Sure Start - Targeted or Universal?

Sure Start - Targeted or Universal?

by: Debs - 13-01-10 16:45

Hi All

I posed a question in July last year and asked whether Children's Centres delivering a targeted 'Play and Stay' for referred families only was appropriate.

Now the recent announcement by the conservative party would seem to consider that universal services are not  their partys vision for the Centres and would ensure that those families most in need would benefit most with more targeted early intervention.

There are equality issues to consider for those families who may not be disadvantaged but may want to access the services and there are also stigma issues as it could marginalise those families it is trying to engae with.

This is my reseach topic for my BA Hons so please any views on this would be appreciated.

In a nutshell 'Targeted or Universal'?  Thankyou

Debs 

Many Thanks

ebs 

by: kaz (the first one!)

Having been to my local sure start centre recently and spoken with staff there, the same theme keeps popping up. The parents in need often feel intimidated by parents who attend groups who are not in need. Some discussion has been as to whether or not these groups should be targeted or universal. Targeted may be better for the people it is intended to support, with specific invitation to these groups whereas universal groups tend to unintentionally exclude those who need the services more. I think a mixture of invitation/targeted services as well as open/universal services needs to be addressed and balanced.

by: allie

I agree Kaz. I researched 'Social Class' and education and briefly looked into Sure Start Centers. It did cite  disadvantage families or families of low socio-economic status were less likely to use these centers as they were "put off" by "middle classes" using them.

If the government were to target such families, how would they feel to be targeted?  Would it be managed in asensative manner? Would they use such services?

by: Karine

Difficult one this - although whole concept of these centres and people they are tring to reach are the ones who need the help and yet feel they do not want interference from do-gooders or busy bodies.  Often happy to stay on the social, smoking and drinking yet cant afford to take a piece of fruit into pre-school as they cant afford it. - How do I know, by spending quite a lot of time on the estates, talking to some parents of different ages and usually unmarried with 2 children or more - they like the freedom of not working, but still having enough money to fund their habit - and their social group.

Yes the groups accessing these centres are usually those on the right track and willing to extend their parenting, knowledge and understanding.

I firmly believe that if we want services to reach the lower social economic families - then people like our Health Visitors etc., need to go back to the old way of doing things - visit them on their patch so to speak and learn how to reach them their in small groups in someones living room!

by: allie

Yes Millie, i also agree! bring back the health visitors to support ALL families in an environment that is non-threating and comfortable for them. We can live in hope!

by: kaz (the first one!)

hear hear Millie!

by: Karine

One day the govt will realise that they need to sometimes stick to the basics and what works - also to pay health visitors to keep them in this country as we are losing them to Australia and New Zealand due to better conditions and pay.

Govt have spent a lot on these childrens centres, many operating in my area at a huge loss.  - Also affected local pre-schools, out of school services etc., - Govt needs to look at this

by: Lolo

I think there is a role for both!  I think that some people are at risk because they are outside targeted groups, but yet don't get the support they need from the universal groups either.