close
close

topicnews · October 24, 2024

The Guardian’s take on Sure Start’s legacy: Investing in children brings benefits | editorial

The Guardian’s take on Sure Start’s legacy: Investing in children brings benefits | editorial

WWhen Tony Blair’s Labor government launched Sure Start, the decision to invest in early childhood care and education was based on evidence. From the age of four or five, all children are entitled to a public school place five days a week. Since free kindergarten places are only offered part-time (currently 15 hours per week, but is set to increase to 30 hours), support for the youngest children and their parents has rightly been identified as a gap in the welfare state.

Sure Start is designed to combine this with a holistic offering of play, early learning, health and family support. A key function of the new centers was to bring together existing services, making navigation easier. By prioritizing poorer neighborhoods, it is hoped that the inequalities between richer and poorer children would be equalized and at-risk children would be helped to keep up.

Studies of the long-established US program with similar goals called Head Start had shown that targeted support for low-income families had the desired effect. Additionally, science and health research in the years leading up to Sure Start demonstrated the critical importance of early life experiences and relationships. By improving the quality of services for preschool children and new parents, Sure Start’s architects believed they could improve the prospects of an entire cohort – particularly the least privileged members.

We now know they were right. Research in both the UK and the US has shown that public investment in supporting young families leads to benefits later on. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found that children from low-income backgrounds who grew up near a Sure Start center saw an average increase of three GCSE grades. The latest report shows that 20% fewer children aged 16 were serving a custodial sentence in Sure Start areas. While this is one of the most dramatic effects uncovered in the study, there are several others that deserve attention, as well as some less positive results that require nuanced interpretation. For example, increased referrals to social services cannot simply be classified as positive or negative; Any assessment depends on the circumstances.

It cannot be said categorically that Sure Start has been the key protective factor for children who have avoided prison – or for those who have avoided becoming victims of crime, as rates of theft and some other crimes have fallen . Nor can we say with certainty that Sure Start was the reason why children aged between seven and 11 spent 13% less time in local authority care than children in other areas. However, the study strongly supports these conclusions. Ministers should heed calls from the IFS and other social researchers to work with them in the future.

Not every project needs to be tested. For example, children’s access to playgrounds is a self-evident social good. But the importance of evidence should not be underestimated, particularly by politicians seeking support for public spending.

Like previous Sure Start studies, this one includes a measure of “avoided costs.” It’s important to note that 19p of every pound spent on Sure Start was recouped through savings in criminal justice and social care. However, such calculations are secondary to findings that relate directly to people’s lives. Ministers should be proud of their party’s track record in supporting families.

  • Do you have an opinion on the topics raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.