Footprints - The Principles
Main heading
Sub-heading
|
|
|
Guiding Principles for Mapping Footprints
Cheshire has been divided into distinct areas or ‘footprints’ indicating the local communities which each Centre will serve. They have been mapped in accordance with the following principles.
1. Not exclusive
These are monitoring ‘footprints’ and do not reflect exclusive catchment areas. Indeed, families are free to access services in other areas if this is more appropriate to their needs.
2. Congruence with super output areas
Footprints are co-terminus with super output areas as these are the areas that will be used to monitor performance against the Government’s ‘Outcomes Framework’. Some of these are very large, strangely shaped and sparsely populated, hence importance of Principle 1 entitlement to Children’s Centre services.
3. Recognising local features
Footprints, where possible, follow significant boundaries and barriers such as railways, rivers and major roads. In addition, use has been made of local knowledge to identify less tangible boundaries. Furthermore, an effort has been made to recognise ‘real’ community boundaries that reflect socio-economic characteristics without highlighting more disadvantaged communities.
4. Incorporating transport routes
Footprints make use of major arterial routes that link semi-rural areas to urban areas to reflect existing patterns of mobility. This should promote easy access to central services and enable efficient outreach from centres to dispersed communities. Where possible this links to existing patterns of service provision.
5. Synergy with Education Areas
Mapping has recognised ‘Education areas’ in line with Transforming Learning Communities policy that these reflect actual patterns of access to the universal service of education.
6. Respecting District Council Boundaries
Where possible, footprints have respected District Council boundaries to enable synergy with community planning. District Council boundaries were ignored in the case of Tarporley as it was recognised that it functions as a natural centre for communities in both Chester and Vale Royal. The same approach was taken in the case of Elton where service usage gravitates to Ellesmere Port (and to a lesser extent Vale Royal) rather than Chester. There may be other areas of the County where similar considerations need to be recognised.
7. Recognising Primary Care Trust Boundaries
Footprints are broadly congruent with PCT areas. It is recognised that this may not now be a pertinent consideration and may require review in the light of future Health service configuration.
Identifying the location of Centres within footprints
1. Centres as a hub
Centres should be viewed as the ‘hub’ for provision within a footprint, and not the sole entity of provision within that area. There will, in most cases, be a need for outreach from this hub with satellite provision to enable this. As we move towards a 0-19 vision for Children’s Centre delivery there will be a need to develop age appropriate venues for service delivery to older children and their families. Linkage to the Extended Schools agenda will reinforce the need for approaches based upon schools adopting a collaborative approach within a local community of schools.
2. Use of primary schools
Primary schools are being identified as the ‘ideal’ location for Children’s Centres because they are a universal, age-appropriate, local and in most cases a relatively under-utilised resource. Indeed, it is likely that in most instances development will only be affordable on school sites that have existing facilities for the provision of early years education and either have existing community facilities or have surplus accommodation that can be efficiently converted to provide the physical infrastructure (community, consulting, office and reception spaces) required for a Children’s Centre. This is not, however, an exclusive approach and if suitable opportunities were to be identified on non-school sites, such as Health Centres, these opportunities will be considered.
3. Ensuring sustainability
Location will be influenced by the overall sustainability of the site on which development is proposed. The development of a Children’s Centre will be viewed as an opportunity to sustain education in vulnerable communities that might otherwise be at risk of losing their school. Whilst the development of a Children’s Centre may be a major contributing factor in assuring the long-term sustainability of a school it will not be possible to develop a centre on the site of a school that is considered inherently unsustainable.
4. Locating in areas of disadvantage within footprints
In line with SureStart Unit guidance, the location of Centres in footprints that combine more and less advantaged areas will be in the most disadvantaged area where a sustainable opportunity for affordable and sustainable development exists.
5. Engaging the private sector
Location of centres in more advantaged areas will be influenced by the opportunity to engage the private sector as investing partners in developing ‘Educare’ provision.
6. Rural satellite provision
Service delivery in semi-rural areas is likely to be delivered on the basis of outreach/satellite provision from adjacent urban areas. Provision to more dispersed rural communities is likely to evolve on the basis of outreach from resource centres; wherever possible building on existing peripatetic service provision.
Guiding principles for scheduling the roll-out of Children’s Centres
1. Priorities
Phase 1 development was centred on the 20% most disadvantaged communities. During Phase 2 the government require that the initiative is extended to all of the communities within the top 30% SOAs. This will have the effect of spreading reach to the families living outside more disadvantaged SOAs within a footprint.
2. Synergy with other agendas
Roll-out should, where possible, be linked to the roll-out of other change agendas, providing the opportunity for a joined-up coherent approach. ‘Transforming Learning Communities’, ‘Extended Schools’ and the ‘Review of Maintained Nursery Education’ will be the prime exemplars of this. There will also be other opportunities to work with partners to implement whole system change required for Children’s Centre delivery. For example there may be a locality wide move to a model of geographically based Health Visiting, and scheduling of roll-out should recognise these opportunities.
3. Responding to opportunities
Given the limited resources available, a pragmatic approach should be taken to responding to unanticipated opportunities that may arise, such as a proposal for significant private investment or an unanticipated funding stream, to add value to the creation of a Children’s Centre in advance of anticipated scheduling.
|
|
|