sure start

[ryanj]

I read at ethe weekend two articles about sure start and what the main parties thought should happen to them...

in short

labour would cont and the cons would reduce or stop spending as they thought it didnt reach the targeted families

I just wondered what people tought of thisa given previous threads on this topic

[Ann]

Well obviously they were introduced by the Labour Government. My understanding was that it was meant to target underprivileged families form the off with the hope of preventing many of the problems these children can develop in later years; such as poor health, low achievement at school, tendency to crime etc.

In that sense the programme has not really been in place long enough to realise any potential long term benefits and therefore justify the costs.

Personally I think it would be a shame for the scheme to end. I'm sure many,many families have benefited from the scheme.

If we're to be a bit cynical, well it's probably not much of a vote winner for the Conservatives. Indeed many of the women who have benefited may have never voted in their life! At least David Cameron's wife needn't worry, it was never going to benefit her anyway.

[littleEDfamily]

I don't think SureStart has been successful in terms of what I thought it was meant to achieve (ie better opportunities for under-privileged kids). Although, I do get confused as Labour also seems to want us to believe it is 'for all'. My experience of SureStart has been very positive (it's great and free, after all), but I cannot hand on heart say, unless it has been proven to tackle serious and complex parenting/social problems (which I don't believe it can) that it ought to be prioritised above various other more (in my mind) important concerns (more resources for Kings College Hospital for a start!), esp with public finances in the state they are in. I suspect the scheme, like many public initiatives, is probably grossly inefficient and crawling with bureaucrats who add little value. As much as I will selfishly continue to enjoy initiatives like Leapers as long as they are around, I don't think the demise of SureStart is something I would necessarily actively campaign against.

[helena handbasket]

I think it depends on where it is. This particular area is heaving with moms looking for advice, help, support, and as someone mentioned on a previous thread, in parts of London that just happens to be white middle class women who don't have family near. If it not is running efficiently than they need to work on that rather than throw the whole baby out with the bath water.

I have seen it in action in smaller towns, however, and it really can be a hub of activity for the "targeted" groups. Very young moms is a group I've noticed to be particularly involved, and they most certainly need the support.

I think it is an important program, for everyone, and after a few years it could become a really integral part of health/social network here. It needs more time to grow into what it could be; I recently read that the real benefits will be more obvious around 2020 when the babies have grown into young adults. I don't know how investing in children became optional; at our house I don't get to skip a few meals for junior because I need new tires.......

[lorraineliyanage]

helena, where is the statistical data to back up the claims that "white middle class woman don't have family near"? I know plenty of people (middle class and of varying ethnicity because that is entirely possible in this day and age) who have family near and not so near who do everything they can to help out with their grandchildren.

Edited to add that as a teacher, I have many pupils whose grandparents bring them weekly to their lessons so they obviously have a network of family members to help out. My mother also looks after my daughter 2 days a week and several friends have sisters or mothers helping out with childcare.

[helena handbasket]

I've been to Leapers. I've talked to moms. And I've read this forum. I have never pretended that my generalizations were statistically valid, just an observation from someone who is culturally an outsider and is observing. I'm parroting the same conversation I've heard over and over.........

Not sure how grandparents who are not so near can be helpful. Mine are several thousand miles away (and many time zones behind) and I need all the help I can get. The people I have met that fall into the "varying diversity" group you mention actually do seem to have large extended families close by. And yes most are very middle class. I have not lived in the UK long enough to understand or comment on race OR class politics so won't be dragged into that, sorry.

[lorraineliyanage]

There are many middle class families in the local area who are not white and also are not privilege to the benefits of SureStart, Leapers etc. It seems to be presumed that anyone ethnic is working class and therefore benefitting from the local children's services. I personally find many comments on the forum very narrow-minded and can't help but think that many parents will be passing on these same views to their children. Surely it can't have slipped your notice that London is a highly diverse and multicultural society?

[helena handbasket]

Speaking of generalizations, how are you so sure about MY ethnicity?

edited to add.....

Do you know what box I tick off on forms? Do you know what my son's status is in his government issued "red book" , or on forms for Sure Start?

We're "OTHER". That's right, we are of so little consequence in this "diverse and multicultural wonderland" that we don't even have a box to tick!

So before you get on your soap box next time, perhaps you could examine your own prejudices and assumptions before you point fingers. What are YOU teaching YOUR children?

[Smiler]

I think that Sure Start was originally intended to target families and children in need of additional support from local children's services, e.g. with speech development, SEN, health, domestic violence etc. The idea being that it would be easier for people to access services.

There have been various evaluations of the scheme, available from the DCSF website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/research/evaluations/nationalevaluation/NESS/nesspublications/.

One that I read a while ago said that in some areas, too many Sure Start services were "walk-in", with the people who turned up not those in need of help, and recommended that more resource went into outreach work.

[katgod]

Think it has confused aims - on one hand targetting particular groups, young mums, those with drug/alcohol issues, SEN, economic deprivation etc etc, but on the other supposedly being open to all. The 'wrong' people have been attending - those who do not fall into any of the target groups but who do want/need some help/support/comfort.

I posted on the other thread about this. I think I specifically excluded any racial comment from my post. It was me that made the point that just because you are not obviously disdavantaged or live in a particular postcode does not mean that you are not in need of support.

I have no stats to say that many of the people who live here do not have family support nearby. It is based on my observations of the parents I see at school at nursery etc, very few of whom were brought up in SE22. Grandparents live anything from 1.5 to 6 hours away. My point, which I think is the one that the poster above was referring too is that economically stable families in SE22 without any obvious problems might be lonely and need a bit of help too. Provided no one in greater need is being excluded, then I don't see why we can't join in Sure Start activities too.

As I said in my other post, a the soft play sessions it was made clear to me that if someone else more target came along I would have to leave. But that never happened. So I think there is room for everyone. And also from the Leapers thread it seems a well used facility is now not well used because of the narrowing of the admittance criteria.

[littleEDfamily]

Phew, Smiler - thanks for the link, I will certainly make some attempts to read through the detail. Like with many ill conceived schemes, it does seem that SureStart has tried to cast its net too wide, and that the scope needs fundamental review and consolidation.

Personally I can only reiterate that while I enjoy the facilities, and it has helped me out at times, for people like me and I suspect most of those who make use of the schemes, SureStart is not life changing. I fall into the category of being a foreigner with no family support nearby, but in essence I am a capable person who will find the support that I need from wherever to ensure I don't completely fall apart (this Forum is a great example of peoples resourcefulness and ability to create 'community' without state intervention). In view of this I just cannot argue that I have a legitimate need for these public funds. I feel the same about the ?250 they give you when you have a child. It's nice to have, but it's not going to change lives, yet the scheme costs millions. Pointless gimmick in my opinion.

What I find very depressing is that having talked to people who work directly with the kind of 'target groups' already mentioned - including speech therapists and social workers in Southwark - they report that even with the help of outreach workers they struggle achieve decent levels of utilisation. It seems sometimes those most in need reject help, and I am not sure an army of well meaning bureaucrats has the power to change that.

[helena handbasket]

If you do a few simple google searches, it is evident that ethnicity is a large component of the program and it's original goals, I didn't invent the issue and I certainly didn't make it about race.

Here's an interesting document: National Evaluation of Sure Start 2006 It's titled "Black and Minority Ethnic Families and Sure Start: Findings from Local Evaluation Reports,

When I say that the Peckham Sure Start program appears to be used by more shall we say "non-ethnically diverse" parents than they perhaps had in mind I am not being narrow minded or racist. I am merely commenting on the fact that if that is the government's goal than by those measures that particular centre is failing.

My original point was that the program in itself is a good and in many areas essential social tool and if they actually believe the roles of Sure Start to be more along the lines of those in Smiler's document then I don't see why children who are not classically deprived or of the targeted ethnicity (whatever that is) should be denied access to these programs.