance towards it. The other DfEE policies for a National Childcare Strategy, Early Years Development Plans and Partnerships, Out of School Initiative, Early Excellence Centres, Desirable Learning Outcomes, Baseline Assessment all add to an emerging national policy to improve child care resources and access to them.
5. The standards proposed for Day Care Services in Bristol are child focused and seek to enable minimum standards to be improved, particularly for 0-2 year olds.
6. The Social Services Committee of 2/3/98 agreed a report for consultation and 13/7/98 agreed the policy following consultation.
7. The Bristol Independent Providers Network, have criticised the consultation and policy changes and written a report for the Social Services Committee to consider today.
8. Thirteen parents using the BBC Work place Nursery have signed a standard letter objecting to the policy changes in terms of the implications for this setting. The Personnel Manager, Programmes for the BBC Workplace Nursery has also sent a letter criticising the consultation and policy changes (Appendix 1) because of implications for this setting.
9. The Barton Hill Settlement Co-ordinator has sent a letter (Appendix 2) stating the implications of the policy changes for this setting indicating also that it should be treated as a Family Centre, rather than a Playgroup, Crèche and Sessional Day Care.
10. The nursery manager of the Easton Community Nursery has sent a letter which refers to the school girls mother and baby provision run by the Education Department (Appendix 3).
Consultation
11. The consultation process has been criticised for the following:
 | Questionnaire did not ask about cost. |
This was an important omission which could influence parents responses, however the object of these proposed standards was to maximise the safety and quality of provision.
| Questionnaire asked biased questions. |
The purpose of the questionnaire was to ask parents what quality of care they wanted for their children and their opinions about the range of standards proposed.
| The questionnaire response rate was under presentative at 40% return. |
The Audit Commission and Social Services Inspectorate Joint Review questionnaires of service users of Bristol Social Services was considered representative by them at a 33% return for Bristol compared with a national average response of 39.5%.
| The Consultation meeting feedback was misleading. |
The figures given for all of the meetings were derived from the minuted and written comments made by each discussion group. The comments were grouped and percentaged against the number of respondents.
| No consultation was made with the Early Years Partnership. |
The Early Years Partnership were informed of the proposals, consultation and outcome.The decision making forum for the report is the Social Services Committee.
| The two members of the Inspection Advisory Panel representing the Independent and Private section do not work in the Private sector. |
Standards Proposed
12. Increasing staffing ratio for 0-12 months old from 1:3 to 1:2.
13. The Children Act 1989 Regulation 6.4.1 allows for this higher staff ratio already, therefore meeting the Government's agenda for legislative standards (Ref Modernising Social Services White Paper Section 4.49).
14. This standard, like all of the others was proposed from a child centred approach. If we are serious about ensuring that all children have an equal start in life it is, therefore, in the first few months and years that we have to establish positive opportunities for them. Peter Elpher and Ann Robinson (1993), "Day Care for Children Under Three", NCB No. 116 refer to research which defines good quality day care for babies as "staff who were trained and supported, with a specially planned curriculum, small group sizes and high staff child ratios". P Elpher (1996) "Building Intimacy in Relationships with Young Children in Nurseries" Early Years V16 No. 2 pp30-34 describes how a warm and responsive relationships between children and adults in early years settings are important in supporting children's learning and development. However in practice such relationships may not be happening very reliably. P Elpher like V Fahlberg is an attachment theorist who has looked at how the work of J Bowlby has been modified by subsequent research and considers its implications for the day care of young children (Ref P Elpher 1997, Attachment Theory and Day Care for Young Children NCB No. 155).
15. The principal underpinning all of this work is that a baby requires individual attention from a known adult, one who is familiar, and offers continuity of care that the baby can trust in and develop from.
16. The staff child ratio proposed sought to recognise the baby's need for a familiar adult who is sensitive and responsive to them at all times. The numbers of babies in day care is increasing as the number of working parents increase. (Ref Institute of Economic Affairs (1998) notes that 67% of women return to work within eleven months of their child being born, and 50% return to work within eight months of their child being born).
17. The concern that a 1:2 ratio will not improve quality because unqualified staff will be employed, fails to take into account the present requirement that 50% of all staff in a setting must be qualified.
18. The concern about increased costs to parents is a real one and highlights the tensions between good standards of day care and affordable day care. If the safety of children were compromised by lower staff child ratios, cost would be less relevant. The actual cost of this proposal will vary from provider to provider.
19. Standard : That the (ideal) maximum number of children under two in any one room be six. Helen Penn "Sizing up Babies Needs" in Nursery World 18 Jan 1997 and Comparing Nurseries (1997), Paul Chapman noted that in Spain and Italy a maximum group for under twos was six. The principal underpinning this standard was the child's need for an environment which would enable their safe development.
20. This standard was agreed by Avon Social Services as a good practice standard and has not reduced the numbers of places available.
21. The standards concerning:
Crawling and coasting environment
22. There is flexibility to this recommendation if the premises are in an inner city area and sufficient space is not available.
23. These are all agreed by the Bristol Provider Independent Network, with the proviso that consideration should be given to existing providers who have limited existing facilities.
24. The standards concerning staff and post qualification experience for supervisors (for 0-2 year olds), managers and deputy managers of day care settings are criticised by the Barton Hill Settlement Co-ordinator as too restrictive but felt by the Bristol Providers Independent Network to be not stringent enough. The Bristol Providers Independent Network suggest uplifting these standards to:-
Two years previous experience of caring for 0-2 year olds in a
day care setting for a supervisor.
Three to five years post qualification experience for a manager of a day care
setting. Two years post
qualification experience for a deputy manager of a day care setting.
25. The standard concerning a 'fit person' interview for a new manager and deputy manager, is criticised by the Bristol Independent Providers Network, BBC Workplace Nursery and Barton Hill Settlement Co-ordinator.
26. The Children Act 1989 Regulation 7.32 already charges the local authority to have regard to whether someone is fit to look after children aged under eight years. Personal references, health references and police checks are obtained by the Registration and Inspection Unit in order to establish a minimum check on staff 'fitness' but this does not meet all of the issues listed in the legislation.
27. The White Paper "Modernising Social Services" (para 4.4.9) says that "some standards will be spelled out at a national level (for example required procedures for the proper selection of vetting of staff)".
28. The proposal rather than undermind the recruitment, selection and vetting practice of the voluntary and private sector, would assist them in validating a consistent standard which can be developed in partnership with Registration and Inspection.
29. Standards concerning unannounced inspections, information to service users concerning complaints procedures and Registration and Inspection Unit address and telephone number are agreed by all respondents.
Options
Option 1
Implement all the standards agreed by Social Services Committee on 13/7/98, after October 1999 when Family Tax Credits have been implemented.
Use the intervening time to establish a work group comprising of representatives from the voluntary and independent provider sector and Registration and Inspection staff to agree the implementation including a joint working group for the fit person standard.
Option 2 (as agreed)
A) Implement the standards agreed by Bristol Independent Providers Network only.
B) Reconsider the proposals following the DfEE Consultation outcome report due early 1999.
Option 3
Commission an audit of quality of provision of care for under two year olds in all settings in Bristol. Consider standards required from the results of the audit.
Given the desire to work in partnership with providers, on balance officers would recommend Option 2.
Financial Implications
30. The financial implications in increasing child staff ratios from 3:1 to 2:1 for 0-12 month old babies, can be met by the use of Family Tax Credits and thereby maximise the safety and quality of this provision.
Policy Implications
31. Local authority managed day care services will have to meet the proposed standards as well as the private and voluntary sector.
Legal Implications
32. In seeking to establish standards above the requirements of the Children Act 1989, the Committee should be satisfied that these standards are reasonable in nature.
Recommended
That the Social Services Committee considers the reports and agrees Option 2 in paragraph 29.
Appendix 1 Correspondence from BBC Workplace Nursery
Appendix 2 Correspondence from Barton Hill Settlement Co-ordinator
Appendix 3 Correspondence from Easton Community Nursery manager
Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1988
Background Papers
Children Act 1989, Part X
Registration and Inspection Day Care Policy for Childrens' Services Report 2/3/98
Consultation on Registration and Inspection Policy for Childrens' Day Care Services
Report 13/7/98
Contact Officer:- Imelda Richardson, Head of Registration and Inspection Unit - Tel
9830410