Yippee! Sure Start is back under a new name!

Thanks

There are loads of methods to use and measure with - and dozens of papers on this and how to avoid bias etc.

Just Google how to measure soft outcomes and you will be amazed.

Or go to Google scholar and do the same for studies/research.

They usually involve some sort of "how far have I come?" measure and self reflection about change.

softoutcomes.org/#:~:text=%22Soft%20outcomes%20are%20outcomes%20that,the%20way%20they%20see%20themselves%22

These people (link above) have free examples if you want to see what kind of thing they might look like.
(I haven't used this website before).

lafergar

NotSpaghetti

Soft outcomes are measureable lafergar.
In my previous roles they were often measured - they just take more time to record and check and to find out about (both good and bad).

Tick box measuring is obviously easier- "your BP is down by 15% from your last visit" - but, like measuring pain at an arthritis clinic or mental health services that don't just look at crisis management, it can be done.

In my experience you can look at a family/child "in the round" I think. John may have been in trouble on Thursday in maths but at least he was at maths and went to school reasonably happily instead of refusing to go.

Genuinely interested in how to measure soft outcomes.

So many families and chidren and young people under the radar Not attending anything , anywhere.

That's the worry and they will not be the ones whose parents would welcome Sure Start. I'm not in favour of home schooling for that reason either.

NotSpaghetti

Soft outcomes are measureable lafergar.
In my previous roles they were often measured - they just take more time to record and check and to find out about (both good and bad).

Tick box measuring is obviously easier- "your BP is down by 15% from your last visit" - but, like measuring pain at an arthritis clinic or mental health services that don't just look at crisis management, it can be done.

In my experience you can look at a family/child "in the round" I think. John may have been in trouble on Thursday in maths but at least he was at maths and went to school reasonably happily instead of refusing to go.

Genuinely interested in how to measure soft outcomes.

So many families and chidren and young people under the radar Not attending anything , anywhere.

... and he had breakfast first and was washed - and then went fishing with a mentor afterwards.

Soft outcomes are measureable lafergar.
In my previous roles they were often measured - they just take more time to record and check and to find out about (both good and bad).

Tick box measuring is obviously easier- "your BP is down by 15% from your last visit" - but, like measuring pain at an arthritis clinic or mental health services that don't just look at crisis management, it can be done.

In my experience you can look at a family/child "in the round" I think. John may have been in trouble on Thursday in maths but at least he was at maths and went to school reasonably happily instead of refusing to go.

With yiu all the way Grantanow

Iam64

Granitanow, I’ve heard Starmer, Jess Phillips and my MP refer to Sure Start as one of the best things the Blair government did
David Blunket often mentions it

And they were quite right. Blair accomplished a great deal but the Left hated him and weaponised Ieaq against him. Despite that he won a third term. A pity he handed over to Brown as that led to Opposition and Corbyn - what a waste of time.

lafagar, I was asked by a gran carer if she could move her gc to the new centre. I was reluctant to have more change. She asked me to go and look before deciding. I went, I looked, it was so good. Health, mh/substance team, library, family centre and school all in one site. This was a former mining area with many children with relative carers as dad then mum ended up on heroin after the pits closed.
The child moved school next term, gran became a volunteer - exactly what Blair’s focus on early years aimed for

Of course any scheme which costs millions needs to prove its worth.

Measureable outcomes are necessary. But some things can't be measured. How do you measure an uplift in mood due to singing or having somebody actually be kind and listen to you?

How do you measure that fragile sense of community and belonging and being part of which is so sadly lacking in this fragmented dog eat dog world?

There were no middle class families involved with our local Sure Start, which was targeted at families in areas of deprivation.

That’s the real challenge isn’t it. We fiend families who feared social workers would engage with the centre workers more easily. Mind, the workers put so much effort and skill into their approaches

Yes it does depend on area, we were running targeted approaches for the hard to reach families.

Yes to research based practice and measurable outcomes Galaxy.
The sure start family centres I worked with, in Burnley, Blackburn, Bolton, bury, Accrington, Salford and areas of greater Manchester were not used at all by middle class families. They worked with very vulnerable families, many hard to reach and fearful of child protection involvement

I disagree about the measurable outcomes idea. I worked in Sure Starts in the 2000's - a lot of the groups were mainly used by middle class families, I am not saying that those families didn't benefit, but we absolutely need measurable outcomes to ensure that the families who need the support are getting it. So yes you might need a few spreadsheets. Anyway if they are going to be run by local authorities there is no escape from outcomes and spreadsheets

Agree icabhandthemback. I’m not suggesting the past was a golden age but - we had excellent in house multi agency training courses for all agencies involved with children. It meant the development of good working relationships. My LA had close links with camhs. Their psychologists were involved in delivering training so knowledge of attachment grew.

When I retired twelve years ago, our student social workers were aged 18-20. Newly qualified sw 21 upwards. It’s just daft to extract youngsters with no life experience to go straight in at the deep end.

How right you are. I also think that experience of having children should also be taken into account. I have sat and listened to SW's talking to families regarding how they shouldn't be doing this and that but without any real understanding about the psychology of these children. Maybe a component of doing a module in a school for SEN children too would be helpful. Even a basic knowledge about various medical and neurological conditions would be helpful too. We wonder why Social Services have such a bad rep for families who are struggling but we are putting SW's into situations they are really unprepared for in a lot of cases.

It shouldn't ever have gone anywhere IMO!

Whitewave, my hope is changes are made to training and qualifications for early years and sw with children and families. I know more about sw training. It used to be local authorities would fund CQSW two year course for trainees. Often, they’d have been social work assistants so arrived at training with good background knowledge and experience.

As a team manager in 1986, I had two young graduate, they’d don’t the cqsw after their degrees. Other qualified sw had previously been engineer, hairdresser, social work assistants, police officer, nurse, secretary to director of SSD. So a real variety of backgrounds, aged between 23 and 45. When I retired twelve years ago, our student social workers were aged 18-20. Newly qualified sw 21 upwards. It’s just daft to extract youngsters with no life experience to go straight in at the deep end.

My DDiL was a manager of a Sure Start (she has since changed careers) but left after it was sold off by the Tory Council, as the owner made too many cuts etc - profit took priority.

There are others who felt the ethos changed after being privatised and left.

I am sure that there are qualified personnel out there willing to work in a child comes first Centre again.

Anecdotally, they are all mothballed in my area. A sad sight.

Then people wonder why children start school unable to use cutlery or a toilet?
Or why isolated parents struggle to make sensible choices.
Of course, wealthier families have no need of such support.

As I posted up thread, Sure Start and family hubs are still in existence, last data shows over 2,000.

So this government is aiming for another 1,000, over what time span will they be up and running?

Where are they suddenly going to get the experienced staff and volunteers to staff and run them?

I am cynical, but will be very happy if they materialise.

No
They were really just reaping the benefits when the cash was withdrawn.

Sounds nebulous and unquantifiable but profound in its impact

Not everything is quantifiable. When did we become so obsessed with data and spread sheets?
How do you measure the uplift in mood after singing with a group of people or sharing problems you are having with your small and demanding children?

These centres should never have been allowed to go to waste in the first place.

It is a long term investment and thankfully Labour can see this.