Social Inclusion and Integrated Service Delivery: Children’s Centres and Ethnic Minorities

It is widely acknowledged that family factors have a decisive impact on children’s opportunities in life. Following its landslide victory in 1997, New Labour initiated Sure Start, a cross-departmental programme intended to combat child poverty and social inequality by providing comprehensive family-centred services to children in pre-school age and their families. First evidence, however, points to significant difficulties in reaching minority ethnic families. This paper seeks to explore conditions for engaging effectively with minority ethnic families in Sure Start Children’s Centres. Effective engagement is defined as provision which is accessible to as well as inclusive of users and has positive outcomes measured against policy, practitioner and user objectives. Given the significant diversity of ethnic groups and limitations of previous research, existing evidence on ethnicity and Early Years provision is complemented by findings of a case study on the experience of Somali parents in a South London Community. It will be argued that Children’s Centres’ potential for effective engagement can be enhanced through a) considering individual/ethno-specific factors as well as regulatory and physical contexts in service design; b) well-trained staff and adequate resourcing; and c) actively involving parents in service planning, delivery and evaluation. It will also be suggested that the ability to offer inclusive services is constrained by systemic tensions arising from the rapid expansion of service provision and the underlying target and performance management model.



Text Sample:

Chapter 4., Integrated Children’s Centres - The Background:

Integrated Children’s Centres (ICCs) form a key element of Sure Start, a cross-departmental programme to improve the overall well-being and life opportunities of children in pre-school age as well as their parents. As a cornerstone of New Labour’s framework on families set out in the Every Child Matters agenda (DfES 2003) and the Ten Year Childcare Strategy (DfES 2005) the initiative contributes to the aims of reducing child poverty and promoting equal opportunities. However, Winter (2009) points out, that considerations of human investment and parental employability have gained prominence in recent years.

Inspired by international evidence on the beneficial effects of service integration, especially for disadvantaged children (see Sylva et al. 2004; Zoritch et al. 2004; Zill et al. 2006), Sure Start was initiated in 1998 to pioneer a holistic approach to early years’ services addressing the wider needs of children and their families. In an initial phase, 524 Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLPs) were set up in the most disadvantaged areas and pockets of deprivation across the UK, offering services, such as early education, childcare, health and family support, to children under four and their families, thereby working together with statutory and non-statutory partners at Local Authority (LA) level.

SSLPs were supposed to develop over a ten-year period. In 2003, however, the government expressed its intentions to gradually extend the programme to all communities through the establishment of ICCs, which offer mainstream services to all families with children in pre-school age, while also targeting disadvantaged groups (Craig 2007). The majority of centres were developed from SSLPs, Neighbourhood Nurseries and Early Excellence Centres, as this was most cost effective and enabled staff to build on existing relationships with the community (DfES 2006c).

Although the objective to establish one centre in each community by 2010, i.e. 3500 in total, has been achieved early, most centres are still in the setting-up phase of developing their services (DCSF 2010) which limits the scope of evaluations at this point. There also is no clear definition of what characterises a ‘community’. ICCs are mainly established according to the number of children aged 0-5 in the area as well as the level of local deprivation and existing service providers (DfES 2006c).

The administrative structure of ICCs mirrors New Labour’s community approach to service provision. While central government maintains a regulatory role, the strategic responsibility for planning and delivery of services is assumed by the LA-headed Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYCDP), a body of local stakeholders such as parents and community organisations, which oversees all developments in childcare and educational provision for young children under the 1998 Childcare Strategy. LAs are also in charge of allocating funding to ICCs either from the Sure Start grant or from other early years budgets such as Nursery Education Grants. Given that these new responsibilities combined with the timescale for designating centres represent a considerable challenge, the DfES has appointed a consortium, Together for Children, to provide additional support to EYCDPs. Due to the diversity of ‘mothering’ settings and local priorities, ICCs themselves currently follow a variety of governance models ranging from legally structured school governing boards to more informal steering groups. This is, however to be simplified through the introduction of standardised governance procedures in the foreseeable future (National Audit Office 2006).

Similar to SSLPs, ICCs try to integrate childcare, early education, health and family-support services for children in pre-school age and their parents. They also follow a multi-level approach in service delivery, relying on local partnerships with other statutory services (e.g. health or social care), private or voluntary organisations as well as parents. ICCs are intended to provide comprehensive and consistent support responsive to local and individual needs so as to help children achieve the Every Child Matters (2003) objectives of being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic well-being.

Practice is based on seven principles developed by the Early Years, Extended Schools and Special Needs Group of the DfES involving partnerships with parents and children to achieve desired outcomes, universal accessibility through culturally and locally sensitive service design, flexible delivery, early intervention even before birth, mutual respect, user- and community-led services as well as the aim to improve outcomes and enhance equal opportunities (DfES 2006d).

The range of services ICCs offer varies according to local needs but may include: outreach, integrated early education and childcare, support for parents such as advice on parenting, local childcare options and access to specialist services for families, child and family health services and employability support through links to Jobcentre Plus and training services (DCSF 2009). Centres are required to provide the full core offer in the 30% most disadvantaged areas, whereas schedules are more flexible in more affluent communities. Following provisions in Section 8(3) of the Childcare Act 2006 (HMSO 2006) and the ICC Practice Guidance (2006d), centres should not duplicate appropriate existing provision, but offer a more basic service and signpost parents to relevant providers in the area. They are, however, encouraged to provide additional support and cooperate with other services in order to meet the needs of groups or individuals with special needs as well as to better reflect the characteristics of the community they are based in (DfES 2006c).

Reverting to the concept of effective engagement established before, it can be argued that ICCs carry considerable potential to reach BME families as their principles and structure are tailored towards meeting the needs of diverse communities and empowering parents. Yet, the extent to which this vision can be translated into substantial outcomes is strongly contingent on its implementation.

The quality and comprehensiveness of services ICCs are able to offer depends on practitioners’ skills and the resources available to them. In its Planning and Performance Management Guidance, the DfES (2006c) acknowledges the importance of well-trained staff. Centre managers are required to meet the National Professional Qualification for Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL) and all centres offering early years provision will be expected to employ at least one worker possessing the newly introduced Early Years Professional Status (EYPS). Considering the demands arising from the context of multi-sector work and client diversity ICCs develop in, priority is also given to the continuous professional development of staff.

In a first comprehensive report on ICCs, however, the National Audit Office (2006) concluded that centres were facing considerable difficulties in keeping pace with the rapid expansion process in terms of staff recruitment and up-skilling. Moreover, Anning and Ball (2007) point out that the move towards becoming ICCs caused anxiety and demoralisation with SSLP staff resulting in problems in retention that led to the loss of valuable professional expertise and established community bonds.

An appropriate cooperation with other statutory, private and voluntary actors is an essential precondition for establishing effective integrated early years' services and offers room for creating synergy effects. Building ICCs on existing good quality provision could ensure that this is maintained and gives centres access to localised professional expertise. Likewise, co-locating services in already highly-frequented sites might improve the accessibility and visibility of ICCs as such (DfES 2006c). To manage multi-agency services, ICCs are required to offer clear responsibilities and referral systems as well as open fora for more or less formal exchange of information and experience between practitioners and services (DfES 2006d).

Furthermore, the ICC Practice Guidance (2006d) stresses the importance of community involvement in the planning and delivery process to create services tailored to local needs, build confidence and enhance the context knowledge of practitioners. Thereby, regular outreach work and home visiting, whether it is provided for by professionals or ‘parent’ and ‘community staff’, is given a key role in building bridges to the local community.

First evidence on ICCs, however, points to significant weaknesses in outreach and partnership work. Ofsted (2008a) noted that although a majority of settings was strongly committed to integrated provision and inclusive services, outreach remained a particular challenge, especially with regard to BME communities and fathers. This issue had previously been brought up by the National Audit Office (2006) which concluded that only a third of centres pro-actively targeted hard-to-reach groups in their outreach work and service design, while some ICCs did not conduct any outreach activities at all. This was partly attributed to the lack of suitable staff as well as problems in establishing effective data sharing and referral systems between providers. Involving BME parents and para-professionals generally had a positive effect on reaching minority communities, but was largely underexplored. Likewise, a DCSF (2008) report noted that BME practitioners were still under-represented - especially at management level. It also voiced concerns about the lack of a comprehensive system of ethno-specific monitoring and service evaluation, which leaves centres ignorant about their success in engaging with BME parents and limits the scope for responsive and inclusive service design.

Furthermore, the change towards ICCs has brought about a formalisation of consultation and partnership structures, which has to a certain extent strengthened the position of parents, but has also slowed down decision making and made parental involvement more marginal, given asymmetries in professional and system knowledge Winter 2009). With regard to defining desirable outcomes, it has been questioned to what extent the narrow framework of targets, the emphasis on technical efficiency and the tight timescale set by the government leave room for equitable debates on childhood and parenting between practitioners and parents (National Audit Office 2006; DCSF 2008).

Overall, ICCs have at least the potential to engage more effectively with BME parents than traditional forms of provision if they are able to overcome the weaknesses mentioned above. While transitional problems related to staffing and the establishment of partnership structures might be mitigated over time, wider tensions within the system could be a considerable impediment. The diversity of contexts ICCs are operating in, however, defies any generalizations. The following section therefore tries to illustrate specific conditions for effective engagement applying to ICCs by looking at the experience of Somali parents in a London locality.



Ricarda Röleke, born in Helmstedt /Germany in 1986, graduated from the London School of Economics with a postgraduate degree in Public Policy and Planning in 2010. Working with refugees and socially disadvantaged people in a variety of settings motivated her to examine new ways of promoting social inclusion. Ms Röleke currently works as a project manager in the area of youth transitions into work.