House of Commons - Foundation Years: Sure Start children's centres

Foundation Years: Sure Start children's centres - Education Committee Contents

2 Definition and purpose of Sure Start children's centres

What is a Sure Start centre?

11. Sure Start children's centres are defined in the Childcare Act 2006 as:

as a place or a group of places:

which is managed by or on behalf of, or under arrangements with, the local authority with a view to securing that early childhood services in the local authority's area are made available in an integrated way;

through which early childhood services are made available (either by providing the services on site, or by providing advice and assistance on gaining access to services elsewhere); and

at which activities for young children are provided.

Early childhood services are also defined in the same Act as:

early years provision (early education and childcare);

social services functions of the local authority relating to young children, parents and prospective parents;

health services relating to young children, parents and prospective parents;

training and employment services to assist parents or prospective parents; and

12. Much is therefore expected of Sure Start centres. The Minister described them as "a gateway for families [...] a one-stop-shop that gives them access to a wide range of services available locally".[21] Yet, in reality, there is a great variety in the services provided by centres and in the way that the centres themselves are configured, with a general move away from single, stand-alone centres. The most recent evaluation by the Evaluation of Children's Centres in England (ECCE) research project found that the one-stop-shop is being replaced by complex clusters of centres and satellite sites, with particular services being delivered by particular sites.[22]

13. Crucially, the majority of centres do not offer early education and/or childcare and some offer few, if any, direct services to children despite the statutory requirements. The 2012 4Children census of Sure Start children's centres indicated that almost 2,000 centres did not offer any childcare[23] but we came across repeated confusion in our inquiry over early education and children's centres, especially when discussing the impact and staffing of the centres, and further confusion between childcare and early education. Childcare and early education are not the same. The former is currently for children aged under three, generally provided by the private sector and delivered by a workforce with low-level qualifications; the latter, as defined by the Rumbold report, implies teachers working directly with children and better qualified staff.[24] Research shows that high quality early education is critical for children from birth to age 5.

14. Some witnesses argued for full services to be offered at all centres, even though this would mean fewer centres overall, with many citing early education and childcare, in particular, as an essential service (see further below).[25] This would imply a more standard offer and pattern of centres across the country and was not welcomed by local authorities who argued against "a consistent one-size-fits-all approach, because the needs of different communities will be very different".[26] The Minister agreed that all authorities "start from different points" and that the pattern of centres "depends on the landscape and the local area".[27] She argued, however, that "It is important that parents are able to access a service [,] that the footprint is a broad service" and that there should continue to be centres in all communities.[28]

15. We believe that it is necessary for reasons of policy-making and accountability that there is clarity about what is meant by a children's centre. This is not the case at the moment when the only distinction is between phase 1, 2 and 3 centres. There is confusion, in particular, between centres offering childcare and/or early education and those which do not. It is important also to recognise that some centres work across localities and may be inspected as groups by Ofsted. For the purposes of this report, we have identified three distinct types with different roles and functions:

Children's centres based around nursery schools, offering a full service, with some acting as teaching centres and network hubs, with fully integrated services
Children's centres as part of or managed by a school, usually a primary school, on the extended school model
Children's centres that operate as family centres, offering family support and opportunities for community participation. These offer no childcare or early education but are used by local authorities for targeted prevention services.

16. In the current economic circumstances it is unrealistic to demand fully-integrated centres in all communities and this may not be the most suitable model in all cases. It is the responsibility of local authorities to determine what is required on the basis of need and to adopt the model of delivery, including the number and pattern of centres, which provides the best outcomes for children and families. Local authorities can then more easily be held accountable for how they perform against those key outcomes.

17. To assist its policy-making, the Government needs to have a clearer picture of the pattern adopted by local authorities in fulfilling their statutory obligations with regard to Sure Start children's centres. We recommend that the DfE collect data from local authorities on the pattern of centres commissioned based on the model we set out above.

The core purpose

18. The Coalition Government's new "core purpose" for children's centres, developed in collaboration with local authorities and early years staff, is "to improve outcomes for young children and their families and reduce inequalities between families in the greatest need and their peers in: child development and school readiness; parenting aspirations and parenting skills; and child and family health and life chances".[29] This is intended to "provide a greater scope for local authorities and children's centres to better respond to local need, helping to take Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention".[30] In fact, the Government appears to have two versions of the core purpose: the first set out in the statutory guidance as shown above and the second in a DfE "Core Purpose" document which is: "improving outcomes for young children and their families, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged families, in order to reduce inequalities [reference to "between families in the greatest need and their peers" deleted] in: child development and school readiness; supported by improved: parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills; child and family health and life chances" (differences highlighted).[31]

19. The core purpose and its focus on improving outcomes for disadvantaged children has generally been welcomed by the sector as shown in the responses to the Government consultation on the core purpose and in evidence to our inquiry. We were concerned, however, that the wording was too broad to be meaningful. We were also concerned about apparent tensions within the core purpose, as identified by the latest research report into children's centres (ECCE Strand 3), such as whether centres should prioritise children or parents, employment or family support, or targeted or universal provision in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.[32] The Minister did not recognise this tension and argued that the wording was "deliberately broad".[33] She translated the core purpose as "being there to offer services to parents, to improve outcomes for children and to provide a gateway into other services that are provided locally".[34] She added that "the whole point of our core purpose is that it gives councils the freedom to organise their services with the aim of achieving the best outcomes for children".[35]

20. We are not convinced by the Minister's defence of the wording of the core purpose which we judge to be too vague and too broad, whichever version is used. It is not possible for a small children's centre which acts principally as a signpost to other services to fulfil such a wide-ranging and all-encompassing purpose. For other centres, the core purpose is too all-encompassing to be of any use as a guiding principle of their aims and priorities. In neither case is it possible for a children's centre to achieve such expectations alone. It is right that councils should have the freedom to organise their services to achieve the best outcomes for children but we are not convinced that setting a universal core purpose for all children's centres assists them to do this. We recommend that the core purpose be reviewed and reshaped to focus on achievable outcomes for children's centres to deliver for children and families, and to recognise the differences between the three types of centre. We return later in this report to how these outcomes should be devised and measured and how accountability can be improved.

Universal or targeted services

21. The core purpose refers to "families in the greatest need" but the DfE's statutory guidance also makes clear that "A children's centre should make available universal and targeted early childhood services".[36] One of the main challenges for centres is how they balance universal and targeted services, particularly in the context of reduced resources. Evidence to our inquiry suggests that an increasing number of centres are coming down on the side of targeted services, partly because of reductions in funding and partly because of the core purpose. Local authorities are also moving towards targeting in response to the increase in recent years in child protection work. Professor Kathy Sylva told us that "social workers are increasingly using [children's] centres as their treatment".[37]

22. The Local Government Association believed that the new emphasis on targeting would "enable councils to target local resources in the most cost-effective way when responding to local needs".[38]Other evidence, particularly from children's charities, was strongly in favour of the retention of universal services. Barnardo's was "clear that making provision available to all families is the best way to build social capital in communities and enable engagement with the full range of families without stigma".[39] The Children's Society saw universal services as a key part of early intervention and prevention, reporting that such services "get people through the door, enable staff to build relationships with families and identify any issues/problems families may be facing before they reach crisis point".[40] A recent NFER report noted that "whilst the concept of 'target groups' can be helpful for monitoring and prioritising services, any family or child could potentially be in need of some additional support at any given point in time."[41] Witnesses called variously for "a mix of open access and targeted" services,[42] proportional access,[43] and targeted interventions within a universal service.[44]

23. The Minister saw "no contradiction" between the aims of involving "as wide a group as possible of the community in the centre" and of making "sure that those children from disadvantaged backgrounds get the early education and the services they need".[45] She added that "the way of achieving an effective targeted service is to have a universal offer".

24. Funding pressures inevitably mean that greater targeting of services must occur but it is important that all families are able to access services through children's centres and universal services play a significant role in removing the stigma from attending centres and in encouraging families to engage with centres in the first place. The Government must make clear in its statutory guidance that local authorities should have regard to the relationship between universal services and the effectiveness of targeted prevention services when planning local provision.

Priority services: children or parents?

25. Early childhood services are defined in legislation as services not just for children but also for parents and prospective parents, including social services, health, training and employment, and support with parenting.[46] According to the DfE, the services most commonly provided by children's centres include "stay and play", home-based family services, parenting classes and breast-feeding support.[47] Recent research indicates that centres are continuing to offer a surprising variety of services, despite recent cuts and changes in focus,[48] but the 2013 4Children census shows clearly that the services being expanded by centres are parenting, rather than child-related.[49] Professor Sylva warned that increased targeting of services on vulnerable families was leading to children's centres without children: "almost half of our children's centres do not have children in them, with the exception of Stay and Play; with the targeting, what has gone is having children in the centre."[50]

26. Naomi Eisenstadt's history of the development of Sure Start demonstrates that the purpose of Sure Start centres has always been a subject of some debate, with ministers from different departments and at different times seeing them primarily as a resource for mothers and babies, as a part of anti-poverty initiatives to enable parents to return to employment, and as providers of early education for the benefit of children.[51] We heard that this is an on-going dilemma. Professor Melhuish told us centres tended to concentrate on the parents[52] and that children's centres "are still not focused enough on improving the children to be prepared for school" or adequately supporting "the language development of children".[53] This is backed by impact studies which have found that Sure Start had been more effective at improving outcomes for parents (family functioning and maternal well-being) than child development outcomes; [54] and by Ofsted who noted that "the weakest aspects of children's centres' work relate to children's preparedness for school."[55]

27. The NSPCC, supported by a recent report from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start,[56] argued that children's centres should focus their work more on very young children, aged 0 to two.[57] In contrast, 4Children believed that "there is enormous potential to extend the children's centre model beyond the early years". They have adopted a 0-19 approach in some of their children's centres, which "allows children, young people and the wider family to access consistent support over years" and means that families continue to be offered the "trusted support they wish for beyond the earliest years of their child's life."[58] Professor Melhuish suggested that focusing on parents is a more indirect way of improving child outcomes and tends to take longer, stating that "the financial benefits of improving parenting accrue many years later when those children are less likely to be involved in crime, less likely to be anti-social, and more likely to do better at school. To get those outcomes, you need to look quite a few years ahead."[59]

28. Clarity is needed on who children's centres are for and the balance between the needs of parents and those of the children themselves. The core purpose gives scope for a focus on parenting skills but is vague about parental "aspirations" and what this means for child development. It is also not clear how far centres are meant to offer training for parents in employment skills. We recommend that the Government address these issues in its review of the core purpose.

29. The 0 to two year olds are a key group but not the only one. Equal attention should be given to the crucial pre-school period from two to five, when children may be in early education but will not necessarily have access to other services except through children's centres. Priority should be given on the basis on individual need and there should be no fixed restriction due to the age of the child. Local authorities are best placed to decide the age range to be served by the services they commission through children's centres.

30. Centres are required in legislation to provide activities for young children and it is not acceptable for any centre to operate without direct contact or engagement with children: local authorities should ensure that the statutory requirement is met and Ofsted should draw attention to any centres in breach of the requirement in its inspection reports.

Childcare and early education

31. In 2011 the Government removed the requirement for children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas to provide access to childcare, if there was not identifiable need, and also removed the requirement for a qualified teacher to be linked to each centre. The participation of children's centres in childcare and early education, even in disadvantaged areas, is therefore variable and changing. Currently, just over a third of centres offer childcare and the 2013 census run by 4Children found that

Just over 23 per cent of centres in the survey expected to cut back on the number of all-day childcare placements in the next year.[61]

32. Witnesses argued that childcare should be part of the integrated provision offered by children's centres and that the removal of the requirement had been a mistake. For example, Naomi Eisenstadt argued that it had diluted the focus on employability skills[62] and Unison wrote that it had "damaged centres and reduced participation across a range of services [...]we believe that the childcare offer is key to the success of the Sure Start centres and contributes to successful outcomes."[63] There is some empirical evidence to support the assertion that childcare attracts parents to children's centres. Surveys published by the previous Government in 2007 and 2009 found that parents' awareness and use of children's centres (in phase 1 areas) was very closely linked to the early education and childcare offered by centres and that education and childcare were the most commonly used services.[64]

33. There is also some evidence that the combination of childcare and early education in one location produced better outcomes for children. The EPPE study found that integrated centres (which fully combined education and care) tended to promote better social development and intellectual outcomes for children.[65] Ofsted has found that the quality of early years provision that is directly linked to a children's centre is better overall than the quality of early years provision without such an association.[66] Many of the phase 1 centres were based on nursery schools which were already highly-performing[67] but as the Minister was keen to point out, children's centres provide only 4% of early education places.[68]

34. Unison also argued that "it has been a retrograde step to remove the requirement to have a qualified teacher in every centre."[69] Dame Claire Tickell strongly agreed that there should be qualified teachers linked to centres.[70] Witnesses stressed that this brought benefits even where centres did not provide childcare directly: Vicky Lant of Barnardo's, for example, explained the input that a qualified teacher could have through interventions during stay and play-type activities.[71] The Minister did not consider that it had been a mistake to remove the requirement because "the centres have different purposes".[72]

35. We consider that it is not necessary or practical for all centres to run their own education with care but it is essential that all centres build close links with high quality early education/childcare providers. For the majority of centres that do not have childcare or education on site, there are questions about how well they can fulfil the expectations in the core purpose that they deliver improved outcomes for young children and reduce inequalities in child development. The Government must set out clearly how these expectations apply in such cases.

36. Research shows that contact with qualified teachers enhances outcomes for children. All centres require input from a qualified teacher to help shape their offer to, and their work in direct contact with, children. The Government was wrong to remove the requirement for a link with a qualified teacher and we recommend that the decision be reversed.

Working with partners

37. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that early childhood services are provided in an integrated manner which is defined in the DfE statutory guidance as "where everyone supporting children works together effectively to put the child at the centre".[73] The Childcare Act 2006 also places a duty on commissioners of local health services and JobCentre Plus (as 'relevant partners') to work together with local authorities in their arrangements for improving the well-being of young children and securing integrated early childhood services.[74] The DfE memorandum described children's centres as "hubs of early childhood services",[75] and outlined the ways in which children's centres work with midwives, health visitors, family nurse partnerships, social care, housing and Job Centre plus.[76] This is corroborated by the recent ECCE Strand 3 report which found that "An enormously long list of organisations and agencies as partners was compiled by the centre managers—both statutory and voluntary, and in the community".[77]

38. Evidence to our inquiry was strongly supportive of children's centres as models of integrated services and there was widespread agreement that integrated working with health professionals, in particular, is vital. For example, Corby health-visiting lead Diane Dinch told us that "integrated working is pivotal to the local community, certainly from a health point of view."[78] Witnesses suggested that such partnership-working between children's centres and health professionals works very well in some areas, and the DfE supplied seven case studies of this in action.[79] Where this is not the case, the issue most commonly cited as an obstacle to effective partnerships was access by children's centres to health data (see paras 91 to 97 below).[80]

39. With effect from April 2013, local authorities have taken on new responsibilities for public health through Health and Wellbeing Boards which are required to bring together strategic partners to agree joint priorities and outcomes for their local areas. 4Children suggested that Health and Wellbeing Boards offered "a chance for greater integration of health services into children's centres, and an opportunity to overcome some challenges which still remain".[81] Others have looked beyond partnership-working to full integration: for example, in a recent report, the Children's Society recommended that the Health and Wellbeing Boards should ensure arrangements are in place for integrated commissioning of universal and targeted services for children in the early years, including services offered by children's centres, general practice, maternity, health visiting and early years providers.[82] Family Nurse Partnerships provide a model of how this already works in practice.

40. Many witnesses argued for co-location of health and children's centre services, especially ante- and post-natal services. For example, the NSPCC suggested that "having midwife and health visitor clinics run out of children's centres is [...] effective in making other services more accessible to many parents and enabling parents to access a range of other relevant information, advice and support."[83] This is in keeping with the general direction of current government policy. The DfE's statutory guidance for children's centres states that "as a minimum it is expected that every children's centre should have access to a named health visitor".[84] The Minister reminded us that from 2015 health visitors will be transferred to local authorities,[85] which could see further integration. The NHS Healthy Child Programme (HCP) also holds out the possibility that "children's centres may be an ideal place from which to provide the HCP, making full use of their workforce and services and of their role in promoting children's health and wellbeing",[86] including the forthcoming integrated review for 2-2½ year olds.

41. The Government has also encouraged the co-location of employment support with children's services as part of its child poverty strategy.[87] The DfE's statutory guidance for children's centres encourages centres to provide services which will improve parents' skills, employment prospects and financial situation, as well as providing links with JobCentre Plus. The guidance states that "as a minimum there should be arrangements made at the centre to assist families on gaining access to employment support and advice."[88] The evidence is mixed on how well this has worked so far. The National Evaluation of Sure Start 2010 impact study found a larger fall in workless household status for families in Sure Start areas.[89] Similarly, Naomi Eisenstadt told us that "one of the positive outcomes of from Sure Start was that more parents got jobs, and that is measurable."[90] In contrast, Ofsted reported that one of the weakest aspects of children's centres' work is the degree of support staff are able to give in helping parents towards economic stability and independence.[91] The Family and Childcare Trust told us that "the range of support for parents who may wish to return to work also varies from centre to centre" and was critical that "there seems little evidence of strategic thinking from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Work Programme and Job Centre Plus as to how welfare-to-work provision might be targeted at certain Sure Start centres."[92]

42. The DWP has run a pilot of work-focused services in children's centres which was evaluated in 2011. The results were broadly positive but showed that co-location of services in itself was not sufficient, and that a critical factor was children's centre's staff understanding of the role of employment as a route out of poverty.[93]Furthermore, as an early Sure Start evaluation found, many parents face a complex set of difficulties and require support to overcome these and to improve their aspirations and confidence before they are ready for training courses and employment. The availability of affordable and trusted childcare is also an on-going issue. [94]

43. We were struck by the focus on the co-location of services in the discussions surrounding partnership working or integration. Susan Gregory of Ofsted reported that "our inspection evidence shows [...] that centres are more successful in terms of early intervention [...] when they bring vulnerable families and children into the centre, or the environment where the services are delivered, where they can access a number of things".[95] Yet, ECCE strand 3 found less emphasis on co-location than they had expected: "Centres did not think that a single site was the key factor in centre ethos [...] other factors such as having workers willing to make contact with other services on behalf of families were more important".[96] Looking at multi-agency working, ECCE researchers also found that "There were mixed and often unrealistic expectations by staff as to what centres could provide. Different professional cultures created tensions, especially about the balance between open access and targeted services, and between adult-focused support and child development activities".[97] This suggests that there is work to be done on breaking down differences in culture and understanding between the various partners. It may be more important to share objectives than premises.

44. The difference in the size and structure of children's centres makes it impractical to stipulate that all relevant health services should be delivered through children's centres. Physical co-location may be desirable in some cases but it is not essential: it is more important that there is close working between the different services and that parents are helped to find their way between them. The priority should be integration of services, and the quality of that integration, rather than co-location. Parents should not be expected to tell their story three times to three different professionals; professionals must share information and develop a seamless integration of services, wherever those services are delivered.

45. We welcome the new integrated 2½ year old health check as a demonstration of closer partnership-working with shared objectives. Joint training for the integrated check might overcome some of the barriers between the professions. We recommend that the Government incorporate joint training between the different agencies involved into the implementation of this policy.

Working with childminders and other education providers

46. The Government's core purpose document makes brief reference to support for childminder networks, as part of children's centres' work on early education and childcare. Sue Owen of the National Children's Bureau recommended to us that children's centres are expected to develop the capacity of childminding within their areas. She noted that "providing support for childminders is part of the core purpose but has been delivered very patchily"[98] and suggested that children's centres should "support accredited childminding networks which are open to new as well as experienced childminders. They should also plan the support that childminders can offer to them in terms of providing places for specific groups of children, and supporting young or inexperienced staff and parents."[99] Dame Clare Tickell also talked of the importance of linking nurseries and childminders who are delivering the EYFS into children's centres so that they can draw upon the centres' resources. She pointed out that the centres "facilitate ways for childminders to access what is being delivered in children's centres in a way that 'allows them to talk to each other' and to "connect in with other professionals" to talk about their concerns.[100]

47. The Government has proposed that children's centres might lead childminder agencies as provided for by the Children and Families Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. This was being trialled when we met the Minister who told us that it "makes a lot of sense" for a children's centre to run a childminder agency and "would be very useful".[101] Other witnesses questioned the proposals. For example, Liz Bayram, Joint Chief Executive of PACEY, was concerned that "the childminding agency model is a different model from the sort of delivery of services that childminders are currently collaborating with children's centres on" and that this new "business model" would be "a very different type of intervention from what children's centres are currently doing" which might distract centres "from the core business of what they are there to do".[102]

48. Children's centres need to see childminders as both important customers and partners. Centres should take on a role in assisting childminders. We understand the concerns expressed about centres running childminder agencies. This certainly would not be appropriate for all centres but it should be a matter for individual decision whether taking on the role of a childminder agency would help to achieve a centre's core purpose.

49. We also heard concerns about the transfer of information from children's centres to schools. Participants at our informal seminar on school readiness commented that many primary schools could make better use of the information that is passed to them by children's centres. We came across some examples of good practice which could be emulated elsewhere. There is currently no nationally agreed format for how and what information should be transferred, although the vast majority of settings work to the Early Years Foundation Stage and its learning and development goals. The East Riding of Yorkshire reported that several children's centres in the area have worked in partnership with local primary schools and childcare providers to deliver transition projects with identified children and their parents to help them settle into school.[103] We also heard in Corby about Pen Green's Making Children's Learning Visible assessment, designed to facilitate dialogue and the flow of information on children's learning and development between early years settings, parents and primary schools. Children's centre leaders and primary school head teachers in Corby commented positively on the system and suggested that it could be rolled out more widely.[104]

50. There is significant potential to improve outcomes and provide integrated services where heads are leading and managing children's centres as part of nursery schools or schools. Where the children's centre leader is part of the senior management team of the school as a whole and seen as an equal partner, there is likely to be more focus on realising these benefits.

51. The Government's proposals for a new baseline assessment of children upon entering reception may lead to improvements in primary school accountability, but a better procedure is needed for passing on richer information on individual children from children's centres to schools and nurseries. Clearer guidance is also needed on how schools should use this information. This applies equally to assessments of individual children passed on from childminders to children's centres and schools. We recommend that the Government examine how this can be done.

20 Sure Start children's centres statutory guidance for local authorities, commissioners of local health services and Jobcentre Plus (April 2013), Department for Education Back

21 Q782 Back

22 Evaluation of Children's Centres in England (ECCE) Strand 3: Delivery of Family Services by Children's Centres, July 2013, DFE-RR297, p xxv Back

23 Sure Start children's centres census 2012, 4Children, p25 Back

24 The Rumbold Report (1990), Starting with Quality Back

25 See for example Q233-4, Q268, Q20 Back

26 Q716 [David Simmonds] Back

27 Q794 Back

28 Q813 Back

29 Statutory guidance (April 2013) Back

30 Ev 214, para 8 Back

31 http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/sure%20start%20childrens%20centres%20core%20purpose.pdf Back