Sure Start

Notspaghetti, like yiu I worked with young, often single mums, who didn’t make eye contact, sing or talk to their babies. No point, she doesn’t understand it said one. SureStart made a big difference in supporting them, baby massage, advice that helped build stronger attachments.
Attachment is so important and at the heart of family work

Some mums were so lacking in confidence that they barely left the house.
Parents who struggled to go to the SureStart building could be collected by the same friendly worker for a few sessions until they felt like it was a safe space to go.

What a good SureStart did really well was to "walk alongside" a family for as long as they needed and to gently support those early faltering steps, helping them build their orienteering skills and gradually letting go once they were on a good path.
Some of the early families in my area were amazing cheerleaders for new families and kept in touch over many years.

Mums and Dads learned to read, some went on to college, they started taking the lead in planning, they made friends and the next generation truly grew and developed.

It was a sad day when funding was withdrawn - and in our area services were chipped away at over a few years ahead of this.

The SureStart programme was, in my opinion just reaping the benefits of the early years investment when it was closed down. Yes, it was a lot of money and hundreds of hours of professional time but when you think about the savings over a person's lifetime it was ultimately a great investment.

I don't want to imply there were no failures and that every family cheerfully engaged with the service but even those who for whatever reason didn't stay with it, had more understanding of what was available locally, realised that not everyone was "against them" and, would have been signposted (or directly referred) to more specific services.

Like Iam64 I saw the end of SureStart as disturbingly short-sighted.

Great post NotSpaghetti

Yes I was with Sure Start towards the end in my area, and they had done a lot of work around changing their approach to the 'hard to reach' families, the ones who would no more go to groups than fly to the moon, Sure Start was also learning what worked and what didnt, it takes time.

icanhandthemback

Sure Start was a brilliant idea. Just looking at the Neuro-Diversity aspect, children could be signposted at a very early age so that a diagnosis or concerns could be raised far more easily. Early diagnosis means better outcomes and also means that the child starts school with everything it needs in place.
Easy access to help and advice also helps the parents. The anxiety a young parent feels without support impacts the child too and can lead to life long damage. I can't imagine why anybody would think it was a good idea to close the scheme down without an adequate or superior replacement. It was so short-sighted. Much of the learning through play in primary education was scrapped too. It just makes you want to weep.

I completely agree!

Sure Start was also learning what worked and what didnt, it takes time.

So true!

Government withdrew funds when the best SureStarts were "just right".

NotSpaghetti - exactly!

My daughter was disabled by her pregnancy and she couldn't be the mother she wanted to be. Sure Start would have been able to assist her when she most needed it. Instead, there was nobody around and we ended up having to ask the NSPCC for help. Their only offering was Social Services who were absolutely hopeless.

Sadly Social Services are firefighting as they have been starved of funds. The preventive work was being done by Sure Start.

Luckygirl3

Sadly Social Services are firefighting as they have been starved of funds. The preventive work was being done by Sure Start.

Not only are they firefighting but they often have no real understanding of parenting either. In the end the school stepped in and told them that they were being most unhelpful. Eventually my daughter got a letter of apology. Each SW had completely opposite ideas and so each time they changed, it was so confusing. The final SW wouldn't put it in writing after we complained she had used a sledge hammer to crack a nut but but she said that she was so jaded, she thought that all her clients were abusive parents as she could no longer see the wood from the trees. Yet another agency run into the ground.

It’s dreadful for us old retired sw to read posts like yours icanhandthemback. I despair at what’s happened . Camhs useless overstretched with four year wait lists. Sw poor initial training, the excellent ongoing in house training depts closed as la teams can barely meet statutory duties so preventive or supportive work non existent.
Our family has recently pooled finances to but private psychological input for a child and support for their parents, lucky we can do this
What about others

Others are struggling.
Straight from the horses mouth, that is.

Thanks MissA - I posted in haste. I think of all the children and families I worked with and can only imagine how much harder it is now

Just thought I would say.
It's impossible to get cohesive, joined up support now.

Years ago, as part of their placement the "training" SWs came to our project and shadowed us for a couple of weeks. Towards the end, when SWs were becoming thin on the ground, one very astute, lively and imaginative young woman told me she was working hard for her qualification and then was going to do something else entirely as there were hardly any truly senior staff left to mentor her and the work she was being given (not fully qualified) was already so very stressful.

One of my senior social worker friends moved abroad about this time and when job hunting told them she had previously "worked for the government".

I'm sure it's not a lot better now.

We need great social workers - I've seen what fantastic work some of them do, but if we can "head families off" ahead of that it's surely a good thing.

In 1981 when I qualified we had protected case loads, fortnightly supervision and best of all, level 4 or senior practitioners who would co work complex cases- mentor us on anything we took for discussion. The two older women in my team included the wife of a local vicar and a Holocaust survivor. What life experience they brought to their professional input
Also many student sw were mature students.
No one did a three year degree qualifying at 21 with no life experience. No wonder things aren’t improving

No one did a three year degree qualifying at 21 with no life experience.

Many years ago my Mum had a friend who had a daughter who fitted this description exactly.
Even her own mother used to say, "What on earth does she know about life and its problems, how can she possibly advise anyone?"

V3ra - my CQSW was a two year course, 500 applicants for 50 places in 1978 when I applied. Applicants to have minimum two A levels, IQ test if no degree. It was a two year course with good academic standards and several practical placements. Students with a relevant degree, could do a one year course. My two year course had a real mix of people with very different work experience but we all had experience of care or work with offenders
My worry about sw degrees for 18 year olds is they’ve no life experience. No varied work experience. Increasingly they’re working with challenging situations, too yiung too inexperienced and easily overwhelmed or intimidated in many cases