Co-production and Sure Start Children's Centres: Reflecting upon Users', Perspectives and Implications for Service Delivery, Planning and Evaluation

Abstract

In the UK, there has been a re-awakening of interest in the ‘co-production’ approach to involve service users in modernised public services. Within this context, Sure Start Children's Centres are being created to address child poverty and social exclusion, with an emphasis on participatory approaches. This paper considers the engagement of users in service delivery, service planning and in monitoring and evaluation activities for Children's Centres in Greater Merseyside. Research findings indicate that a lack of time to implement (and develop trust within) the new arrangements, a lack of awareness by users to participate and a broader thematic (employment and education) and geographical remit for Children's Centres is impacting upon the greater involvement of users in all aspects of co-production. Without such participation it is concluded that there is a real risk that the current needs of those most disadvantaged will not be adequately addressed.

Co-production and the third sector: A comparative study of England and France

“…Childcare has received a great deal of attention in previous research on coproduction, particularly Victor Pestoff's research in Sweden (Pestoff, 2006(Pestoff, , 2009Vamstad, 2012) but also in Canada (Prentice, 2006) and the UK (Pemberton and Mason, 2008), and some discussion of parent participation in France as part of a large scale European study on childcare provision (Fraisse and Bucolo, 2003).…”

The role of ‘embeddedness’ in the delivery of integrated children's services

“…The original Sure Start policy made clear that services should be developed to meet the needs of local populations and should be appropriate to individual areas with strong community involvement. A study in Greater Manchester (Pemberton & Mason, 2008) highlighted that whilst engagement of parents in co-production of Centre services through parent forum and evaluations of activities was an ambition of SSLP's, the reality mirrored wider concerns about engagement; with patterns that reflected the lack of men, BME families, young and lone parents in shaping and defining what services were needed in the locality.…”

“…Taking services out to the community spaces also made them more accessible to families, which, it is argued, helps to embed the service in the community it seeks to serve (France, Freiberg, & Homel, 2010). Such an approach demonstrates respect for the resources of the community network and challenges individualised and deficit views of families (Bagley & Ackerley, 2006) and reflects the original ambitions of the Sure Start Children's Centres (Edgley, 2007;Pemberton & Mason, 2008). Having contacts in the wider community also meant that Centres could put families in touch with other organisations, for example several practitioners told us that they had good links with toddler groups run in local churches so that they could 'signpost families to them', as well as having links with the local…”

Evaluation of a programme to increase referrals to stop‐smoking services using Children's Centres and smoke‐free families schemes

“…In 2010 both Liverpool (28%) [32] and Nottingham (32%) [33] had a smoking prevalence significantly higher than the national average of 21% [3], and higher still in certain areas within these cities. Liverpool is ranked consistently as the most deprived city in England, and in 2010 Nottingham was ranked 20th according to multiple measures of deprivation [34] Children's Centres were identified as ideal sites for the pilot, as the 3600 state-funded CCs in England are located primarily in communities where families on low incomes live [35], and are open to all parents/carers of a child aged less than Five years. Children and their families are offered a range of services (free or for a minimum charge) including: play and leisure activities, NHS child and family health services, educational services and health and wellbeing interventions.…”