DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation and Value of Sure Start Been Summarised, 9 and Detailed Reports Are Available At

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation and Value of Sure Start Been Summarised, 9 and Detailed Reports Are Available At Downloaded from adc.bmj.com on March 22, 2010 - Published by group.bmj.com Leading article The early evaluation protocol to 2005 has Evaluation and value of Sure Start been summarised, 9 and detailed reports are available at http://www.ness.bbk. ac.uk, with some fi ndings summarised E Melhuish, J Belsky, J Barnes here. Government decisions effectively ruled out a randomised controlled trial; A decade ago, the Cross-Departmental the corresponding fi ndings, this report hence, a quasi-experimental design was Review of Services for Young Children provides an overview of the evolution and used with its consequent limitations to concluded that disadvantage among impact of the Sure Start programme. As compare Sure Start populations with young children was increasing and it was individuals involved in the evaluation of equivalent populations not receiving Sure more likely that poor outcomes could be the overall initiative, we attempt to pro- Start. An independent review of early prevented when early intervention was vide a summary of what has been learnt fi ndings of the evaluation work and a cri- 1 undertaken. The review also noted that thus far. Community control was exer- tique of the methodology is available. 10 current services were uncoordinated and cised through local partnerships, compris- patchy, and recommended that there ing everyone concerned with children, COMMUNITY-LEVEL CHANGE should be a change in service design and including health, social services, educa- delivery. It suggested that programmes tion, private and voluntary sectors, and Sure Start was based on the premise should be jointly planned by all relevant parents. Funding fl owed from central gov- that children and families could be bodies and be area based, with all chil- ernment directly to programmes, which affected by the programme directly, via dren under 4 years old and their families were independent of local government, services, and indirectly, via community in an area being clients. In July 1998, although local departments of educa- changes engendered by the programme. the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, tion, social services, etc, and health trusts Community characteristics were tracked Gordon Brown, introduced Sure Start, would typically be part of the partnership. over 5 years. Some improvements were which is aimed at providing quality ser- All programmes were expected to provide detected but could not be causally 11 12 vices for children under 4 years old and (1) outreach and home visiting; (2) sup- linked to Sure Start. Overall, Sure their parents. 2 The original intent of the port for families and parents; (3) support Start areas became home to more young programme design was to focus on the for good quality play, learning and child- children while the proportion in house- 20% most deprived areas, which included care experiences for children; (4) primary holds dependent on benefi ts decreased around 51% of children in families with and community healthcare and advice markedly. For instance, the proportion incomes 60% or less than the national about child health and development and of children under 4 years in “workless” median (offi cial poverty line). 3 family health; and (5) support for people households in Sure Start areas dipped Over 3 years, £542 million was made with special needs, including help getting below 40%, having started at 45% available, with £452 million desig- access to specialised services but without in 2000–2001. Some aspects of crime nated for England. In England, 250 pro- specifi c guidance as to how. 4 While evi- and disorder also improved, notably grammes were planned by 2001–2002 to dence derived from programmes with burglary, school exclusions and unau- support 187 000 children, 18% of poor clear unambiguous protocols for services thorised school absences. Moreover, children under 4 years old. Typically, were used to justify Sure Start, Sure Start children 11 years and older demonstrated a programme was to include 800 chil- programmes did not have a prescribed improved academic achievement. While dren under 4 years old, with £1250 per “protocol” and had freedom to improve infant health did not improve, reductions annum per child at the peak of fund- and create services as they wished. 5 This in emergency hospitalisations of children ing. Programmes were to run for at least was in contrast to examples of interven- (0–3 years) for severe injury and for lower 10 years with funding peaking at year tions with clear models of provision and respiratory infection suggested improved 3 and declining from year 6 to none at demonstrable effectiveness used to justify healthcare. Also, the percentage of chil- year 10. Some funding would fall to local Sure Start. 6–8 dren identifi ed with special educational authorities, made available by “reshap- The speed of funding was often over- needs or eligible for disability benefi ts ing” services. This investment utterly whelming in a sector previously starved increased over 2000–2005, suggesting transformed early-year services while of support. Only 6% of the 1999 alloca- improved health screening. representing a relatively small contribu- tion was spent in that year. Despite this tion from the perspective of treasury— slow start, and without any informa- EARLY EFFECTS ON CHILDREN/ just 0.05% of public expenditure. tion on the success of the initiative, the FAMILIES In this brief summary, we cover the treasury expanded Sure Start from 250 A cross-sectional impact study of children history and impact of this ambitious by 2002 to more than 500 programmes and families in Sure Start and non-Sure initiative. While more than 40 reports by 2004, thereby more than doubling Start (Sure Start-to-be) areas provided and peer-reviewed publications have expenditure to almost £500 million by mixed news. 13 14 Although there were documented the different phases of the 2003–2004. Thus, Sure Start became a some main effects for Sure Start on fam- National Evaluation of Sure Start with cornerstone of the campaign to reduce ily and child outcomes, some results var- child poverty. ied by subgroup. Specifi cally, 3-year-old The National Evaluation of Sure Start children of non-teen mothers (86% of Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social (NESS) was commissioned in 2001. sample) in communities receiving Sure Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK Programme diversity posed challenges in Start exhibited positive effects associ- Correspondence to: Edward Melhuish, Institute that there were not several hundred pro- ated with Sure Start programmes in for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, grammes delivering one intervention, but terms of fewer behaviour problems and Birkbeck, University of London, 7 Bedford Square, several hundred unique interventions. greater social competence as compared London WC1B 3RA, UK; [email protected] Arch Dis Child 2010; 95 :159–161. doi:10.1136/adc.2009.161018 159 Downloaded from adc.bmj.com on March 22, 2010 - Published by group.bmj.com Leading article with those in comparison communities, of services and guidelines, and were con- programmes throughout the entire lives and evidence indicated that these effects trolled by local authorities rather than of the children. Also, programmes had for children were mediated by Sure Start the central government. the opportunity to learn from the ear- effects of less negative parenting for lier phase of the evaluation, especially non-teens. On the other hand, adverse LATEST EFFECTS ON CHILDREN AND with respect to a greater effort to reach effects emerged for children of teen FAMILIES the most vulnerable households. Thus, mothers (14% of sample) in Sure Start In the longitudinal investigation of chil- differences in the amount of exposure to areas in terms of lower verbal ability and dren and families seen at 9 months and programmes and the quality of Sure Start social competence and higher behaviour 3 years of age, comparisons of children programmes may well account for the problems. Also, children from workless and families in Sure Start areas with initial adverse effects for the most disad- households (40% of sample) and from those in similar non-Sure Start areas vantaged children and families and the lone-parent families (33% of sample) in revealed benefi cial effects for children subsequent benefi cial effects for almost Sure Start areas scored lower on verbal and families living in Sure Start areas, all children and families living in Sure ability than equivalent children in com- when children were 3 years old on 7 of Start areas. It is also noteworthy that a parison communities. the 14 outcomes assessed. 23 24 Children randomised controlled trial in Sure Start in Sure Start areas showed better social programmes in Wales has found that the VARIABILITY IN PROGRAMME development, exhibiting more positive Incredible Years parenting programme EFFECTIVENESS social behaviour and greater indepen- can improve behavioural and emotional NESS also examined why some pro- dence/self-regulation than their counter- outcomes for preschool children consid- grammes might be more effective than parts in non-Sure Start areas. This result ered to be at risk of developing conduct 25 others. Detailed information over sev- was partially a consequence of parents disorder. eral years on 150 programmes was sys- in Sure Start areas manifesting less neg- Sure Start has been evolving, and ongo- tematically rated on 18 dimensions of ative parenting, as well as a better home ing research has partly infl uenced this implementation refl ecting adherence to learning environment. Also, families process. Later developments have con- Sure Start principles. 15–18 Programmes in Sure Start areas reported using more siderably clarifi ed guidelines and service that were rated high on realising one child and family-related services than delivery. It is plausible that the improved principle tend to score high on others, families in non-Sure Start areas.
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]