Frank Field and Graham Allen are right to champion early intervention – but our work shows we need to go one step further

January 28, 2011 at 11:08 am 5 comments

by Sarah Gillinson

The ideas emerging from the six localities we are working with on the Transforming Early Years Programme, in partnership with NESTA, feel very zeitgeist. They are all working on different, better, lower cost models of support for families with very young children. They all share Frank Field and Graham Allen’s belief that by supporting families effectively in the very earliest years of a child’s life, it is possible to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage. They also share the belief of both reviews that existing services, including children’s centres, are still not reaching the families who are most in need of support.

Many of the recommendations from both reviews are very welcome. They chime strongly with what our localities are learning from their communities. We should be measuring, monitoring and responding to indicators of family well-being that can help us predict children’s life chances. Parenting support should be available to all families, with intense support targeted at the families who most need it. Professionals around families should work together, complementing each other’s expertise and responding to families’ whole lives, rather than duplicating their offers. Commissioners should support community and voluntary organisations to contribute to local services.

But proposals from our localities suggest that both reviews should go one step further.  Otherwise they could fail to realise their critically important aspiration to support all families during the early years. In every one of the Transforming Early Years teams, the actions and capacity of the local community sits at the very heart of their ideas, not at the periphery. This is not because they have heard of David Cameron’s Big Society and can see the writing on the wall. It is because in exploring the needs of families in their local areas, they have found that many of the problems they face are about the norms and realities of community life. Fear of where they live. The isolation of having no-one they trust and can turn to. And the frustration of grinding daily patterns, that are all the same as the last, with no hope or idea of how to change them. They also found that many public services, including children’s centres, are the last place that families would turn to. They are seen as judgemental, elitist and unresponsive. On the basis of this, solutions cannot purely be about better public services and local organisations. They have to be, at least partly, founded in the community.

In every site then, their ideas are fundamentally about putting the community in the driving seat of support for families. This should be done in partnership with highly trained professionals, but not dominated by them. They believe this will do several things:

–         Enable them to reach the most vulnerable families

–         Enable support to families to be consistent, not just at crisis point

–         Enable better understanding of families’ motivations and needs

–         Enable professionals like social workers to work with families when they are most needed and to shape their practice to respond better to families

The sites have very different ideas for how to achieve this, varying in scale, type and ambition. They include the creation of a community shop which sells key supplies for families, and which would become a natural, local hub that begins to tackle some of the isolation and frustration felt by families. The shop would be run by community members and would become a beacon of hope that begins to tackle the helplessness people feel at changing their lives. Critically, the shop would connect highly trained peer supporters, expert in providing parenting support, with vulnerable families.

Ideas also include the handover of children’s centres to be governed and run by parents. They would offer highly trained peer supporters and would commission the services from professionals that are most valued by parents. One proposal radically refocuses service- provision around parents and children from conception to 12 weeks in the belief that this is when many parenting patterns are formed, rather than around older children.

All of these ideas agree fundamentally with the principles of both the Frank Field and Graham Allen reviews. They offer seamless transition of support from conception to school. They work with parents in recognition of families as children’s primary educators. They focus on the youngest children to create the best foundation for a happy, productive and fulfilling life. They also target the most vulnerable families with the most intense support.

The recommendations of our sites go further than those in the review. They start with communities and their needs, not organisations, and what they can offer to generate real change for families who need it most.


Entry filed under: Big society, Education & Children's Services, Innovation Policy, Local Authorities, Local Innovation, Public Services, Radical Efficiency.

The Julie Project by Darcy Padilla, documentary photographer – persistent poverty in the US Lambeth publishes co-op council report

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. alecpatton  |  January 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Really interesting. I’m struck by the fact that children’s centres are perceived as ‘judgemental, elitist and unresponsive’, but shops have the potential to be ‘natural, local hubs.’

    On the one hand, this feels disheartening-the commercialisation of public space continues apace, to the extend that public services need to commercialise themselves in order for people to want to use them.

    On the other hand, this is a really creative solution, and it’s heartening to hear such an original approach to a problem that so many have written off as unsolveable.

    A fascinating read!

    • 2. Alan  |  January 28, 2011 at 5:56 pm

      I don’t think its Children’s Centres per se that have image problems, more general ‘public services.’

      I think a lot of the negative attitudes of the ‘hard to reach’ category of families are often shaped by their own negative experiences of the education and social care systems in the past. Say ‘children’s centre’ or ‘family support’ and they think about social services and losing their children. It’s an unfortunate fact that it only takes one bad social worker or teacher to undo the work of hundreds. They don’t even try to use the children’s centres.

      I know from interviewing Chidren’s Centres this week that once they do use them, they’re often taken aback by the amount of support they can receive and by its quality. The challenge is to create different touchpoints so that they can encounter the services and begin to break down those barriers of mistrust and fear. Shops are benign – everyone uses shops, there’s nothing to fear. It’s a really good idea. The children’s centre in Millmead has a community cafe which they use for similar reasons and has the advantage of being a public community space, building up low levels of social capital.

      Great blog Sarah!

      Unfortunately it only takes one bad teacher or one poor social worker to tar the whole system in the eyes

  • […] Westminster following  Graham Allen’s recent report  (to see Sarah’s great blog on this click here), social impact bonds (and their ilk) are very much the policies of the […]

  • 4. Claire McEneaney  |  February 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Alan – I think your points are spot on. We know from working with our sites that fear and mistrust of public services more generally, not just Children’s Centres, lie at the very route of this issue.

    If we can find a way of connecting people with the high quality, sensitive support that is available, through routes where they feel safe and comfortable and not judged, then we are halfway there.

  • 5. Kay Hiatt  |  February 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Frank Field and Graham Allan’s community shop idea could work! For parents who are ‘not in the know’ this can help to get their kids off to a good start in life.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The Innovation Unit website

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 29 other followers


Twitter Updates

Follow innovation_unit on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: