11.07.2015 Views

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

making this transition. Eligible youths will have been (or are currently in) formal 22informal 23 care.orThe efficacy <strong>of</strong> the provision <strong>of</strong> these payments has not been assessed.3.11 SURE STARTProgram services and target groupsSure Start is an early intervention program for children under the age <strong>of</strong> four and theirfamilies in the UK. Sure Start Local Programs (SSLPs) were established by the UKgovernment with the aim <strong>of</strong> reducing child poverty and social exclusion (Turnstill et al, 2005),with the first SSLPs commencing in 1999.. The NSW <strong>Department</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Community</strong> <strong>Services</strong>(DoCS 2006) described the aim <strong>of</strong> Sure Start as ‘to work with parents-to-be, parents andchildren to enhance FF and promote the physical, intellectual and social development <strong>of</strong>babies and young children, particularly those who are disadvantaged.’ Deprived areas withaverage populations under 13,000 were targeted. As mentioned by Rutter (2006),designated areas were chosen on the basis <strong>of</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> a high rate <strong>of</strong> deprivation. Theheterogeneity <strong>of</strong> areas in the UK inevitably meant that there could be significant individualvariation in the degree <strong>of</strong> disadvantage experienced by families. There could also be anexclusion <strong>of</strong> seriously disadvantaged families if they lived in areas that were not sodisadvantaged overall.An additional feature in the initial design <strong>of</strong> the program was that services within SSLPs weredesigned to be universally available, unlike most other early interventions. Additionally, aprescribed curriculum <strong>of</strong> services was not set for SSLPs. Thus, each SSLP had localautonomy in terms <strong>of</strong> the creation and improvement <strong>of</strong> evidence-based services. Asmentioned by Rutter (2006), the rationale behind such an approach was to avoid the rigidity<strong>of</strong> specified programs, as well as to encourage the feeling <strong>of</strong> ‘ownership’ <strong>of</strong> services amongstservice providers.Although SSLPs had sufficient flexibility in service provision, they were expected to providefive core services (Rutter, 2006): outreach and home visiting; support for families and parents; good quality play, learning and childcare; primary and community healthcare including advice about child and family health; and support for children and parents with specialised needs.Research on efficacy – National Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Sure Start (NESS)The National Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Sure Start (NESS) was set up to provide rigorous and ongoingevaluation <strong>of</strong> the SSLPs over a six year period. The main aim <strong>of</strong> the study is to determinewhether existing services had changed, whether delivered services had improved, and22 Subject <strong>of</strong> a care and protection order that places them in the care and custody <strong>of</strong> someone who isn’t theirparent.23 Has an ‘Independent Status’ for Centrelink payments, receiving or have received informal out-<strong>of</strong>-home careand/or formally or currently be in Indigenous kinship care.88

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!