Die Entwicklung integrierter familienunterstützender - Qualiflex.lu

England – 2. In-depth description of selected programmes and services
� Did children/families in SSLPs receive more services or experience their
communities differently than children/families in comparison communities?
� Did families function differently in SSLP areas than in comparison
communities?
� Did effects of SSLPs extend to children themselves?
� How did effects on children come about?
(Belsky and Melhuish, 2007).
In terms of the first question, the NESS measured little change and few
(if any) successes in increasing service use and building families’ impressions
of their communities. There was, however, modest success regarding the
second question, though the majority of families seemed to be unaffected by
Sure Start. The degree to which children benefited (third question) was similarly
modest and varied according to the children’s level of deprivation: relatively
less deprived children benefited more than the most disadvantaged
one. Finally, the benefits for children seemed to result from improved parenting.
When this occurred, there was noticeable improvement in children’s
social functioning. However, because only a few sites showed that Sure Start
might have an impact on parenting, the NESS concluded that this improvement
was modest at best (Belsky and Melhuish, 2007).
The evaluation of Full Service Extended Schools (FSESs) showed that
they have had positive effects on children and families, particularly in student
attainment and in-take numbers. Schools that joined the initiative in
the second year were able to learn from the first round of FSESs and consequently
adopted informed strategies and more readily established partnerships.
Childcare was emphasised by most FSESs, but there was also an attempt
to provide more rounded services. Accordingly, many sites were able
to engage with particular individuals and families to bring them into the
wider community (Cummings et al, 2007).
However, it is still unclear as to whether FSESs have truly had an impact
of the community as a whole. In addition, the programme sites had difficulty
reconciling the sometimes-conflicting long-term and short-term goals,
finding the need for immediate achievement to be at odds with long-term
plans. Other common problems included managing partnerships successfully,
establishing sustainable funding plans, and reaching the most sociallyexcluded
members of the population. Transportation to provide access also
proved to be problematic for many sites. More broadly, since FSESs do not
follow a particular model and are responsible for defining the needs of the
specific community, they often found it very difficult to present a coherent,
unified vision and plan of what their role would be in the community. This
has negative implications for the visibility of the sites and their ability to
reach all members of the community. Since many FSESs have similar problems
with varying degrees of success in providing solutions, sharing information
between sites would be a key improvement (Cummings et al, 2007).
The main focus for development has been to switch from SSLPs to Children’s
Centres. In a review article of Early Years services under the Labour
government (1997-2007), three critical parameters are identified for evaluation:
expansion of provision; take-up of provision; and impact on poverty
and children’s development. There is evidence of both expansion and in-
23