Agenda item

 

Report from the Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Services.

 

Recommendations:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.    Note the activity to date to improve early years outcomes and tackle inequalities.

 

2.    Approve the Best Start Local Plan for implementation from April 2026.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Cusworth, introduced the report which provided an overview of the Rotherham Best Start Local Plan for 2026–2029. The plan brought together existing early years support across Rotherham, outlined how it had been developed, and set out the key steps required to achieve local ambitions.

 

It was noted that the Department for Education (DfE) had set a national target for 75% of children to reach a good level of development by 2028, supported by new data tools, funding, and expectations through the Best Start in Life and Plan for Change programmes. All councils were required to publish a Best Start Local Plan by March 2026.

 

Rotherham’s approach was guided by early intervention, partnership working, and community?based support, aligning with the Council Plan, the Health and Wellbeing Strategy, the Children and Young People’s Transformation Programme, and the Early Help Strategy. It was highlighted that Rotherham had already established an early year’s education strategy ahead of national guidance.

 

To support development of the plan, a Best Start Summit was held on 1 December 2025, bringing together partners from health, education, early years, and community organisations. The summit reviewed local needs, heard from families, and generated ideas that shaped the plan’s priorities.

 

The plan was framed around the four cornerstones of the Rotherham Charter of Co?production: welcome and care, value and include, communicate, and work in partnership. The full plan included detailed outcomes, milestones, and measures, with progress to be monitored through the Best Start and Beyond Steering Group and reported through the relevant governance structures.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality, Helen Sweaton noted that, under usual circumstances, the development of a plan of this nature would involve a full co?production process with families, parents, carers and, where appropriate, young children. However, the version presented was an initial plan, produced within a very short timeframe set by Central Government and the DfE.

 

To meet the publication deadline of the end of March, stakeholders were brought together at a summit held in December 2025. Attendance included representatives from the 0-19 service, public health, early years education, academies, education inclusion, commissioning, family help, early help, social care, the voluntary sector, the Parent Carer Forum, and partners involved in culture, sport, libraries, and the Children’s Capital of Culture programme. These participants were selected based on their experience and their ability to contribute meaningfully to identifying current activity and future opportunities.

 

The summit considered a comprehensive needs analysis, prepared by public health, drawing on both national data and local intelligence. From this, and in line with government expectations, key priorities were identified to strengthen Rotherham’s approach and support improved outcomes in early years development.

 

It was noted that the Council had raised concerns with the DfE regarding the national target set for Rotherham, as the formula used did not sufficiently reflect local context, including levels of disadvantage and the higher?than?average proportion of children with special educational needs. While many children with SEND do achieve a good level of development, some did not meet the benchmark at the age of five, when the national measure was taken. Despite these concerns, the DfE confirmed that local performance would be judged against the national formula?based target.

 

The plan therefore focused on maximising available and anticipated resources to ensure that as many children as possible achieved a good level of development.

 

The Chair noted that the matter had been discussed at the Improving Lives Select Commission Chairs’ quarterly meeting, where it was agreed that scrutiny of the developing action plan, including key activities and KPIs, would be helpful during the first six months. The Commission aimed to demonstrate progress by year?end, and the item has been added to the Improving Lives work programme for around September. The report was presented at this meeting because it was scheduled for Cabinet on Monday 16 March 2026 and could not be considered by the Improving Lives Select Commission within that timescale.

 

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

 

It was explained that, when reviewing reports, Councillor Brent liked to summarise them into three key words beginning with the same letter. After reading the report and appendices, he identified “home, health and happiness” (with ‘happiness’ used to reflect well?being). Councillor Brent noted that while the report referenced well?being, health and home learning programmes, it did not address the home environments in which these programmes take place, which can be challenging for some children. Councillor Brent asked what could be done to consider this, given the focus on ensuring equal opportunities for all.

 

Helen Sweaton, Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality reported extensive ongoing work to identify children living in unsuitable home environments, beyond the home?learning programmes referenced in the strategy. This included joint work with Housing to ensure appropriate accommodation for children in the borough, and work with Health, Early Help, Family Help and Social Care to raise awareness of issues such as damp, mould, and available support.

 

Practitioners continued to monitor factors such as household functioning, parental relationships, sibling dynamics, signs of early neglect, and the general upkeep of the home. Rotherham had maintained a strong Early Help offer, supported by robust universal visits undertaken by the 0–19 service, with high completion rates within required timeframes. Practitioners knew how to access support when concerns were identified.

 

As children grew and transitioned through different settings, close work with early years providers and schools ensured that any emerging concerns about home environments were regularly identified. Not all ongoing activity was included in the plan, as the focus was on the key elements requested, including the home learning environment. The service confirmed that all commitments within the Family Help strategy continued to be delivered.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children & Young People noted that the use of the term plan, rather than strategy, had been a deliberate decision to support pace and visible progress. It was confirmed that the plan was designed to align closely with existing strategies.

 

In relation to the Best Start Family Hubs, early identification remained a priority. Work continued to register families, ensure engagement with hub services, and provide outreach support in the home, creating opportunities to identify issues as early as possible. The standalone Early Years Education Strategy also aimed to ensure early identification of additional needs, family help requirements, or social care concerns. Together, these approaches were designed to interlink effectively with wider strategies, providing an additional layer of assurance.

 

Councillor Monk thanked officers for the comprehensive report and noted the early identification of a significant gender gap within the needs assessment. Further information was requested on what was known about the causes of this gap, and how the plan would specifically target boys, given that boys did not appear to be represented within the other priority groups identified. Councillor Monk requested more detail on how this issue would be addressed within the plan.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality explained that the underperformance of boys in this assessment reflected a national pattern, and that Rotherham boys were not atypical. Nationally, boys tended to score lower in early years assessments, though the gap often shifted as children moved into secondary education.

 

She confirmed that, despite this wider trend, the service intended to target boys specifically to improve good?level?of?development outcomes and meet local targets. While the core work would not differ significantly, certain aspects required emphasis. Some areas of the assessment relied on children remaining seated and focused for extended periods, an element boys typically found more challenging, whereas they often performed better in physical activities.

 

The awareness campaign, including joint work with libraries, would place a particular focus on encouraging reading with boys. Early Years Inclusion and School Improvement services were also working with assessors to ensure teaching approaches and assessment methods reflected boys’ strengths and supported their progress. The approach would therefore include targeted actions, recognising this as an area requiring specific attention to achieve parity with girls.

 

Councillor Yasseen built on Councillor Monk’s comments regarding the disadvantage experienced by boys, particularly working?class boys on free school meals, in their development. She welcomed the ambition of the work but was not fully convinced by how it was being presented, acknowledging that government deadlines had contributed to it being rushed.

 

Councillor Yasseen reiterated ongoing concerns about how equality impact assessments were being completed, stating that by 2026 the approach must improve. She noted that the assessment in this report repeated information from the main body rather than demonstrating how equality considerations had shaped the proposal from the outset. She emphasised that meeting equality duties was mandatory, not optional, and that this was not evident in the report.

 

Councillor Yasseen highlighted two key gaps. First, despite the report stating there was no ethnicity data, national census and Department for Education data were publicly available and should have been used. Second, she noted that the attainment gap for boys was even wider in Rotherham than nationally. She also raised that the Roma community in Rotherham was around five times larger than the national average, with significantly low Good Level of Development (GLD) scores (around 35%), which were lower than those of boys on free school meals. She stressed that a targeted approach, referenced in the report, could only be effective if informed by accurate equalities data. She asked why the equality information had been omitted and how the forthcoming delivery plan would ensure equality considerations were fully embedded.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality noted the points raised and agreed to take them on board for future reports. They explained that, at the time the plan was drafted and the summit was held, the detailed analysis now available had not yet been completed. They confirmed that a comprehensive family help needs analysis had since been developed, covering all children and young people up to age 25.

 

This analysis included specific data on communities, families and engagement levels down to postcode level, including service engagement and achievement. It had identified clear target areas for focus, including boys on free school meals, the Roma community, and several smaller communities within the borough.

 

It was confirmed that this needs analysis would inform the targeting of interventions within the programme to increase engagement and improve children’s chances of achieving a good level of development. It was acknowledged the point raised regarding the equality impact assessment.

 

Councillor Yasseen reiterated their support for the ambition of the programme and proposed a recommendation. She noted previous work, alongside Councillor Currie, in leading a motion that resulted in the council coordinating interventions on poverty, leading to the No Families Left Behind initiative.

 

She stated she were strongly invested in this issue and believed that, due to the targeted nature of the interventions and the variation across the borough, progress should be monitored at neighbourhood level. Given the three?year timeframe, she felt closer oversight was needed to ensure the right people were being reached and that the work was making a measurable difference. She emphasised the significance of the policy for the council.

 

Councillor Blackham raised concerns that nurseries were not referenced in the report, noting their crucial role alongside schools in children’s early interactions. He emphasised the importance of ensuring nurseries were included in the work.

 

He highlighted the ambitious target of an 8.3% improvement over three years. He also expressed concern about wording in section 2.4.6, noting that while supporting the most disadvantaged children was important, resources should not be focused so narrowly that the majority were overlooked. He suggested that small improvements across the wider population could also make a significant contribution to achieving the overall target.

 

Councillor Cusworth confirmed that nurseries played a significant role in the work, as early years education for under?five?year?olds takes place in nurseries and childcare settings. She agreed to take the point back and consider referring to these collectively as “educational settings.”

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children & Young People went on to say that the initiative and the Best Start Plan focused on targeting support and improving good levels of development. She explained that work was already underway across the borough to improve children’s attainment, but there remained clear gaps between girls and boys, children on free school meals and those who were not, and between girls and boys receiving free school meals. She noted that Rotherham had already been addressing these issues, and the additional funding would help extend that work.

 

She highlighted that the early years education strategy had been in place for around two years, ahead of recent guidance for councils to introduce such strategies. This had already helped identify and target support for vulnerable children. She acknowledged comments about the wording referring to schools rather than nurseries, although all early year’s settings were included.

 

Drawing on her experience as a qualified teaching assistant, she noted that assessment of development often reflected school environments that historically suited girls more than boys and had changed little over the past century. She concluded that this was a government initiative and a statutory duty, which was why the report reflected that focus.

 

In the report and plan, the Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality explained they chose to use the terms early years settings or early years provision rather than specifying nurseries, private nurseries, or childminders.

 

This was based on feedback from the sector, particularly from childminders and nurseries that only support children under two, who felt excluded when it referred only to nurseries. However, it was accepted that the wider public may not understand what an early year’s setting was, so the Council may need to reconsider that terminology, as it used more familiar terms in previous plans.

 

Regarding targeting, a significant amount of activity was already taking place, and much of what the Council planned focused on children already accessing provision. By provision, the Council meant not only nurseries, childminders, and schools but also libraries, voluntary-sector groups, and private groups operating across the borough. Much of this provision already supported the majority of children, whose parents and carers were able to access it. Improving the quality of this provision would further support children’s development.

 

One reason the Council asked Debbie from Grimm to attend its summit was to understand what was already being delivered. It recognised that some families were less likely to access those opportunities, and the intention in targeting engagement activity was to ensure that those families were also able to benefit and that it helped level the playing field.

 

In response Councillor Blackham explained his concern was that the report focused so heavily on minority groups and those underachieving that the Council risked overlooking the majority. The Council’s approach to government was meant to raise overall standards, not only standards in specific areas. He agreed that the Council should address the needs of minority groups with particular issues but felt it should not become so focused on them that it failed to consider where improvements could also be made for the majority.

 

Councillor Cusworth reiterated that this initiative was exactly about that focus. The service was already doing substantial work to raise overall attainment, but without concentrating on the targeted elements within this initiative, it would not have met the statutory duty placed on it to address those gaps. There were significant and concerning disparities between cohorts who were achieving and those who were not. Councillor Cusworth indicated she was not sure whether the comment was directed at the Council as a local authority or at national government for creating the initiative, but the Councils role was to deliver the initiative it had been given and to meet the criteria attached to the grant funding.

 

Councillor Blackham clarified that he was not suggesting the Council overlook children with specific needs but emphasised that the focus should not be solely on targeted groups. He stressed the importance of also raising attainment for all children under five, noting that doing so would have a significant impact overall. He reiterated that support for children with particular issues should continue, alongside wider improvement for the whole cohort.

 

Councillor Yasseen acknowledged Councillor Blackham’s comments and clarified that the policy was not a generalist one. She noted that national data, provided by schools, clearly identified priority areas where overall performance did not meet required standards. She emphasised that this was a targeted intervention in response to outcomes falling below the national average, rather than a broad, generalist approach.

 

She stated that issues such as low attainment among boys on free school meals, predominantly white working?class boys, were borough?wide and should be treated as general concerns. She expressed frustration that the report did not reference ethnicity and suggested this may have been due to the report being produced quickly. She concluded that the intervention was deliberate and not intended as a generalist policy. Councillor Steele asked officers to respond and to explain why the six priorities had been chosen.

 

Nicola Curley, Executive Director, Children and Young People's Servicesexplained that national policy direction required both universal and targeted measures, and further guidance from the DfE had been received during the meeting. She noted that government policy aimed to align a suite of programmes intended to raise outcomes for all children and young people, particularly in areas such as Rotherham where broader community?wide improvement was needed.

 

The current universal work, including the Universal Rise Programme and regional phonics initiatives across South Yorkshire was highlighted. She clarified that the policy under discussion formed the targeted element of this wider national approach, recognising that specific groups in different areas required focused support. For Rotherham, these groups included white working?class boys, the Roma community, and smaller communities not yet engaging fully with family hubs or early years provision.

 

It was emphasised that the ambition was challenging and would require accelerated progress for these groups, alongside continued universal support for all children. She referenced additional national developments, including the new education white paper and changes to the SEND agenda, noting the pace and at times limited coordination of government initiatives.

 

The Executive Director, Children and Young People's Services acknowledged the points raised regarding equality impact assessment, confirming that further work would be incorporated into the action plan.

 

The Chair asked how the six priorities had been determined and whether they were driven by government requirements or local data. The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality explained that the priorities arose from a combination of government direction and local evidence. Despite limited time, officers brought together key stakeholders from the recent summit, who were presented with government requirements for the DfE and Best Start Plan, alongside local needs analysis.

 

She noted that local data came from Public Health, the 0–19 Service, and feedback from families and practitioners. Stakeholders also contributed professional insight on what was working well, where gaps existed, and which groups were less engaged. Collectively, the group developed shared principles and agreed the six priorities.

 

Councillor McKiernan asked about the funding (0.6, 0.3 and under £2m per year). He noted that the delivery plan had not yet been shared and queried where the funding would be allocated, expressing concern that the amount did not seem sufficient to make a meaningful impact borough?wide. He also asked whether the funding would support existing activity or be used to recruit staff and sought clarity on the intended use of the money.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality explained that the additional funding was intended to enhance existing delivery with a specific focus on the new plan, particularly targeting vulnerable groups. It was noted that separate funding for family hubs and family help was already in place and continuing, ensuring universal access and support without needing to draw on this new allocation. She highlighted that Rotherham had a strong starting point, with well?funded voluntary sector provision, good?quality early years providers, embedded training, sufficient childcare places and strong outreach.

 

She confirmed that final decisions on the specific use of the additional funding would be made through the delivery plan but emphasised that the priority would be addressing gaps for specific cohorts identified through needs analysis. This included work on engaging families not currently prioritising early development activities, raising awareness through community?led campaigns and supporting children identified by health visitors as having early developmental concerns. The new funding would be used to fill these targeted gaps, alongside other existing funding streams supporting the wider Best Start Local plan.

 

Councillor McKiernan raised a second question regarding the governance structure. He commented that the structure shown on page 89 appeared overly complex, with numerous boards, plans and task?and?finish groups, and noted that he did not usually scrutinise children’s services. It was asked whether the governance arrangements had been reviewed and if there was scope to simplify them.

 

Councillor Cusworth commented that the complexity of the governance arrangements reflected the current approach of the DfE, with programmes such as Best Start 0–5, Family Hubs and Healthy Babies spanning multiple disciplines. She noted that this work did not sit neatly within a single area, with Public Health also playing a key role. She explained that many cabinet members for children and young people were not typically involved in infant?focused programmes, making this a new and evolving area. She felt the cross?disciplinary approach was positive in reducing silo working, but acknowledged it contributed to the complexity of the governance structure. She highlighted the involvement of the Health and Wellbeing Board and her own and the Executive Director for Children and Young People’s Services representation on it. She concluded by noting that everyone was still adjusting to this new way of working.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality reassured members that although the task?and?finish groups appeared clustered together in the governance diagram, they consisted of operational managers and staff who were focused on delivering specific actions collaboratively. She explained that the more complex section above this was managed by senior officers and was familiar territory. She noted that not having these groups in place would risk losing alignment and awareness across related workstreams, which would create greater challenges than managing the complexity itself.

 

The report’s focus on parental and carer mental health and highlighted national concerns about inadequate postnatal mental health provision. Councillor Keenan asked how the Council was working with mental health providers on this issue and whether there was an opportunity for further scrutiny of postnatal mental health care in Rotherham, potentially through the Improving Lives or Health Scrutiny Committees. She stressed that this was an important issue, particularly for babies aged 0–5.

 

It was confirmed that postnatal mental health was a key priority. Although it was not referenced as explicitly within this specific plan, it was a clear focus within the Best Start Family Hubs programme, where Rotherham had been working as a pilot area. The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality acknowledged the significant challenges nationally and locally in addressing both perinatal and postnatal mental health needs and reiterated that this remained a core element of the wider Best Start Family Hubs work.

 

Councillor Monk asked about the subjectivity of the assessment scores, noting that the 2–2½?year review was carried out in the home by primary care professionals who spent more one?to?one time with the child than teachers completing assessments two years later. She queried how this difference in context and assessor familiarity was being addressed.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality acknowledged the point raised by Councillor Monk and confirmed that Niall Devlin, Education Inclusion Service Director, had been working closely with schools, nurseries and early years settings to address disparities in assessment practice. It was noted that inconsistencies existed both locally and nationally, including variation in how teachers interpreted specific requirements of the five?year assessment. Work was already underway through the early years team and with academy partners, including leadership from White Woods, to ensure a more consistent and fair approach and to give children the best opportunity to demonstrate their abilities accurately.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children & Young People added that the Rotherham Education and Strategic Partnership had been established to drive improvements in attainment across the borough. She reported strong buy?in from schools and multi?academy trusts, with at least two Multi Academy Trust (MAT) CEOs involved, including the Chief Executive of White Woods, who had recently attended a conference in Blackpool and shared the learning with the partnership. She highlighted this as a positive example of collaborative working. Members were also reminded of the Early Years Festival taking place the following week at the Rockingham Development Centre, with a range of events available for those wishing to attend.

 

Councillor A Carter built on earlier points regarding perinatal and postnatal mental health. He noted that specialist services provided strong support for parents experiencing severe conditions, such as psychosis or suicidal ideation, but expressed concern that parents with mild to moderate postnatal mental health issues were often directed to IAPT talking therapies due to service capacity. He highlighted the potential negative impact this could have on infants in their first two years and asked whether more targeted work was needed to support parents with mild to moderate mental health needs.

 

The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality agreed with Councillor Carter’s concerns and explained that the Best Start Family Hubs programme had already identified the need to improve support for parents with mild to moderate perinatal and postnatal mental health needs. Although investment had been committed to build additional capacity, they had not yet been able to secure the required specialist expertise to deliver this support at the right level. Addressing this gap remained a priority and would continue under the Family Hubs programme, which was why it was not referenced explicitly in this report. The aim was to provide accessible, stigma?free support within the Family Hubs offer rather than expecting parents to seek help in separate settings.

 

Members discussed earlier comments regarding terminology in the Early Years Plan, specifically the reference to “nursery settings.” They considered whether the wording should be updated to better reflect the full range of early years provision or whether a glossary should be added for clarity. The Service Director, Commissioning, Performance and Quality advised that adding a glossary would be the most effective approach and confirmed that this would be undertaken, with new terms added as needed.

 

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

1. Note the activity to date to improve early years outcomes and tackle inequalities.

2.    Approve the Best Start Local Plan for implementation from April 2026.

An additional recommendation to Cabinet was that:

• Agree that CYPS work with the DPSE to identify information in relation to specific neighbourhoods, and this informs the development and work of the Best Start Local Plan.

 

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

• CYPS agreed to include a glossary to clarify terminology for the public.