Search results

This article describes the origin of the UK's Sure Start programme, an innovative early years' programme launched in 1998. The programme owed its beginnings to support from the UK Treasury that saw it as a vehicle for combating intergenerational deprivation. The programme has expanded rapidly in the past few years. This paper analyses how the programme has changed and in particular how some of its basic characteristics, such as the integrated working across disciplines, the involvement of parents and the stress on family support, seem likely to change. The dilemmas posed by spreading the funding more thinly are also examined. There is some danger that the features of the programme that made it so attractive to participants and workers will be lost in the rush to mainstream the programme, so that it may become a victim of its own success.

This article focuses on the design and application of an instrument, the Programme Variability Rating Scale (PVRS), to measure the effectiveness of a complex social intervention in the UK. Sure Start aimed to improve outcomes for children aged under four years living in disadvantaged areas on a wide range of health, educational and social indicators. The PVRS was devised for use in the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) to measure programme proficiency. It consisted of 18 dimensions (eg. parental empowerment, user identification, flexibility of service delivery), each with seven levels of proficiency. It was applied to 150 Sure Start local programmes involved in a longitudinal study of the impact of the intervention on a range of child and parental outcomes. Ratings of more or less proficient processes were related, using discriminant‐function analysis, with the impact outcomes from the cross‐sectional study of almost 20,000 children. The 18 dimensions of proficiency of the PVRS made a significant differentiation between the most and least effective programmes.

This article analyses UK Early Years policy in terms of service expansion and service transformation since the Labour Government's election in 1997. Childcare is now a matter of public policy, driven largely by concerns about child poverty and inequalities in children's life chances. The evidence is considered, first, on service expansion, increased take‐up and increased employment by parents with young children, and, second, on service transformation and child outcomes: to what extent have changes benefited disadvantaged children, families and neighbourhoods? The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) research shows that pre‐school can boost disadvantaged children's intellectual development in particular, and the article concludes that programmes such as Sure Start and Neighbourhood Nurseries have been successfully targeted at the most disadvantaged areas, although better‐off families and neighbourhoods may have benefited even more, and that problems of cost and sustainability remain. It is too early to judge whether better integrated services now being developed will be successful in transforming the lives of the most disadvantaged children.

The government's vision for children's services in England and Wales, Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), emerged from the debate following the report of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié (Laming, 2003). The Children Act 2004 enshrined this vision in legislation, outlining the new statutory duties and clarifying accountabilities for children's services. The Directorate for Children, Young People and Families, located within the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), is the central government body charged with overseeing the implementation of the Every Child Matters reforms.Tom Jeffery is the Director‐General of the Directorate. In this interview, he argues that having a common set of outcomes is helping to make services less patchy and more coherent, and discusses the practical mechanisms being used to encourage local innovation within national guidelines and multiagency working centred around schools. He also reflects on the role of research in these developments and the efforts being made to improve training and career development for children's services practitioners. What follows is an edited transcript of Tom Jeffery's comments.

Families referred to child welfare for maltreatment and neglect are frequently mandated to attend parenting programmes. Evidence‐based parenting programmes (EBPs) are under‐utilised or not delivered with fidelity for this population. The Incredible Years (IY) parenting programme is an EPB that has been proven to reduce harsh parenting, increase positive discipline and nurturing parenting, reduce conduct problems and improve children's social competence. There is also promising preliminary evidence that IY is an effective intervention for families involved in child welfare and for foster parents. This article describes how the updated IY parenting basic programme is delivered with fidelity to this population.

The article reports results from an evaluation of Springboard, a family support programme introduced in Ireland during 1998. The evaluation is based on a non‐experimental design involving a pre‐post comparison of 319 children and 191 parents who participated in the programme. The two main outcomes reported here are children's psychological well‐being (measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ‐ SDQ), and the parent‐child relationship (measured by the Parent‐Child Relationship Inventory ‐ PCRI). Results showed improvements in SDQ and PCRI scores, equivalent to an effect size in the range 0.2 to 0.3, which is similar to the effect sizes produced by other family support programmes. At the end of the intervention, there was still a substantial amount of unmet need among children. The evaluation has two limitations: first, the use of a non‐experimental method means that we cannot be certain that all of the improved outcomes can be attributed to Springboard; second, the diverse interventions which constitute Springboard, and family support programmes generally, means that it is impossible to separate effective from ineffective interventions within the programme.

According to government policy, parents with learning disabilities should be provided with the support that they need to bring up their children successfully. In practice, however, their risk of having their children removed from them is high. This article reports on findings from a study designed to identify and map positive practice in supporting parents with learning disabilities and their children. It reviews the barriers confronting adults with learning disabilities who want to have and look after their children. It also describes a range of examples of positive practice, demonstrated by professionals and supporters of different backgrounds across the UK, aimed at helping adults with learning disabilities to parent successfully so that they can keep their children with them. It concludes with a discussion of what is needed to facilitate the spread of such examples of positive practice in the future.

In response to what are perceived as the negative consequences for children of family change over the past century, governments in the UK and the US have devoted substantial funds to programmes to strengthen families, but the focus of intervention in the two countries has moved in opposite directions. In the UK, financial support has shifted away from couple strengthening to parenting programmes, while in the US financial support has shifted substantially toward couple‐focused interventions. This review article summarises studies relevant to these policy choices. We present research evidence for a multidomain family risk‐child outcome model, and then describe the results of three studies using a randomised clinical trial design to examine the impact of intervention with couples on children's adaptation. The data support the hypothesis that interventions focusing on strengthening couple relationships may have a more positive impact on families and children than interventions that focus on increasing parenting skills.