DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Children's Centres

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of Children's Centres The impact of children’s centres: studying the effects of children's centres in promoting better outcomes for young children and their families Evaluation of Children’s Centres in England (ECCE, Strand 4) Research report December 2015 Pam Sammons, James Hall, Rebecca Smees, and Jenny Goff with Kathy Sylva, Teresa Smith, Maria Evangelou, Naomi Eisenstadt, and George Smith University of Oxford Contents List of figures vi List of tables viii Acknowledgements xi Evaluation of Children’s Centres in England: Research Team xii List of Abbreviations xiii Executive Summary xvi 1 Introduction [Goff, Sammons and Eisenstadt] 1 1.1 Past research about the effects of children’s centres or similar early interventions 3 1.2 Summary of evidence from past research on interventions which are similar to children’s centres 5 1.3 Overview of the ECCE Impact Report 10 2 Research Design and Methodology [Sammons, Hall, Smees and Goff] 11 2.1 Evaluation of Children’s Centres in England (ECCE) 11 2.1.1 Strands of the Evaluation 11 2.1.2 Evaluation sample 14 2.2 Aims of Strand 4 15 2.3 Methodology for studying the impact of children’s centres 17 2.3.1 The influence of variation on choice of methodology 17 2.3.2 Approach to estimating the impact of children’s centres 17 3 The Sample and Measures [Smees and Hall] 22 3.1 The Sample 22 3.1.1 Characteristics of the sample of children and families (users) 22 3.1.2 Characteristics of the sample of children’s centres 26 3.2 The Measures 28 3.2.1 Outcome measures at child age 3 years 28 i 3.2.2 Child, parent, family and neighbourhood measures: to contextualise the analyses of impact 34 3.2.3 Service use: families’ use of children’s centres, centre services and childcare36 3.2.4 Centre characteristics and processes 37 4 Impacts upon Child Outcomes at age 3 [Smees and Hall] 40 Key Findings 40 4.1 Identifying the effects of background characteristics: the contextual models 41 4.1.1 Child behaviour at age 3 42 4.1.2 Child cognitive ability at age 3 45 4.1.3 Child health at age 3 47 4.2 Identifying the effects of children’s centres 48 4.2.1 Effects of service use on child outcomes 49 4.2.2 Effects of centre characteristics and processes on child outcomes 58 4.2.3 Summary of combined child outcome models 63 5 Impacts upon Mother Outcomes at child age 3 [Smees] 73 Key Findings 73 5.1 Identifying the effects of background characteristics: the contextual models 74 5.1.1 Mothers’ mental health 74 5.1.2 Mother’s physical health 75 5.2 Identifying the effects of children’s centres on mother outcomes 77 5.2.1 Effects of service use on mother outcomes 77 5.2.2 Effects of centre characteristics and processes on mother outcomes 81 5.2.3 Summary of combined mother outcome models 82 6 Impacts upon Family and Parenting Outcomes at child age 3 [Smees] 85 Key Findings 85 6.1 Identifying the effects of background characteristics: the contextual models 86 ii 6.1.1 Family functioning: CHAOS, Parental Distress and Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction 87 6.1.2 Home Learning Environment 90 6.1.3 Household Economic Status 91 6.2 Identifying the effects of children’s centres on parenting/family outcomes 92 6.2.1 Effects of service use on family and parenting/family outcomes 93 6.2.2 Effects of centre characteristics and processes on family and parenting outcomes 97 6.2.3 Summary of combined family and parenting outcome models 99 7 Improving outcomes and meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged families [Smees and Sammons] 103 Key Findings 103 7.1 How do families with different levels of financial disadvantage differ? 105 7.1.1 Child development and financial disadvantage 105 7.1.2 Mother’s wellbeing and financial disadvantage 106 7.1.3 Family functioning and financial disadvantage 107 7.1.4 Stressful life events and financial disadvantage 108 7.2 How do families with different levels of financial disadvantage use services? 109 7.2.1 Use of services at baseline 109 7.2.2 Total time spent at the registered children’s centre 110 7.2.3 Patterns of service use over time 110 7.2.4 Use of the three most popular services 112 7.3 What are the benefits of children’s centres for the most disadvantaged families?113 7.3.1 Children centre impacts for disadvantaged families 113 7.4 Conclusions 114 8 Discussion and Conclusions [Sammons, Hall, Smees and Goff] 117 8.1 Investigating Impact 118 iii 8.1.1 Creating measures and indicators 120 8.2 Modelling the effects of children's centres 120 8.2.1 Reaching the disadvantaged 120 8.3 Overview of main findings for the user sample 121 8.3.1 Influences on Child Outcomes 121 8.3.2 Influences on Mother Outcomes 123 8.3.3 Influences on Family outcomes 124 8.3.4 What are the effects of the most commonly used individual services? 125 8.4 Improving outcomes and meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged families 126 8.5 Children’s centres impact: drawing the findings together 128 8.6 What children’s centre features influence families’ outcomes? 130 8.7 Conclusions and Implications 131 NOTE: Some limitations of the Impact Analyses 134 9 References 137 10 Glossary of Terms 147 Appendix A – Children’s centre literature (Introduction) 157 A1 The historical development of children’s centres 157 A2 Past research on the effects of children’s centres/similar early interventions 158 A2.1 Sure Start Local Programmes (NESS Study) 158 A2.2 Other research on the impact of children’s centres 161 A2.3 Family Centres 162 A2.4 Head Start and Early Head Start 163 A2.5 Flying Start 165 A3 Overview 166 Appendix B – Chapter 2 (Method) 167 B1 Evaluation of Children’s Centres in England (ECCE) 167 iv B2 Research rigour 169 B.2.1 The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale 169 B3 Sample, multilevel weighting procedures and analysis 170 Technical Appendices list 171 Technical Appendices available via the Oxford ECCE website, (available through this link): 1 Review of the literature relating to children’s centres 2 Characteristics of the Sample 3 Comparison of Cluster Analysis techniques available for ECCE Strand 4 data reduction: Hierarchical vs. Two-Step 4 Impact upon Child Outcomes at Age 3+ 5 Impact upon Mother Outcomes at Child Age 3+ 6 Impact upon Family and Parenting Outcomes at Child Age 3+ 7 Improving outcomes and meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged families 8 Exploring predictors of outreach visits, and health visitors/midwife services v List of figures Figure A Sets of child, mother, family and neighbourhood predictors (contextualising controls) tested in multilevel models of different on various child and family outcomes ... xx Figure B Contextualising controls, centre characteristics, and measures of centre and service use tested in multilevel models of different on various child and family outcomes ........................................................................................................................................ xxi Figure C Overview of Positive Impacts ......................................................................... xxix Figure 2.1 The children’s centre use and service use constructs tested in models that predict various child, mother, and parenting outcomes at child mean age 38.1 months (n=2,608 families, n=117 centres) .................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.2 The children’s centre characteristics tested in models that predict various child, mother, and parenting outcomes at child mean age 38.1 months (n=2,608 families, n=117 centres) ................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3.1 Age in months distribution for ECCE children at Wave 1 ............................... 22 Figure 3.2 Age in months distribution for ECCE children at Wave 3 ............................... 23 Figure 3.3 Sets of child, mother, family and neighbourhood predictors (contextualising controls) tested in multilevel models of different on various child and family outcomes at child age 3 years ............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 3.4 Contextualising controls, centre characteristics, and measures of centre and service use tested in multilevel models of different on various child and family outcomes at child age 3+ years ....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 4.1 Influences on Externalising behaviours at age 3 ............................................ 44 Figure 4.2 Influences on Internalising behaviours at age 3 ............................................. 44 Figure 4.3 Influences on Pro-social behaviours at age 3 ................................................ 45 Figure 4.4 Influences on Naming Vocabulary at age 3 ................................................... 46 Figure 4.5 Influences on Picture Similarities at age 3 ..................................................... 47 Figure 5.1 Influences on GHQ-12 Questionnaire scores (CVA) ...................................... 75 Figure 6.1 Influences on CHAOS (CVA) ......................................................................... 89 Figure 6.2 Influences on Parental Distress (CVA) .......................................................... 89 Figure 6.3 Influences on Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (CVA) .......................... 90 vi Figure 6.4 Influences on early Home Learning Environment (HLE) at age 3 .................. 91 Figure 7.1 Child health and development at age 9-18 months ...................................... 105 Figure 7.2 Mother’s mental health and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Responsibilities of the Secretary of State
    House of Commons Education Committee The responsibilities of the Secretary of State Oral and written evidence 28 July 2010 Rt Hon Michael Gove MP and David Bell Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 September 2010 HC 395-i Published on 27 October 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Processed: 26-10-2010 14:13:35 Page Layout: COENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 005600 Unit: PAG1 Education Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence Taken before the Education Committee on Wednesday 28 July 2010 Members present: Mr Graham Stuart (Chair) Conor Burns Charlotte Leslie Nic Dakin Ian Mearns Pat Glass Tessa Munt Damian Hinds Lisa Nandy Liz Kendall Craig Whittaker Witnesses: Rt Hon Michael Gove MP,Secretary of State for Education, and David Bell, Permanent Secretary, Department for Education, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Good morning. Welcome to this sitting of Department’s request from Partnerships for Schools the Education Committee, which is on the explicitly for use in a House of Commons debate. It responsibilities of the Secretary of State for was considered to be a valid comparison by that Education. I would like to welcome him and the body, so I felt that it was appropriate to use it in the Permanent Secretary from the Department to our House of Commons. There are a number of deliberations. Secretary of State, thank you for your comparisons that can be drawn. You can draw letter responding to my letter about the Sure Start comparisons, as I think I did, for example with the children’s centres report.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK Commitment: Ending Child Poverty by 2020
    The UK Commitment: Ending Child Poverty by 2020 By Elisa Minoff January 30, 2006 Center for Law and Social Policy 1015 15th Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005 www.clasp.org The author would like to thank Paul Dornan, Head of Policy and Research, Child Poverty Action Group and Natalie Branosky, Senior Policy Advisor, Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, for their comments on the paper. Mark Greenberg and Jodie Levin-Epstein of CLASP helped outline and structure the paper, and lent a critical eye to many drafts. The paper also benefited from the comments and questions posed by participants in the study visit to the U.K. organized by CLASP. The UK Commitment to End Child Poverty THE UK CHILD POVERTY PLEDGE In a 1999 speech honoring welfare state architect William Beveridge, Prime Minister Tony Blair declared, “O ur historic aim will be for ours to be the first generation to end child poverty forever, and it will take a generation. It is a twenty-year mission, but I believe it can be done."1 In his speech, Blair outlined his vision of a globally competitive United Kingdom, where the government would partner with the voluntary and private sectors to fund welfare, ensure that workers received the necessary training and skills-upgrading to succeed, balance the rights and responsibilities of benefit recipients, and guarantee “work for those who can, security for those who can’t.” Calling the eradication of child poverty the first step in breaking the cycle of poverty, he committed the government to “The third way in welfare is clear:
    [Show full text]
  • The Health Effects of Sure Start
    The health effects of Sure Start Sarah Cattan Gabriella Conti Christine Farquharson Rita Ginja The health effects of Sure Start Sarah Cattan Gabriella Conti Christine Farquharson Rita Ginja Copy-edited by Judith Payne The Institute for Fiscal Studies Published by The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street London WC1E 7AE Tel: +44 (0) 20-7291 4800 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.ifs.org.uk Twitter: @TheIFS © The Institute for Fiscal Studies, June 2019 ISBN 978-1-912805-22-8 Preface The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Nuffield Foundation (grant number EYP 42289), an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social well- being. It funds research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare and Justice. It also funds student programmes that provide opportunities for young people to develop skills in quantitative and qualitative methods. The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Ada Lovelace Institute. The Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org. The authors also appreciate the Economic and Social Research Council, whose support through the Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy (grant number ES/M010147/1) at the Institute for Fiscal Studies underpins much of IFS’s research. Sarah Cattan also thanks the British Academy for its support through her Post-Doctoral Fellowship (grant number pf140104). The authors would like to thank the members of the advisory group, who have greatly informed the analysis in this report: Dani de Beaumont (Action for Children), Richard Blundell (IFS and University College London), Leon Feinstein (Office of the Children’s Commissioner), Margaret Leopold (Department for Education), Joanne Pearmain (Action for Children) and Kathy Sylva (University of Oxford).
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Edinburgh 140513
    The 2014 Godfrey Thomson Trust Lecture University of Edinburgh, 13 May 2014 EVIDENCE, POLICY AND THE REFORM OF PRIMARY EDUCATION: A CAUTIONARY TALE Robin Alexander In 2008, at the height of New Labour’s drive for educational transformation, four prominent academics, one of them a university vice-chancellor, issued this warning in The Independent: We are specialists with considerable experience of the different phases of education who have come independently to the same conclusion: that government policy is no longer the solution to the difficulties we face but our greatest problem. ... It is not only the torrent of new policy that rains down on each sector, the constant changes in direction and the automatic rubbishing of any discomforting evidence. ... It is also the failure of successive ministers to appreciate that reform has to be accompanied by continuity if the stability of our educational institutions and the quality of their courses are to be preserved.1 Their judgement that in England policy has become the problem rather than the solution is what I want to test. I shall do so in relation to primary education, the sector in which I started my professional career fifty years ago and about which I’ve researched, written and campaigned ever since. Why England? Well, apart from being Scotland’s neighbour, it’s a good test of Michael Sadler’s frequently-quoted injunction that ‘the practical value of studying ... the workings of foreign systems of education is that it will result in our being better fitted to ... understand our own.’2 Comparison is all the more pertinent if, as Lindsay Paterson from this university argued in a recent British Academy lecture, the education systems of Scotland and England have more in common than their surface differences suggest.3 Behind that letter to The Independent lay a deeper unease about the centralisation of decision-making and control that England’s schools have experienced since 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • From Sure Start to Children's Centres: an Analysis of Policy Change in English Early Years Programmes
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by LSE Research Online Jane Lewis From Sure Start to children's centres: an analysis of policy change in English early years programmes Article (Published version) (Refereed) Original citation: Lewis, Jane (2011) From Sure Start to children's centres: an analysis of policy change in English early years programmes. Journal of social policy, 40 (1), pp. 71-88. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279410000280 © 2010 Cambridge University Press This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/32289/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2013 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. Journal of Social Policy http://journals.cambridge.org/JSP Additional services for Journal of Social Policy: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here From Sure Start to Children's Centres: An Analysis of Policy Change in English Early Years Programmes JANE LEWIS Journal of Social Policy / Volume 40 / Issue 01 / January 2011, pp 71 - 88 DOI: 10.1017/S0047279410000280, Published online: 16 April 2010 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0047279410000280 How to cite this article: JANE LEWIS (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • IMPACT of SOCIAL SCIENCE on POLICY:Sure Start Case Study
    Research report IMPACT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ON POLICY: SURE START CASE STUDY Report to Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Steve Johnson 8 November 2011 HULL UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL Research report IMPACT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ON POLICY: SURE START CASE STUDY Report to Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 8 November 2011 The University of Hull Cottingham Road Hull HU1 7RX [email protected] HULL UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL Final report - Impact of social science on policy: Sure Start case study TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 1 1. Sure Start: a brief history 2 2. Sources and methods 5 3. Sure Start as evidence-based policy: analysis 7 4. The impact of research on Sure Start: assessment 19 5. References 23 LIST OF FIGURES Table 3.1: Cross-departmental review seminars - academic presenters and participants 8 Table 3.2: Sure Start Evaluation Development Project: team members and consultants 12 HULL UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL Final report - Impact of social science on policy: Sure Start case study Summary This report synthesises the evidence regarding the impact of social science on the development and implementation of the UK Government’s Sure Start initiative, which was established in 1999 to focus on providing integrated early years services primarily targeted on disadvantaged groups. The research was undertaken by Dr Steve Johnson, who has led a number of studies of the impact of research on policy, for ESRC and other organisations. Sure Start was selected as a focus for study because it has been perceived widely – not least by one of its key architects, Norman Glass – as an excellent example of evidence-based (or evidence-informed) policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on Five Year Olds and Their Families
    Research Report DFE-RR067 The impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on five year olds and their families The National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) Team Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck University of London This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took office on 11 May 2010. As a result the content may not reflect current Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which has now been replaced by the Department for Education (DFE). The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education. The National Evaluation of Sure Start Team is based at the Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, 7 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3RA Core Team Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Executive Director) Professor Jay Belsky, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Research Director) Professor Alastair Leyland, MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow (Statistician) Impact Module Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Director) Professor Angela Anning, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Investigator) Professor Sir David Hall, University of Sheffield (Investigator) Implementation Module Professor Jane Tunstill, (Director)
    [Show full text]
  • How the Sure Start Policy Is Implemented Under the Labour Government in the UK: a Perspective of Implementation Network
    Public Administration Research; Vol. 3, No. 1; 2014 ISSN 1927-517x E-ISSN 1927-5188 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education How the Sure Start Policy Is Implemented under the Labour Government in the UK: A Perspective of Implementation Network Xiongwei Song1, Jingjing Zhang2 & Hongyu Wang3 1 Department of Political Science, Chinese Academy of Governance, Beijing, China 2 Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China 3 Department of International Relations, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China Correspondence: Jingjing Zhang, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. Tel: 86-1-5880-0558. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 2, 2013 Accepted: November 19, 2013 Online Published: April 29, 2014 doi:10.5539/par.v3n1p33 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/par.v3n1p33 Abstract In 1997, the Labour Government came to power committed to reforming public service delivery, particularly towards the improvement of children’s services. The paper focuses on the implementation process involved in rolling out its Sure Start policy in order to understand and analyse the dynamics in Labour’s approach to delivery. In so-doing, it draws on implementation and policy network theories to offer an original analytical framework, ‘the implementation network approach’, to explain the implementation process of Sure Start policy in Sheffield and Manchester based on 32 interviews. Keywords: labour, public service delivery, implementation network approach, sure start 1. Introduction Under the previous Labour government, the issue of ‘poverty and social exclusion’ has become one of the most significant priorities in a number of policy areas. In the annual report of ‘Opportunity for All, Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion’ in 1999, Labour outlines many facets of ‘Poverty and Social Exclusion’.
    [Show full text]
  • National Evaluation of Sure Start Local Programmes: an Economic Perspective
    Research Report DFE-RR073 National evaluation of Sure Start local programmes: An economic perspective National Evaluation of Sure Start Team led by Pam Meadows This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took office on 11 May 2010. As a result the content may not reflect current Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which has now been replaced by the Department for Education (DFE). The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education. The National Evaluation of Sure Start Team is based at the Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, 7 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3RA. Core Team Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Executive Director) Professor Jay Belsky, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Research Director) Professor Alastair Leyland, MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow (Statistician) Impact Module Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Director) Professor Angela Anning, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Investigator) Professor Sir David Hall, University of Sheffield (Investigator) Implementation Module Professor Jane Tunstill, Visiting Professor, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, Kings College, University of London
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on Seven Year Olds and Their Families
    Research Report DFE-RR220 The impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on seven year olds and their families The National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) Team Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took office on 11 May 2010. As a result the content may not reflect current Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which has now been replaced by the Department for Education (DfE). The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education. The National Evaluation of Sure Start Team is based at the Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX Core Team Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Executive Director) Professor Jay Belsky, Human & Community Development, University of California, Davis: also Birkbeck (Research Director) Professor Alastair Leyland, MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow (Statistician) Impact Module Professor Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Director) Professor Angela Anning, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck (Investigator) Professor Sir David Hall, University of Sheffield (Investigator) Implementation Module Professor Jane Tunstill,
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Employers 2019
    REGISTER OF EMPLOYERS A Register of Concerns in which people are employed In accordance with Article 47 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Equality House 7-9 Shaftesbury Square Belfast BT2 7DP Tel: (02890) 500 600 Fax: (02890) 328 970 E-mail: [email protected] SEPTEMBER 2019 _______________________________________REGISTRATION The Register Under Article 47 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 the Commission has a duty to keep a Register of those concerns employing more than 10 people in Northern Ireland and to make the information contained in the Register available for inspection by members of the public. The Register is available for use by the public in the Commission’s office. Under the legislation, public authorities as specified by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are automatically treated as registered with the Commission. All other employers have a duty to register if they have more than 10 employees working 16 hours or more per week. Employers who meet the conditions for registration are given one month in which to apply for registration. This month begins from the end of the week in which the concern employed more than 10 employees in Northern Ireland. It is a criminal offence for such an employer not to apply for registration within this period. Persons who become employers in relation to a registered concern are also under a legal duty to apply to have their name and address entered on the Register within one month of becoming such an employer.
    [Show full text]
  • Sure-Start-Part-1.Pdf
    Sure Start from the Beginning Naomi Eisenstadt 3 How it all started: key features of a new govt • New Labour • New relationship between No 10 and 11 • New ways of making policy: Modernizing Govt • New ways of allocating resources: the CSR process and PSAs • New Labour and children 4 1997 Manifesto • Commitment to free early education, all 4 year olds and eventually all three year olds • Commitment to a National Childcare Strategy, relevant to welfare to work policies • Anti poverty commitment (child poverty pledge 1999) • A ‘pilot’ programme of Early Excellence Centres, bringing education and care together 5 1998: The CSR on children under 8 Key findings: • Poverty is bad for children, especially experience of poverty in the early years • Most public expenditure on over 4s, once children are in school • Several departments involved in services for under 5s, but no overall strategy • Wide differences of quantity and quality of early years services across the country • The right kind of services could help narrow the gap between poor children and the rest 6 Sure Start is born • Announced in Parliament, July 1998 • Initial plan of 250 local programmes; allocation of £450 million over 3 years, each local programme to reach between 400 and 800 under fours • PSA set the overall aims and objectives but local freedom to design local programme to meet PSA targets • Overall aim, improve life chances of children in poverty and narrow the gap • Tight loose design consistent with Mod. Agenda: • User not provider led • Flexible, responsive services
    [Show full text]