Children's Centres closing- is this true....??

[ladypanda]

Hi,

Does anyone know if there's any truth in the rumours that the Tories plan to drastically cut the number of Sure Start/ Children's centres if they get in? I just read a blog that said this was true, and that Labour are coming out against it on Tuesday. Over my dead body- my little one LOVES his and so do we!
Just wanted to sound others out before I go on my own personal protest march.....

x

I agree ds and dd love this and I rely on it for my sanity. I will join aforementioned protest march if this is so!

Take me back to my student days of marching in London shouting "Major MAjor Major w@"&r" very profound I don't think!!

So Labour want to keep them but Tories don't? Why do they want to get rid of them? I can't see how saying that is gonna win them any votes!

Apparently the Tories do think they are good but that only the poorest families should have access to them. Which will result in the budget overall for them being cut and 1 in 5 closing (I've been researching!) Yes Labour will keep them going/ expand the programme.
Am watching Cameron on the TV now, will see if he talks about it. Labour party launch on tuesday. Will report back!

Well they were originally intended for people in poor postcodes but that was stupid because young parents who would benefit from accessing them but may live in "nice" areas as they still live with their parents couldn't and also poor people who happened to rent privately in nice areas using housing benefit. It should go on income not just your post code. Also to get funding they have to get so many people attending. The people on lower incomes that they were intended for weren't really going so they started letting it be open for everyone. IMO this is good because it keeps it open for the few people on lower incomes that were going. If places were getting full up then yes I think priority should to those on lower incomes but if there's spaces then it should be open to everyone. Hope that makes sense - it's late!

I've heard this too. I love our children's centre, they do so much there. Fortunately for us, we are 2nd on the list of poor areas and our CC is charity run so I think it's safe.

Well I agree it should go to the most in need in terms of income, but as you say nappy addict if there are places (my research says they are at 85% capacity) then they should be open to whoever needs them. I think they are a brilliant option whatever your income and they should be expanded not restricted so that everyone who wanted a place could get one. It is means tested how much you pay, so poorer families shouldn't lose out.
Anyone watch Cameron on ITV last night? I thought he seemed a decent bloke but I can't get past how very, well, posh he is!
Bet his kids aren't at Sure Start...

Sorry new to posting but this is a subject dear to my heart! I've also heard that the Tories plan to close a large number of Children's Centres if they get elected, which strikes me as crazy given the amount of investment Labour have put into setting up/improving them (we have a brand new one round the corner and 3 more opening in H&F I think). Surely would make a great Mumsnet campaign?!!

Just done some more online research - a campaign launched yesterday on Facebook and you can sign up here:
www.facebook.com/SaveOurSureStart

What about Lib Dem. Does anyone know if they plan to keep or close them?

I asked the head of my local Children's Centre what she would do in the event of ...

She said (I paraphrase) that the Centre was hanging in an election limbo at the moment. But she said that she thought her Centre could stay open even if central funding were cut because local demand for the service existed (but the inference being that this would have to happen with a different business model and fees would have to rise).

Haven't the Tories proposed local 'co-ops' (opted-out public services). It's possible that they envisage some Children's Centres could continue to exist in this guise?

Another option is to somehow means-test parents (how - I don't know) so that Centres got a grant to cover fees for poorest (ie those on benefits) but better-off had to pay more.

Just looking into my crystal ball - these are guesses, nothing more.

In Northern Ireland they are much more focused to areas of high need. I really envy families in England who all can access their services. However I do think they provide fantastic services and support and it would be a real pity if they are closed.

Incidentally I recall David Cameron saying he had used SureStart for his son.

Seriously, someone tell me how corralling poorer parents into ghetto-ised groups is supposed to help them?

Surely it's necessary to encourage everyone to mingle as much as possible if we are really to tackle child poverty and disadvantage?

I can only speak from personal experience and admit to visiting a relatively small number of CC as part of my role (not as a parent) boffin mum but I don't see any mingling (certainly not in child care) where the children are inevitably from middle class parents (from outside the area). Now it may not be the same in all aspects or all children's centres but it does open questions about who is actually gaining from the billions of pounds spent.

The whole of early years is hanging in limbo at the moment.
I dread to think what will happen if the Tories get in.
I agree with boffinmum, and mrz, surely the point is that children are gaining? ECM applies to all children, not just the poorest ones. Disadvantage is not just about money.

My local childrens centre is used mostly by weathly families. I really love taking ds there, we go to two groups a week, and would be very upset if it closed.

All the SureStart groups I attended with DD were full of reasonably wealthy, educated families, with a huge proprtion of teachers' children. I do not remember meeting one teenage mum, low-income family, etc. I found them really useful, but if we have to cut something, then .....

There are two near me. One has lots of activities but they seem only to be bookable by other parents. The notices show 'for young parents' or no fees for parents on income support.

The other one does some things which you have to book but some activities are available to everyone. They do some fantastic stuff and we always take away lots of ideas or helpful info. Shouldn't there be some stuff for everyone? Just because people aren't on benefits and are working dose not make them wealthy. Shouldn't some good stuff be available to everybody?

Agree good public services should be available for everyone but one of the objectives of Sure Start is to narrow the enormous attainment gap that exists between the children of the poorest and least educated in our society and the majority.

Centres vary in how effective they are ensuring that their services are used by those that need them most and that is a problem.

There will be cuts after the election regardless of who wins and it is right that we focus on priorities. Important to remember that the parents of all three year olds now have the right to access free pre-school early education for their children which is only a relatively recent gain.

I use my local SS every week and would be very upset if it was to close. I do not think of myself or family as being particularly poor, but I was made redundant on maternity leave and became a stay at home mum, without my local SS I would have become very isolated. The SS enabled me to meet other local Mums, let my child play with other children and gave me the confidence to attend other groups.My DS loves it too.

Funding is being cut to other types of child care, as it is seen as being old and out-dated, with SS being the way forward for early years care, it has received funding in place of Family Centres which are closing. If the funding is now cut to SS I personally think that is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think the 'only for the poor' idea is unhelpful, and will ultimately only serve to stigmatise the centres and divorce them from the natural community around them.

'Poor' people aren't just the amalgamation of their problems. They also have hopes and ambitions for themselves and their kids.

'Rich' people aren't just the sum of their privileges. They struggle desperately with raising a family the same way as everyone.

Why would you want to cut out 'support' for those above a certain income bracket. Can you subscribe to hands-on parenting support with your copy of Junior magazine these days? 'Cos no one with wealthy parents has ever had a bad chidhood....

And why would you want to divide off the poorer parents from the richer parents? Would it only lead to distraction and a disappointment if high aspirations rubbed off on low income kids?

Plodding health campaigns telling you to eat your veg & read to your kids aren't enough to break down social barriers and poverty cycles.

Kif, in general don't disagree with you and certainly think everyone can benefit when services are used by all. But, one of the main aims of Sure Start is to help those who are more disadvantaged.

I have not said I would want to cut universal services or divide people up according to their income.

Lots of people experience difficulties raising their families, regardless of income or education. But usually those with more social capital will, in the end, get over their temporary setbacks and their children will enjoy wellbeing in childhood and good attainment and outcomes long term. The sad fact is that often poor and disadvantaged children do not.

Must say I wonder if, as mrz and going say, their local centres are used by wealthy families and those living outside the area, where the disadvantaged families are? Hopefully not isolated in a tower block on an unsafe estate feeling that they won't fit in, classed as 'hard to reach'.

Before WW2 there was a greater divide between rich and poor in the sense that they used entirely different services, and their lives almost never overlapped in any material way.

Thanks to evacuation and conscription during the war, rich and poor were forced to rub shoulders a lot more than previously which led to a greater awareness than previously of issues of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage.

This led to the foundation of the NHS and also the 1944 Education Act with free secondary schooling for all, amongst other things. For the first time, increased shared experiences and use of resources meant a gradual narrowing of the gap statistically between rich and poor in terms of income and life outcomes.

Yet we now see this gap increasing again, and we have to ask ourselves why, given that a great deal of funding has been poured into education and healthcare in recent years, (both important contributors to enhanced life expectancy, etc). The only answer I can think of is increased polarisation between the better off and worse off, and consequently less shared experiences and use of resources.

Unless rich and poor mingle, and use the same (good quality) facilities, I think we are pissing in the wind as far as improving social inclusion is concerned. Rationing things according to some notional, subjective definition of worthiness or need is a lazy and ignorant bureaucratic habit that does more harm than good.

We must start being a lot more realistic if we are to deal with this problem. This is because the countries with the lowest levels of social deprivation are the ones who have made the broadest and most extensive investments into social welfare provision. These countries do not ration their provision or dot it about amongst any particular group that happens to be in favour politically at any given time. They are consistent and inclusive in their approach over a seriously long period of time.

This is what we have to aim for.

In credit crunch times we have to make hard decisions. Do we have health visitors who give basic medical care or do have free baby massage. Are all the services assessible to all families.

Many of the activites at my local surestart centre are only assessible to those with one child. It would be lovely if it provided good quality wrap around care to the school nursery, but that just doesn't exist yet(!)

Some surestart centres do good work, but much of the money is spent on totally filvious things. What is needed is a review of current services.

I also think that surestart spend too much in admin.
We need to decide what we need as a society and how best we can provide services.

Hear, hear: Boffin Mum. Very articulately put.

w.r.t. ReallyTired's point -

1. I find my local SS very centralised - they won;t let anyone else use the facility or to run a club/course/party on site. I think this way you end up paying for a lot of things that might have naturally sprung up out of the community.

2. My hvs are forever (separately) doing thing like baby massage/toy library/urdu club etc. I think that the actual massage isn't really the point - it's just a ruse to flush out mums who are a bit isolated but too proud to ask for 'help' if it is labelled as such.

A 'free' baby massage class in an existing facility will cost, say, £25 to put on for a dozen families. In other words, peanuts.

However sending healthcare professional like HVs out to people's home will probably cost that per visit in real terms. So chopping things like baby massage will not save you enough to enhance HV provision.

It's a bit like the idea that getting rid of Health in Pregnancy grants (£13,000,000, 0.000013% of national debt) or child benefit (£7,000,000,000 or 0.007% of national debt) will do any real good. At about a trillion quid, (£1,000,000,000,000) our national debt is currently a third of the value of our entire UK housing stock, or something like that.

I think people are really having trouble conceptualising the enormity of what has happened here. The only way out of it is probably to increase exports and productivity on a pretty significant scale. This might even mean reducing the costs of employing people, and rebuilding some of our manufacturing base (shock horror). Closing a few Sure Start centres is unlikely to make much of a difference, although it might feel virtuous and suitably puritanical at the time to local authorities.