Agenda item

 

To receive an update on the performance of Rotherham’s Family Hubs Programme during 2025-26 and how it demonstrates its growing reach and impact across the borough.

Consideration was given to the report and presentation delivered collaboratively by Kelly White, Service Director, Family Help, Kirsty Woodhead, Head of Service, Family Help, and Amanda Needham, Service Manager, Family Help.

 

The Commission were advised the Family Hubs Programme and Rotherham had received Family Hubs funding since 2022. This investment had enabled the Council and its partner organisations to strengthen and enhance services for children, young people, and families across the borough.

 

The data presented related to the 2025/26 financial year. Family Hub registrations were a particularly important performance measure, as they helped the service understand which families were accessing services and, more importantly, enabled officers to identify, engage with and proactively reach out to families who were not currently accessing support.

 

The data showed that registrations had increased by more than 80% between 2024 and 2025. This reflected the significant progress made through the Family Hubs Programme, which had become increasingly embedded across the partnership. It also demonstrated growing awareness of the Family Hubs brand and a greater understanding among families of the benefits of registering.

 

In addition, registration processes had been simplified. Alongside the introduction of the Universal Baby Pack, measures had been taken to reduce duplication and make access to services easier for families. For example, parents could apply for a baby pack and provide consent to register with the Family Hub at the same time, creating a more streamlined and user-friendly process.

 

By way of a presentation the following was highlighted:-

 

-               Babies registered within six months of birth:-

 

•              Across quarters, between 74% and 89% of babies were registered with Family Hubs within six months of birth, demonstrating strong early engagement with families.

•              Continued effort to register babies after 6 months ensures families who may have missed earlier opportunities are still connected to Family Hub support and services.

•              In Q1 of 2026/27 89.1% of babies were registered within six months of birth, increasing to 90.1% when including those registered after six months.

 

-               Engagement with Family Hub Activities:-

 

•              Total attendances across all Family Hub, partner and commissioned services increased from 67,941 in 2024/25 to 82,863 in 2025/26, an increase of 14,922 attendances (+21.96%).

•              More children, young people and families are accessing support through the wider Family Hub system.

 

-               Geography.

 

-               Ethnicity:-

 

•              The programme continues to engage families from a diverse range of communities across Rotherham.

•              Attendance data shows that several minority ethnic groups are represented at levels above their proportion within the borough population.

•              Attendance by Asian or Asian British families has increased significantly over the last two years, with quarterly attendance growing from just over 400 attendances in Q1 2024/25 to over 1,000 attendances per quarter throughout 2025/26.

 

-               Deprivation:-

 

•              The Best Start Family Hubs programme is successfully reaching families in areas experiencing the highest levels of deprivation

•              More than half of all sessions were delivered in the most deprived communities

•              Over 30% of all attendances came from families living in the 10% most deprived areas of the borough

 

-               Breastfeeding Support:-

 

Through the Infant Feeding Team, midwifery and VCS partners, the infant feeding strand of the programme is supported by:-

 

·            Breastfeeding peer support groups

·            Breastfeeding peer support training

·            Breastfeeding support drop-in clinics

·            Breastfeeding and tongue tie assessments

·            Breast pump loans to families

 

o     331 families engaged with at Family Hub buildings

o     More at other sites, such as Grimm & Co, mosque, libraries

o     The Infant feeding Team have supported an additional 318 women and carried out an additional 708 contacts in 2025/26 compared to 2024/25

o     53 breast pumps were loaned to breastfeeding mums

 

-               Sessions for Under 5’s:-

 

·              The 0-5 offer delivered strong engagement throughout 2025/26, with over 26,500 attendances across Baby Offer, Toddler Groups, PEEP and Sensory Groups

·              Work is underway to increase the availability and promotion of these sessions, with growth already evident in PEEP attendance during Q3 and Q4

 

 

 

-               Parenting:-

 

•              Rotherham has a flexible parenting offer which includes a range of programmes delivered via MS Teams, in person and online.

•              There were 615 attendances with sessions led by a facilitator (face to face or via MS Teams).

•              668 attendances with an online programme.

 

-               Home Learning Environment:-

 

The PEEP Learning Together Programme is delivered through various methods including:-

 

o     Stay & Play groups delivered by commissioned VCS organisations.

o     1-2-1s at families’ homes

o     PEEP programmes

o     In schools

o     In libraries

 

•              There was over 1,500 attendances at PEEP during 2025/26.

•              Attendance grew throughout the year, showing the success of broadening the offer through staff training and home visits.

 

-               Perinatal Mental Health:-

 

·              The Family Hubs programme commissions Light to deliver peer support for women affected by perinatal mental health

·              Engagement with peer support sessions increased significantly over the year, rising from 26 attendances in Q1 and 8 in Q2 to 269 attendances in Q4

·              This demonstrates growth in service reach

 

-               Youth Services:-

 

·              Outreach and engagement services maintained strong reach, with 6,379 attendances in 2025/26.

·              Commissioned and universal youth work increased from 23,227 attendances in 2024/25 to 27,823 in 2025/26, an increase of almost 20%.

 

A discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

-               It was noted that the report did not appear to include any reference to baby packs so what was the level of engagement following the offer of a baby pack and what percentage of those parents who indicated that they wanted a baby pack subsequently received one, but did not go on to engage further with the service?

 

·            Officers confirmed the uptake of Baby Packs was very strong, providing clear evidence that families were accessing them and benefiting from the support available. A significant increase was seen in registrations as a direct result of the joined-up approach between the Baby Packs initiative and the Family Hubs Programme.

 

By aligning these processes, duplication would be reduced for families and make it easier for them to access support. This integrated approach contributed to a substantial improvement in Family Hub registrations and helped strengthen engagement with children and families across the borough.

 

Officers pointed out that some families decided not to register formally, but still engaged with and accessed services.  Feedback gathered through consultations with families suggested that, in some cases, this was linked to a lack of confidence in how personal data was managed and stored at a national level.

 

Despite this, engagement with those families continued.  Registration was not treated as a one-off opportunity, families were regularly encouraged to engage and were given ongoing opportunities to register if they wished to do so.

 

It was emphasised that there were families who chose not to register with the Family Hubs, but nevertheless actively accessed and benefited from the services provided.

 

-               On page 48, there was a graph showing a scale from one to ten labelled "Out of Area" how was it determined from this data that targets were not being met and on Page 52 the graph titled "Attendance of Family Activities and Community Activities Delivered by Outreach" showed that by Quarter 4 attendance had fallen to around a third of the level recorded in Quarter 1. Was there a reason for this significant decrease in attendance?

 

·            Officers reported that in terms of determining which families were not being reached, there were two elements to this. If a family was registered with the Family Hubs, but had not engaged with services or participated in any activities, outreach staff proactively attempted to make contact with them. This involved identifying families who were registered, but not accessing services, making contact, visiting homes where appropriate and offering information about events and activities to encourage engagement and raise awareness of the support available through Family Hubs.

 

The second element involved data received from health services regarding families registered with a GP. This enabled the identification of families living in the borough who were not registered with Family Hubs. Outreach workers then proactively sought to engage these families and encouraged them to register.

 

Registration was consent-based and families could not be compelled to register. However, a decision not to register did not prevent them from accessing services.  In the meantime, efforts were made to identify families living in Rotherham and engage them with Family Hub services wherever possible.

 

In response to the second question regarding the attendance data for youth sessions, it was noted that there were seasonal fluctuations at certain times of the year. School holidays had an impact on attendance figures and lower levels of participation were sometimes observed during the winter months when some young people were less likely to engage in activities.

 

The quarterly data was monitored regularly and continued to be reviewed to ensure that any emerging patterns or trends were understood. However, the reduction shown in the data was considered to be, at least in part, the result of normal seasonal variation.

 

-               When describing the positive outcomes, the achievements highlighted were in fact outstanding and there was a concern that the results may have been understated.

 

The issue of deprivation levels had been raised previously and it was recognised that deprivation was not solely about poverty, but encompassed a range of factors that could affect life opportunities and outcomes. In that context, the performance results were particularly noteworthy. For example, while 31% and 22% of the population lived in some of the most deprived areas, achievement rates of 45% and 35% respectively exceeded expectations.

 

However, there was a concern regarding the distribution of some of these outcomes across deprived areas. Referring to the heat map, it was acknowledged that it was difficult to draw firm conclusions due to the scale and level of detail provided, beyond the relative colour shading.

 

One concern was that Greasbrough appeared to be among the lightest shaded areas on the map, despite being the fourth most deprived ward in the borough. Although the exact neighbourhood statistics were not known, it was expected that areas such as Maltby, Wingfield and Rockingham would show much darker shading.

 

A similar observation was made regarding Dalton and Thrybergh, which appeared to be the second lightest shade of blue. Given that five out of the ward's six neighbourhoods were within the most deprived 10% and that the ward ranked 25th out of 25 for factors affecting children, this seemed surprising.

 

The concern raised was whether the distribution shown on the heat map accurately reflected local deprivation patterns. Clarification was sought on whether any analysis had been undertaken to explain these results, or whether the apparent discrepancy was simply a consequence of the statistics and methodology used to produce the map.

 

·            Officers acknowledged that reviewing the data provided reassurance, although it could be difficult to fully understand the picture without being able to drill down into the detail behind the figures. It was offered that further discussions could take place and additional data could be provided to help explain the information in more depth.

 

The development of heat maps and supporting data had been a long-standing element of the programme, but the programme had now reached a stage where the information could be scrutinised more effectively. The questions raised were, therefore, welcomed, as they would help inform future service delivery.

 

The data provided an opportunity to examine areas that appeared lighter in colour on the maps and better understand what this meant for those communities. This, in turn, helped identify whether services needed to be delivered differently and what types of support were most appropriate.

 

It was recognised that the data presented was high-level and would enable further analysis of which services communities were accessing and where engagement was lower. This would help identify opportunities to take a different approach where necessary.

 

One element of the programme involved an outreach plan, which ensured that data was reviewed regularly and used to inform service delivery and outreach activity. This helped target families and communities that were not accessing services.

 

While a specific answer could not be provided at that time, assurance was given that this remained an important area of focus and would continue to be reviewed as part of the programme.

 

-               Were the Family Hubs able to accommodate the increase in attendance and demand for activities, what factors determined the allocation and focus of outreach worker services and how was it decided which families or communities would receive targeted outreach support?

 

 

 

·            Officers explained that in terms of capacity this was driven by the delivery of services for children and families. A review had been made of how to maximise the services available within existing capacity and make the best use of the resources at our disposal.

 

Capacity remained an ongoing challenge, as officers continued to ensure that services were meeting demand while recognising that there was always more we wanted to achieve.

 

The increase in numbers reflected the proactive approach to engaging with families, rather than simply responding to identified need. The way services were delivered had been reviewed and challenged teams to do more, reach more families and provide support in ways that genuinely met the needs of children and families.

 

As a result, the data showed increased engagement because of focus on making the most effective use of the resources available through the Family Hubs programme and broader partner services, ensuring they delivered maximum benefit for children and families.

 

Data was used to inform the work of the outreach workers, as previously highlighted. They proactively engaged with families who had not registered with a Family Hub or accessed Family Hub services.

 

The approach was also informed by local intelligence gathered through attendance at community and neighbourhood partnership meetings. As mentioned earlier in relation to anti-social behaviour, the same outreach workers responded to concerns or identified needs within communities, helping us to engage with residents and provide appropriate support.

 

Intelligence was often received from Elected Members and colleagues, which further enhanced understanding of local issues and priorities.

 

Data played a crucial role in shaping outreach activity, informing where resources were deployed and which communities were prioritised. Teams of outreach workers operated across the borough's north, south and central areas and they focused on building strong relationships within communities to improve engagement and access to services.

 

-               It would have been helpful to know where these families were located. There did not appear to be a map showing the areas covered, what the services were called, or how residents could access them.  This made it difficult to relate to information in particular areas.  As a Board Member of the Kimberworth Park Community Partnership, it would have been useful to understand whether any of these services were operating there and how they were supporting local families.  Without that information, it was difficult for to signpost children and families effectively. A clearer understanding of local provision would have been valuable.

 

It would therefore have been useful for Members to have access to a map, or a similar resource, showing where services were available and how they could be accessed. If such information had been available, Members could have kept it readily accessible, for example on their phones, and used it to support residents more effectively.

 

Overall, however, the work being undertaken was excellent and very impressive.

 

·            Officers confirmed information was available about the physical Family Hub buildings and would ensure that this was shared with Elected Members as part of the follow-up information.

 

It was also emphasised that this was not solely about physical buildings, but also about outreach. It was recognised that attending a particular building, or the distance required to travel to one, could present barriers for some families. As a result, outreach services formed a very important part of the support provided.

 

While details could be shared of the Family Hub buildings and their locations, it was important to stress that many Family Hub services were delivered from a wide range of venues across the borough, rather than exclusively from designated Family Hub sites.

 

-               Was there evidence demonstrating whether engagement with Family Hubs had made a meaningful difference to longer-term outcomes for children and families. It was acknowledged that, while the Family Hubs model was still relatively new as a recognised brand, the authority had retained its Children's Centres and earlier support model at a time when many areas had moved away from this approach. As a result, there should have been historical data available to support longer-term evaluation.

 

Had engagement with these services during childhood led to improved educational outcomes, whether early engagement reduced the need for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), or enabled children who required one to access support at an earlier stage.

 

In addition, clarification was also sought on the longer-term impact of encouraging families to engage with services early, including whether early intervention and earlier conversations with professionals had resulted in better outcomes for children and families over time.

 

·            Officers acknowledged that this was an important question in helping understand the impact of Family Hubs. It was recognised that the next stage of reporting and data analysis would provide a stronger evidence base to demonstrate the outcomes being achieved.

 

The service knew from national evidence that access to early help and support services could have a significant positive impact on children and families. For example, programmes such as PEEP supported children to achieve a good level of development by equipping parents with strategies and resources to support learning within the home environment.

 

Officers also recognised that much of this work focused on preventing issues from escalating, ensuring families received the right information, advice and support at the earliest opportunity and reducing the likelihood that needs would progress to the point of requiring statutory intervention.

 

Many of the individual workstreams within the programme had specific performance measures in place, enabling officers to monitor outcomes and understand the impact of the support being delivered. This formed an important part of evaluating the overall effectiveness of the programme.

 

In addition, there was a substantial body of research and learning from initiatives such as Sure Start and Children's Centres, which had informed the development of the Family Hubs programme. This evidence highlighted the benefits of ensuring that families could access the right support, at the right time, through services that were easy to access and navigate.

 

It was noted that a significant amount of feedback from families had been received, which indicated that services were making a positive difference. This was an important measure of impact and had developed a number of strong case studies that demonstrated the benefits of work and could be shared as examples of good practice.

 

Returning to the earlier point regarding capacity, the service had increasingly focused on co-delivery and co-production with partners. For example, it was known that the PEEP programme contributed positively to children's development and supported them in achieving a good level of development.

 

To increase capacity, library staff and volunteers had been trained to deliver the programme, enabling additional support to be provided while allowing Family Hub resources to be used more effectively elsewhere.

 

 

As previously highlighted, services were not delivered solely from Family Hub buildings and outreach activities were delivered through pop-up sessions, Stay and Play provision on school sites, and events in community settings. This meant that support was available in a variety of locations and was not restricted to designated Family Hub premises.

 

It was further suggested that, moving forward, it would be beneficial to see more outcome-focused data to help demonstrate the longer-term impact of the services being delivered.

 

-               It was suggested that it would be beneficial to see data relating specifically to those who had engaged with Family Hub services alongside the broader performance measures that were already reported, such as children's overall levels of development and the proportion achieving a good level of development.

 

It was felt that being able to track patterns and outcomes over time for families who had engaged with services would provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of the support being delivered. This would help to demonstrate longer-term impact and enable the data to be used more effectively to inform future service development and evaluation.

 

·            Officers pointed out that it was recognised that this work linked closely to the Best Start in Life Strategy, as well as the work being undertaken with health visiting and nursing services, public health colleagues and a range of wider partners. Consideration was also given to the importance of school readiness.

 

Although representatives from Education were not present at the meeting, it was acknowledged that everyone shared a responsibility for preparing children for school. This included supporting the development of fundamental skills, such as being able to hold a crayon, use a knife and fork and undertake other basic tasks that were important for children to function confidently within a school environment.

 

These considerations formed a key part of the ongoing focus of the service, with attention being given to the factors that contributed to positive early childhood development and how this work could be strengthened and built upon in the future.

 

-               Sessions for children under five had been identified as being particularly well attended and particularly helpful. There were a number of different aspects of support available and the staff team had also remained very stable. This helped to create a welcoming and positive environment and the groups had proved to be extremely valuable.

 

Because of this continuity and the strong relationships that staff developed with families, conversations often extended beyond the needs of younger children and into discussions about older children, particularly around school-related matters.

 

What arrangements were in place, whether through briefings, training, or wider professional development, to support staff working within the 0-5 offer. Anecdotally there had been occasions, particularly when discussions arose around SEND, where it was felt there may have been opportunities to provide families with more detailed information and guidance. Given the trust and well-established relationships that already existed, having a deeper level of knowledge in these areas could have helped staff provide particularly valuable support at an early stage.

 

There were similar opportunities in relation to other issues affecting older children and their educational development so how could the service further upskill staff who had such strong and embedded relationships within communities, enabling them to provide a broader range of advice, information and signposting to families.

 

·            Officers acknowledged that this was a very valid point. The updated guidance received for that year had required us to introduce Best Start Inclusion Practitioners within each of the Family Hubs. As a result, three Best Start Inclusion Practitioner posts had been established, with one practitioner assigned to each Family Hub.

 

These practitioners were intended to be fully embedded within their respective hubs, while also contributing to wider outreach activity across communities. A key aspect of their role was to act as a link between SEND services and the Family Hubs programme, helping to ensure that children and families received timely advice, support and appropriate signposting.

 

Their responsibilities also included delivering targeted support where required, such as specific groups for parents and carers of children with SEND who might benefit from additional support beyond the universal services on offer. In addition, they were expected to act as inclusion champions, promoting inclusive practice across all aspects of the programme.

 

It was recognised that the feedback raised was both helpful and important. Supporting staff to develop their knowledge and confidence in relation to SEND and inclusion was a key priority, and this would form an important part of the role of the Best Start Inclusion Practitioners. It was anticipated that they would play a significant role in driving and embedding inclusive practice throughout the Family Hubs programme.

 

 

Finally, the Commission were advised that the first birth registration within a Family Hub had been successfully completed the previous Wednesday at the Swinton Best Start Family Hub. This marked the first baby whose birth had been registered at a Family Hub location. A photograph had been taken to commemorate the occasion and, although it was not available to share at the meeting, plans were in place to issue a press release highlighting this milestone.

 

-               Clarification was sought as to whether families could register the birth of their baby directly at the Family Hub rather than attending the Register Office.

 

·            Officers confirmed that, at that time, the service was available at both Swinton and Maltby, providing coverage in outlying areas, with plans to explore extending the service to Clifton in the future.

 

It was explained that the initiative had been introduced through the main Best Start Family Hubs, enabling families to access services closer to home rather than travelling into the town centre.

 

Members welcomed the development and described it as a fantastic initiative. It was requested that, when the press release was issued, it should be circulated to all Members to support wider promotion and sharing of the service within local communities.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their presentative and the valuation information provided.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be received and the positive performance and plan noted, which outlined to further strengthen data collection, performance monitoring and digital intelligence systems to better target support and improve outcomes for children, young people and families.

 

(2)  That current locations of family hubs and the services that are available be collated and shared.

 

(3)  That the membership of the Commission be included in the circulation of the press release showing the first baby being registered at a Family Hub.