Agenda item

 

Report from the Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health.

 

Recommendations:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.    Note the high level of satisfaction with the baby packs, particularly in relation to the quality and usefulness of the items provided.

 

2.    Approve an open procurement exercise to ensure continuity of registering and delivery of baby packs to Rotherham families.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Councillor Cusworth, introduced the item on the Baby Packs Initiative, noting that she and Councillor Baker?Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, had worked closely on the programme due to the overlap in their portfolios. She explained that the initiative aimed to support new parents and aligned with the Council’s commitment to giving every child in Rotherham the best start in life.

 

She stated that the scrutiny session provided an opportunity to review the programme’s impact, its value to families and areas where delivery could be strengthened. The report outlined how effectively Baby Packs were reaching families, levels of take?up, early outcomes, alignment with wider early years and prevention priorities, and any risks or opportunities for improvement ahead of future commissioning.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People reported that early indicators showed stronger engagement with services among families receiving the packs. Midwives and health visitors had noted increased attendance at follow?up appointments and greater involvement in family health conversations. Parents also reported increased confidence in the early days at home, particularly around safe sleep practices. Evaluation measures included practitioner feedback, behaviour?change indicators and engagement data, with plans to strengthen the framework as the programme matured.

 

The report also highlighted positive feedback from families on the value of the packs. Councillor Cusworth confirmed that Cabinet would be asked to note the high levels of satisfaction and to approve an open procurement exercise to ensure continuity in registering and delivering Baby Packs to Rotherham families.

 

The Service Director of Strategic Commissioning, Scott Matthewman, noted that Councillor Cusworth had already outlined the recommendations due to go to Cabinet the following week. He stated that the scheme had been highly successful over its first two years, both in terms of its universal approach and the positive impact reported by expectant mothers and newborn families in the borough.

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health stated that she was extremely proud of the town for establishing the Baby Packs scheme, noting its success to date. Over 2,000 families had registered, and all had received their packs, with feedback consistently positive. She thanked Councillor Cusworth for her work on the initiative and said she looked forward to the item progressing to Cabinet the following week.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries.

 

Councillor Blackham expressed concern that the scheme was not targeted, stating his view that this risked wasting money, as people would naturally take up a free offer regardless of need. He believed the initiative should be more focused on those who would benefit most. He queried the financial figures in the report, noting references to £410,000 per year and an additional £50,000 in the budget, and asked whether the total cost was £410,000 or £460,000 annually. He questioned whether the level of spend, approximately £1.5 million over four years, represented good value and stated that the universal approach may limit its effectiveness.

 

In response, Councillor Cusworth stated that the scheme was not a waste of money and reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to giving every child in Rotherham the best start in life, rather than targeting only some families. She highlighted the success of the Family Hub model and noted that new DfE guidance on Best Start Family Hubs emphasised early years support, perinatal care and improving children’s development from birth to age five. The Baby Packs formed part of this wider early?years strategy.

 

She confirmed that the annual cost was £410,000, which included the additional £50,000 uplift. The uplift was intended to maintain the quality and quantity of items in the packs rather than see them diminished over time, with the budget increasing in line with CPI each year.

 

In his supplementary point, Councillor Blackham reiterated that, in his view, the scheme’s success related more to service engagement than to the universal distribution of Baby Packs. He acknowledged that the packs would help some families but maintained that a non?targeted approach did not necessarily benefit everyone and risked unnecessary expenditure. He emphasised that he was not suggesting reducing the quality of the packs but rather targeting them towards families most in need. He concluded that, while the intentions behind the initiative were laudable, he believed the universal model resulted in a degree of waste.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People reiterated the Council’s commitment to giving every child the best start in life. She emphasised that the scheme was not solely about financial need but also about supporting parents’ preparedness for the significant life change of having a baby. She noted that the contents of the Baby Packs, together with the information provided, encouraged engagement with Family Hubs and other early?years services.

 

She highlighted the importance of universal messaging around safe sleep practices, stressing that ensuring every new family received this information was valuable in itself, particularly given the risks associated with unsafe sleep. She stated that, in her view, none of the investment in the scheme was wasted.

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers responded that 99% of parents who had received the Baby Pack reported it to be overwhelmingly positive and useful. She noted that targeting the scheme would be difficult in practice. Drawing on her own experience as a new parent, she highlighted that the packs provided essential items and guidance that many first?time parents would otherwise struggle to identify. She emphasised that offering the packs universally was inclusive practice and ensured that every child in the borough had the best possible start in life.

 

Alex Hawley, Public Health Consultant added that there were important practical considerations behind the universal approach. The scheme was administered by midwives at the 25?week check, which made universal distribution straightforward and efficient. A targeted model would have been significantly more complex to operate and would not have ensured that every child received support. Alex noted that, with high uptake, the scheme guaranteed a consistent minimum provision for all families, while those on lower incomes benefited proportionally more.

 

Councillor McKiernan commented that he had recently spoken to an NHS physiotherapist whose colleague in Barnsley had received a Baby Pack, which highlighted how positively the scheme was viewed and how it reflected well on Rotherham, given that Barnsley did not offer a similar initiative.

 

He then asked whether more detailed data were available on the distribution of Baby Packs per household, for example, whether twins received two packs, and whether the information captured distinguished between first?time parents and those with subsequent births, noting that several comments in the report referred specifically to first?time mothers.

 

Councillor Cusworth added that Councillor McKiernan had raised a useful point and welcomed the positive feedback circulating about the scheme. She noted that, as the programme moved into its third year, more data might emerge on households receiving a Baby Pack for a second child, although this would depend on the timing of births. She explained that the Baby Packs were delivered directly to families by the provider rather than through the Council but confirmed that discussions could take place about what additional data the provider might be able to share while maintaining GDPR requirements. She anticipated that more mature datasets would become available as the scheme progressed.

 

Councillor Allen referred to paragraph 2.6 of the report, which highlighted that while most families gained new knowledge from the Baby Pack, parents with previous children reported less benefit, suggesting a need for more tailored content. It was also noted that leaflet impact had been rated at 75% positive. She asked whether there were plans to review the contents of the pack and consider tailoring materials for families having their second, third or subsequent children.

 

The Public Health Consultant confirmed that the contents of the Baby Pack would be reviewed as part of the recommissioning process. Explaining that tailoring packs for different groups, for example, for families with second or subsequent children, or for parents of extremely preterm babies, had been considered, but would significantly increase logistical complexity and costs. For this reason, the intention was to retain a universal, consistent pack, while ensuring the overall content was reviewed and updated during recommissioning.

 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Allen suggested that, for families who already had children, some items in the Baby Pack might be unnecessary and could therefore be viewed as waste. She asked how the Council might address or mitigate this in future.

 

In response, the Public Health Consultant noted that this issue would be considered during the contract review. He emphasised the need to maintain value for money and keep costs manageable but confirmed that the point would be taken forward for discussion as part of the recommissioning process.

 

Councillor Baker?Rogers added that, as a twin herself, she believed it was important that each twin received their own Baby Pack. She noted that twins were two individual babies with separate needs and should not be expected to share items that were intended for individual use. Providing separate packs also supported the recognition of their individual identities.

 

Regarding second and subsequent children, she commented that items from earlier packs might have worn out, broken or been fully used, meaning families could still benefit from receiving a new pack. While acknowledging the discussion about tailoring, she emphasised the importance of focusing on the overall success of the scheme and the consistently positive feedback received from residents.

 

Councillor Cusworth acknowledged the points raised. She explained that, due to the way the packs were procured and delivered directly from the provider to households, it was difficult to add or remove items from individual boxes. She noted that any change, such as tailoring packs for subsequent children, would need to be weighed against the additional logistical costs, especially as most feedback related only to the usefulness of the leaflet.

 

She added that previous discussions had shown how even small additions, such as including a leaflet linked to the Children’s Capital of Culture, would significantly increase logistical complexity, as materials would need to be produced, transported to the provider and included in the packing process. She confirmed that officers would reflect further on the issue, but highlighted the practical constraints involved.

 

Councillor Baggaley emphasised the importance of parents receiving Baby Packs as early as possible, noting from personal experience that babies do not always arrive on schedule and that having essentials ready in advance could be vital for families. He supported efforts to address this issue going forward.

He then asked two questions:

1. Whether data were available on the geographical spread of take?up and whether any areas showed lower uptake.
2. Whether the pack included content relating to parental support, particularly around fathers’ mental health.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People acknowledged the importance of ensuring Baby Packs were delivered to families as early as possible, noting that some had arrived very close to, or even after, the birth. She confirmed that this issue would be taken away for further consideration.

She agreed that analysing the geographical spread of take?up would be useful and invited Alex Hawley to provide further detail, noting that such data might also highlight whether uptake was higher in more deprived areas.

 

In response to the question on parental support, she explained that the information within the packs encouraged families to register with their local Family Hub. She noted that parental mental health, including support for fathers, was a core and prescriptive element of the Family Hubs model, with support beginning from the 25?week midwife appointment onwards.

 

Alex Hawley reported that the consistently high take?up rate, well into the high 90% range, indicated that the scheme was achieving a broad, universal reach, with very few families missing out. He noted that it remained difficult to break down uptake by area without breaching data?protection requirements, but the overall level of registrations suggested strong coverage across the borough.

 

In relation to parental support content, it was explained that the information leaflet included in every Baby Pack had been co?designed with parents. The leaflet was updated regularly and contained guidance relevant to all caregivers, including material specifically for fathers. It was designed to fit within the child’s Red Book and to be durable and reusable, ensuring that families could refer to it repeatedly rather than it being discarded.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM commented from a scrutiny perspective that the report could have included more information to support wider consideration of options. He noted that the recommendations presented only two choices, either to continue the scheme or discontinue It, and that no “midway” or alternative models were outlined. He suggested that scrutiny would have benefited from analysis of the potential impact of a targeted approach, benchmarking against other local authorities, and consideration of partnership opportunities with voluntary organisations that might already be delivering similar support. He felt that including this information would have strengthened the review process.

 

In response, the Chair explained that reports brought to Cabinet were prepared specifically for Cabinet decision?making, which was why the recommendations were framed as they were. He noted that scrutiny’s role was to consider the proposals and make comments or recommendations, rather than redesign the policy at this stage. He added that a broader review exploring alternative models would need to be commissioned separately and at an earlier point in the process.

 

Councillor Thorp queried the accuracy of the take?up figures presented in the report. He noted that the data showed 1,587 registrations and 1,587 deliveries within the same nine?month period and expressed concern that this appeared unlikely, for example, a parent registering on the final day of September could not reasonably have received a pack within the same reporting window. He questioned whether the figures could realistically match so precisely and suggested that this indicated a potential inaccuracy in the data.

 

The Public Health Consultant responded that while he could not confirm whether the reported number of deliveries exactly matched the number of registrations for that specific period, the service was confident that every parent who registered for a Baby Pack had received one. He noted that, for that reason, it was not unexpected that the totals appeared as 100% in the report.

 

Councillor Thorp reiterated concerns about the accuracy of the take?up figures. He noted that the quarterly numbers appeared inconsistent, for example, 320 registrations but only 82 deliveries between January and March, yet identical registration and delivery figures appeared in later months. He suggested that the data looked artificially aligned rather than accurately reported and stated that he would prefer to see precise, verifiable figures.

 

In response, Councillor Cusworth reaffirmed that all parents who registered for a Baby Pack and subsequently had a healthy live birth had received one. She noted that discrepancies in the reported figures were likely due to data?lag issues rather than inaccuracies and confirmed her confidence in the reliability of the data overall. She added that the only circumstance in which a pack would not be delivered after registration was where a pregnancy sadly did not result in a healthy birth.

 

In relation to the scrutiny process, she stated that the Council was committed to delivering Baby Packs and that parents had given very positive feedback. The service continued to monitor and review the contents of the packs to ensure they met families’ needs. She highlighted that the “Best Start in Life” booklet included in each pack had been co?designed with the Parent Carer Panel, made up of pregnant women and parents of children aged 0–2, as part of the Family Hubs model. She suggested providing copies of the booklet to members for reference.

 

She concluded that the role of scrutiny was to consider the effectiveness of the scheme and offer any further recommendations for Cabinet and advised members not to focus too heavily on the reporting cut?off points given the assurance that every eligible family had received a pack.

 

The Chair noted that the Cabinet Member had stated her confidence in the accuracy of the data within the report. The Public Health Consultant added that a new print run of the Best Start in Life leaflet was due, and they would arrange a small overprint so that copies could be placed in members’ pigeonholes.

 

The Public Health Consultant also provided clarification from the report’s author regarding the figures. The registration data covered all sign?ups between January and the end of September, and the delivery numbers corresponded directly to those same registrations. For that reason, the totals matched: every person who registered for a Baby Pack within that period had received one.

 

Councillor Keenan asked a question regarding areas for improvement, specifically around communication. She noted that enhanced information was included in registration emails and queried what alternative communication methods were available for families who did not use email, asking how harder?to?reach families were being informed about the Baby Pack.

 

The Public Health Consultant explained that registration for the Baby Pack was completed by the midwife at the 25?week appointment, meaning parents were not required to initiate the process themselves. Midwives informed expectant parents about the availability of the packs and completed the registration on their behalf, ensuring the process was universal and accessible.

 

It was noted that while a small number of families received midwifery care outside Rotherham, a pathway was in place to ensure these families were also captured, and this was being used effectively. Given the uptake rate remained very close to the overall birth rate, there was confidence that families without email access or those harder to reach were not being missed.

 

Councillor Harper sought clarification on the data included in the report. He understood that the demographic information, such as maternal age and deprivation, was captured at the point of booking, around 25 weeks, and related to the 1,587 registrations referenced earlier. However, only 28% (279 responses) had completed the follow?up survey. He asked whether the characteristics of respondents mirrored the wider registration cohort, particularly in terms of deprivation and age, and whether survey responses might be skewed towards better?off families who were more likely to complete online surveys. He also queried the delivery process for packs sent to Family Hubs, asking whether each pack was delivered individually and addressed to the specific parent, rather than stored in bulk at hubs.

 

In response it was confirmed that the scheme primarily operated via home delivery, which aligned with parents’ preferences and worked well operationally. It was added that a pilot was being developed to hold some packs in the hospital for very premature babies who might arrive before the 25?week appointment.

 

Regarding survey responses, it was noted that analysis used a 95% confidence approach to infer findings from the respondent group to the wider parent population. The Public Health Consultant did not have, at the meeting, a breakdown of respondents by socioeconomic status and age, and would check whether this could be provided, noting that the survey was anonymous.

 

Councillor Blackham noted that, as packs were delivered to home addresses, postcode data should allow anonymised analysis of geographical distribution across the borough. He suggested that either the Council or the provider could produce this breakdown to address earlier questions on uptake by area.

 

Councillor Cusworth explained that data?protection arrangements between the provider and the Council had limited access to detailed delivery information, as GDPR required a clear purpose for holding personal data. She noted that if the Council were packing and delivering the boxes directly, it would be easier to collect demographic and cohort data. Given that take?up closely matched the borough’s birth rate, she was not concerned about coverage; she added that limited access to granular data would be more problematic if uptake were low.

 

The Chair acknowledged Councillor Blackham’s point and noted that anonymised, area?based delivery data (e.g., by ward and deprivation profile) should be explored to improve monitoring. He agreed that ward?level reporting would be useful and indicated he would consider a recommendation to include this in future monitoring arrangements.

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health stated that she was extremely proud of the Baby Packs scheme, noting that it supported all parents regardless of income or where they lived. She thanked members for the thoughtful questions raised and confirmed that these would be taken into account going forward. She reiterated her pride in the initiative and its value in giving every baby in the borough the best possible start in life.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People thanked the Chair and the committee for the thoughtful and constructive questions raised, noting that several points would be taken away for further consideration. She agreed that ward?level analysis would provide a sufficient level of anonymity and confirmed this would be explored, adding that a scrutiny recommendation on this would be helpful.

 

She restated the recommendations that would be presented to Cabinet the following week, which were:

·       to note the high level of satisfaction with the Baby Packs, particularly the quality and usefulness of the items provided (with reference to comments about leaflet usefulness for non?first?time mothers); and

·       to approve an open procurement exercise to ensure continuity of registration and delivery for Rotherham families.

 

Councillor Cusworth emphasised the importance of maintaining the quality of the Baby Packs over time. She noted that parents frequently compared experiences across areas and that diminishing the contents could undermine the scheme’s credibility. She stressed that, although the scheme represented a significant investment, evidence showed it was money well spent. Supporting babies and families in the early years prevented more costly problems later in life. She concluded by expressing her appreciation that the scheme had been brought to scrutiny.

 

The Chair moved to a vote for those in favour of supporting the recommendations within the report, this was carried by a majority.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1.    Note the high level of satisfaction with the baby packs, particularly in relation to the quality and usefulness of the items provided.

2.    Approve an open procurement exercise to ensure continuity of registering and delivery of baby packs to Rotherham families.

 

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       OSMB receive an update in twelve months, via a method of delivery to be determined, detailing the number of Baby Packs issued, broken down by ward, to enable effective monitoring of geographical take?up and to support efforts to improve engagement in areas of higher deprivation across the borough.