Not such a SureStart

Submitted by Janine on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 12:49

The National Evaluation of SureStart (NESS) has published some early reports. It seems that these contain both praise and criticism - in particular, that it is not reaching some of the most needy kids and families. This has prompted me to dig out an article I wrote three years ago on this subject. Not that I'm saying "I told you so", but, erm, I told you so.

SureStart is an issue on which I can claim thoroughgoing personal experience. I live in a first-wave SureStart area, and have three kids who have been SureStart-ed.

The first thing that SureStart did when it set up in this area in 2000 was to close down a baby & toddler group that Alex enjoyed going to! Nevertheless, it did some positive stuff, as acknowledged in my article.

More has happened in the last three years, both positive and negative.

On the plus side, the SureStart midwife was an absolute blessing during my pregnancy with Harrison (born February 2004). She was the only health professional who I saw more than once while I was expecting, she came round to my house, answered my questions, and even took my phone calls at anti-social times. If SureStart can provide services like this, which help women through pregnancy outside the confines of hospitals and clinics, then great.

Now the negative. The Toddler Art Club mentioned in my article closed when the two workers went on Maternity Leave. No problem with that, if SureStart had replaced it with an alternative service. But no - our estate remained group-less for nearly six months, as SureStart promised, tried and failed to set up a new group. Eventually, we got a new toddler group established when SureStart accepted that it was incapable of organising such a thing and should instead pay another agency (Hackney's Under-Fives Project) to run it instead.

The main obstacle was that our SureStart did not employ children's play workers. I'll say that again. SureStart - the government's project for pre-school children - did not employ play workers. It employed accountants, managers and target-setters. But not play workers.

The latest policy direction for SureStart nationally is the establishment of Children's Centres. No doubt these will provide some much-needed facilities, but I am sceptical about the direction that this takes under-fives services. It feels far too much like centralising services into showpiece buildings, like Mohammed insisting that the mountain come to him.

I can imagine a NESS report in a few years' time showing that middle-class families are making good use of the services based in Children's Centres, whilst parents who are single, unemployed, poor and/or vulnerable remain 'hard-to-reach' in estates and neighbourhoods a few miles down the road.

The fact that various New Labour representatives continually trumpet SureStart as one of their government's great successes shows firstly that they are (probably wilfully) ignorant of its reality, and secondly, that there is precious little else for them to boast about.

Issues and Campaigns

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 20:47

I'm told that the research is flawed, in that it collected data on kids the researchers thought *ought* to be on Sure Start, without reference to whether they actually were. So it doesn't prove Sure Start is a bad idea, but it does prove the government isn't giving it the resources necessary to meet all the need.

I think Sure Start is a great idea, but under-resourced and overburdened with useless managerial ideology. New Labour does, indeed, have little else to boast about, and for any of their good schemes really to work properly - for even the minimum logical conclusions to be drawn from the failures - they will have to forget that they are pro-capitalist. Ahem.

Submitted by Janine on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 20:58

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm not sure that makes the research 'flawed'. As I understand it, the report surveyed kids under four who live in SureStart areas. People who want to detract from the report's criticisms and defend the government have said that it should only have surveyed kids who use SureStart services. But surely then, it would have missed out on the crucial issue of whether kids in the area are accessing the services or not.

Ask people who use SureStart and they will probably tell you that the toddler group / midwife / language support / respite creche / exercise class / etc is great. But the fact remains that for many poor and/or vulnerable parents and kids, the answer would be "What's SureStart?"

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/03/2006 - 16:38

Hello

I work for Surestart cant say where sorry. I see Surestart doing alot of good and some times not so good. Where are we right? Well we do have s Surestart playworker and she is brilliant but she is the only one and extremely tired most of the time. I work in groups with hard to reach catagory families. They are ignored. No funding was put in the very local area, but spent in a big building further away from them. Why? because the more affluent families requested so. People cannot do surveys if they do not read and right. We are addressing this balance and now I champion this with other agencies in this area. But where will the funding come from longterm?? Are we giving hope again and then taking it away again? ANON