Sure Start and communty midwife groups being shut down

[mockingbird1]

If Sure Start centres and local childrens centres run by community midwifes are being shut down at the end of March what on earth are new mums going to do and how are they supposed to meet other mums in their areas? I have started going to some local baby groups and they have been a lifeline for me- without these facilities surely the levels of post natal depression will rise, or is this a sympton of decisions being made yet again by men who have never sat in the house day after day with no-one but a small baby to look at... Health visitors are already over stretched and GPs are not intersted in having a chat so it can get pretty lonely as a new mum. Surely I am not alone in being worried about this? Or do the government have an alternative plan that I dont know about- if so can someone fill me in please!

Worzsel - my mum is a hairdresser who offers her service for free and gives free trims and blow dries to young women who come into the homeless centre and SS she helps out in.
If my mum gives them a haircut for free that's an extra £20 in their pockets for them to spend on a bit of extra shopping or something for the children.
Some will buy ciggies of course but one mum has a bit of a treat and then her child benefits too what's not to like ?

I too don't understand why new mums have to socialise/educate their children in early years by themselves when the elderly somehow have "nobody". What happened to their children or nephews etc? Don't they don't care anymore? I blame the new generation too who put up with their children's whims but are not willing to do the same for the elderly and leave them alone living miles away. Nobody is better and society should care about everyone. I have never used sure start but I feel sorry for people who have the need for it and I support it like any other group, whatever the age.

These divide politics have succeeded as I can see. "My funding is cut? Why not theirs?? grrrr..".

P.S. If people survived before sure start then sure, they also survived even before without pensions with their children helping out, co-living with them etc. If there is one roll back why not go all the way back with everything (which must be Mr Cameron's dream about his "big-society" )

You implied it Mylife

'It has been shown that intervention in the early years (i.e surestart territory) is paid back a thousand times in lower rates of offending, better schooling and employment prospects etc.'

So..show us where please.

My local Sure start runs

'Feelings and wishes groups for children who have witnessed domestic violence.'

Jesus, that is all the evidence we need to show they are a completely self indulgent waste of time.

What absolute bollocks.

Well I'm sure Frank Field's report is not without substantial basis, despite it being govt comissioned.

And how about this research for starters (though no doubt you will object to it being a Scottish Govt study)

To save you time the key findings were:

> The short term savings from investing in early years services and support from pre-birth to aged five could be up to <strong>£37,400 a year per child in the most severe cases</strong> - children who have complex health and social care needs, and approximately <strong>£5,100 a year for a child with moderate health and social care needs</strong>.
> The potential medium term savings, if interventions from pre-birth to eight are 100 per cent effective, could be up to £131 million a year across Scotland, while in the long term, <strong>failure to effectively intervene to address the complex needs of a child in early life could result in a nine fold increase in costs to the public purse</strong>.
> A package of effective early years support to reduce the frequency and type of services demanded by children with the most severe needs could have a <strong>significant impact on improving outcomes for them and reducing long term costs to the public purse</strong>. If earlier, effective support could be given to a child with the most severe needs, resulting in a 10 per cent reduction in the total amount paid out to cover services later in life, <strong>this could result in a potential savings of around £94,000 for each individual</strong>.

And how about the conclusions of the EPPE study (Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project). Here is a link to the main findings of the original study

Also you could do worse that looking here with the National evaluation of Sure Start by Birkbeck college. Plenty of analysis and evaluation there of early interventions, including reasons why Sure Start may not be working so well.

I'm no big advocate of the nanny state TBH, but it does seem sensible to me that intervening at a point where children are developing and at their most impressionable you can go some way to preventing a need to intervene with them at a later stage. The fractured nature of our society also means that many more people are living without close family or community support - this is a terrible thing, and we need to address it in some way. I'm not saying this HAS to come from central government, more localised and grass roots support would probably be preferable. How to ensure it is available for those who most need it, and that it is of sufficient quality to achieve the desired aims?

Oh, and yes not doubt we managed before sure start, but as at least one other poster pointed society also offered support in a different way too - extended family etc. Futher back it also consigned failing families to workhouses too - shall we go back to that way of doing things?

Well it's gratifying to see you add weight to your views.

Frank Field is a great man, as is IDS.
Key issue is how to remedy problems in a cost effective way and without nannying and patronising people.

I was a Sure Start director for many years.
Great peopel, noble ideas but did it make a idfference?
I don't think so. It just created more dependency.

To go back to the OP, these services existed before the name Sure Start was coined.

It seems many will no longer be brigaded in dedicated buildings, but the important thing is whether the previous providers will be able to restore their earlier service provision.

Glad to see I somehow measure up

What can be done though? Should we just withdraw all forms of support in the interests of saving money and simply let people sink or swim based on their own ability to organise support? Our society is broken and sick - I truely believe that. It terrifies me the amount of people who have no practical experience of child-rearing until their screaming PFB is handed to them in hospital - as testified by many threads on here. At least those posters who reach MN are capable of using their own initiative to do some research. Sadly there are many more without even that level of support. So I do think (hope?) that Early Years interventions can provide some practical use. I don't think it is really a substitute for family or community support though. Probably these schemes are little better than papering over the cracks . Like I said though, do we just let people sink though?

Who knows how we really get ourselves out of this mess?

There are no Sure starts in my area, I take my young daughter to church clubs, of which there are quite a few. If you drive, there may be one not too far from you, or even local.

Oh FGS, Mylife, why is it the government's job to equip you for life with a baby?
Jeez, it's not rocket science.
How about al ittle bit of that quaint concept know as 'taking personal responsibility'?

"My local Sure start runs

'Feelings and wishes groups for children who have witnessed domestic violence.'

Jesus, that is all the evidence we need to show they are a completely self indulgent waste of time.

What absolute bollocks."

Why? The name may be rather flowery but isn't it a form of group counselling to help children come to terms with traumatic incidents?

We get ourselves out of this mess by taking some responsibility for ourselves and stop bloody well expecting to be spoon fed.

If the OP can manage to post on line here can she not actually look on google and find groups in her neighbourhood or organise a mumsnetter meet up.

The country is like it is because everyone expects to have their bloody hand held.

I think ss does need some cutting, free kindermusik and baby ballet classes and new centres in wealthy suburbs with good public transport are not easily defensible given current econ climate but imo ss provides an important safety net for those dealing with mh issues and ime provided useful short term help for my child with SN when stuck on long nhs lists, the Hanen You Make the Difference course

Blimey Moondog, who bit you?

Not sure you even read my posts

bullet not sure our local Women's Refuge would agree with you about their input for traumatised children bring a "waste of time".

Nothing flowery about children who have lived through hell I can assure you. The Refuge Outreach worker who provides support to the SS centre and runs the group is able to help these children which is more than smug and shitty attitudes like yours do.

Nice attitude.

... actually I rather feel that this thread is filled with smug arseholes with sorted and organised lives who don't and probably never needed the services of SS. Lucky you.

If you are depressed
If you have been in an abusive relationship
If you are a struggling single Mum or Dad with debt
Or anything else which might affect a child then the service can and has been of use.

Condemning things you've been fortunate enough never to need smacks of a smug and self centred attitude. Great - congratulate yourselves for being perfect enough not to want or need

What about Refuges who use these services? Are they a waste if time too?

I've been debt laden, benefit claiming, suffered PTSD and debilitating anxiety,had 2 v poorly premature children, lived in 4 different parts ofthe country where I have known no-one.. Etc etc etc etc.

Not exactly perfect it is.

Mylife, why is it the government's job to equip you for life with a baby?

I guess the truth is that if they don't in too many cases they need to build more prisons so the government pays one way or another unless you want to go back just hanging those who break the law we have to prevent it in the first place.

HopeleeslyDisorganised, bullet did use the word flowery but was not disputing the use of ss to support kids who had experienced dv, it may have been the quoted bit of moondogs post by bullet that has caused confusion

Ah I UNDERSTAND IT SO CLEARLY NOW.
Baby ballet, massage, henna tattoos and 'feeling and wishes' groups prevent society being run through by feral youth.

I went to (nearly) free HV-run baby massage classes (50p for tea and biscuits) long before Sure Start was ever dreamed up. The services can exist without the Sure Start label.

So I see the key issue as being what comes into being next, rather than the idea that there is change.

moondog Since you've said you were a Sure Start director for many years, got to ask: was it that experience that has made you feel this way about them? Or did you keep quiet about it while in that position and receiving the money? (I'm assuming there were no 'feelings and wishes' groups at the SSs under your jurisdiction.)

Money??
I did it for nothing.
Twelve to fifteen meetings a year for many years.

I gradually got to feel like that as time went on and it was apparent that we were complicit in maintaining a client state (despite having fabulous people on board.

Yes, I was honest about it and tried very hard to get them to consider more 'stakeholder engagement'

Simple things like drawing up a cleaning/washing up/ weeding rota for parents.

Never happened. They would just drop htheir kids off and bugger off. No interest or involvement.

Benefit 'workshops' were always ful lto bursting thoguh.

There is a fine line between providing help and support to those who need it at a time of crisis and making those people dependant on support, where they expect to be assisted all through their life.

And even more when SS / homestart is supposed to equip families with life skills (parenting, positive authority, resilience to stressful situations, work qualifications...)...

It's all about empowering.

But yes I totally agree with Moondog that some paid employees (as opposed to directors / trustees) do seem to grossy exagerate the benefits of their intervention, the needs of the service users and personally benefit from a culture of assistance.

Sorry - have I misunderstood? You were a director for a Surestart organisation and did it for nothing. Weird!

FWIW our SS mother and baby groups do wash up on a rota. They are full as well - citizens advice do the benefit stuff and if I think a family will benefit then bloody right I refer them.

What about SN groups being run on SS premises? Are the "close em all down" brigade okay with that too?

People don't need these centres all their lives ( up until children are 5 in my area) and not all centres have the free childcare moondog talks of. Our local centre doesn't and even in the centres which do ( based in the most deprived areas) there is limited funding for these spaces and often they are time limited to get families over a period of crisis or funded by social services to give those children in difficult families some normal socialisation and play. The way some people tell it here seems to suggest free childcare for all and that just is not the case.