Constructing and sustaining Sure Start Local Programme partnerships: lessons for future inter‐agency collaborations

Abstract

This article outlines the experience of the first 260 Sure Start Local Programmes of developing interagency partnerships in their areas. It draws on quantitative and qualitative data collected between 2000-2005 by the implementation module of the government-commissioned National Evaluation of Sure Start. Following a résumé of the aims and design of the Sure Start Local Programme initiative, a description of the implementation module methodology and an overview of existing knowledge around inter-agency collaboration, five factors are identified which impacted on the partnership-building task. These comprise: the nature of partnership history; clarity of purpose; the extent of strategic commitment at the highest levels; trust among partners; and the characteristics of the national workforce. The article concludes by highlighting the continuing relevance of these issues to the new collaborations required by the UK government's Every Child Matters agenda, including the work of children's centres.

Mapping the implementation of Children's Trust arrangements

“…Canavan et al (2009: 377) identified that in the Republic of Ireland the ideals of integrated working are "in many cases quite distant from the realities, reflecting the complexity and challenging nature of these concepts in theory and practice". Furthermore, some argue there is little empirical evaluative evidence on the cost, effectiveness and impact of partnerships in improving outcomes to confirm it as a more effective approach to agencies working separately (Allnock et al, 2006;Ball et al, 2010;Canavan et al, 2009;Frost and Stein, 2009;Glendinning et al, 2005). Local Children's Trusts partnerships were conceived to establish whole system integration, "delivering a greater mutual and overall accountability for children's welfare" (Gardner, 2006: 374).…”

“…The Labour government regarded partnerships as positive and desirable and espoused them in national social policy as the way to improve outcomes (Allnock et al, 2006;Ball et al, 2010;Balloch and Taylor, 2001;Glendinning et al, 2005;Perkins et al, 2010). Partnerships and multi-agency working continue to be promoted by the Coalition Government but with an apparently greater emphasis on local determination (DH, 2010(DH, , 2012DWP and DfE, 2011;Hudson, 2011).…”

“…Unclear national definitions of the role, nature, function and purpose of Children's Trusts created confusion locally about expectations and accountability (O'Brien et al, 2006;Ofsted, 2010;The Audit Commission, 2008). Areas where Children's Trusts had been successfully developed were found to have a strong history of strategic level partnership working, effective leadership and inter-agency governance (NECTP, 2007;Ofsted, 2010), similarly to Sure Start Local Programmes Partnership Boards (Allnock et al, 2006). Frost (2009: 55) …”

Addressing the needs of the children's integrated workforce: A method for developing collaborative practice through joint learning

“…(2008) that include resource availability, budgetary allocations and conflicting agendas. Additionally, the views and opinions shared by respondents also reflected the contextual problems of ongoing reorganisations, short-term policy developments and financial insecurity (Allnock et al, 2006;Robinson et al, 2008). However, despite these challenges, senior managers and service leads had a common vision for CPD that had the following characteristics: the sharing of good practice through shadowing, team building and Action Learning Sets.…”

“…'As we become buried in our corner of the organization or immersed in our specialism, we are more likely to develop tunnel vision ' (Rozenthuler and Rowland, 2015, p 136). In developing the CPD model, the research team acknowledged the literature on children's integrated workforces revealing organisational, cultural, professional and contextual problems (Allnock et al, 2006). The team were aware of the rhetoric of joined up services, understanding that the reality is very different (Robinson et al, 2008).…”