The Intervention Role That Practitioners Play

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This essay will report on the history behind the implementation of the Sure Start Programme. To gain a thorough understanding of the Sure Start Programme this paper will explore the rationale responsible for its development. This paper will examine the theoretical perspectives that give testimony for the factors necessary to meet the holistic needs of children. This essay will also discuss multi-professional and multi-agency roles with relevance to their intervention functions within the Sure Start Programme.

Community level intervention strategies such as Sure Start were a major project to improve the social needs of children and families that were identified as living in demographic areas of social disadvantage (McDowall Clark, 2010). Bopp and Fallon (2008) highlighted the need for the practice evaluation of intervention implementation to provide important information for the distribution and sustainability of successful interventions. The impact of the demographic area in which children reside has been shown to have a negative impact on the development of children’s holistic needs (Bayliss and Sly, 2009). For this reason national health strategies are usually focused at regional and community levels (Department of Health, 2008) {cited in Pugh and Duffy, 2010}. Community level delivery is now a key feature of children’s services as a result of the Children’s Act (DfES, 2004), and the Every Child Matters Green Paper (2003). This legislation had a significant impact on services working with children. However, demographic data and intervention strategies developed as a result can sometimes cause local dissatisfaction. Bayliss and Sly, (2009) concluded that communities may perceive their treatment as unequal and see services provided due to a ‘Postcode Lottery’.

As a result of the Every Child Matters Green Paper (2003) children were put at the centre and services built around their needs rather than the other way around (Lister, 2007). Ward and Eden (2009) concluded that the Every Child Matters Green Paper (2003) assumed that the family unit as a whole needed to be supported; however this was not always the case. The Laming Report (2003) identified the failure of relevant agencies in working together. The subsequently revised Children’s Act (2004) enshrined in law the expectation that multi-professionals work with children and their families through inter-agency planning and delivery. It suggested a multi-agency approach that would bring together education, welfare, social services and health professionals to work alongside providers through a strategy of integrated processes and delivery. Furthermore, The 10 year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland (2006) was developed with the expectation of bringing together all the providers of services to children and young people to make children and young people’s lives better. This delivery of services wants to be inclusive and unbiased to all children and young people.

Cox (2000) suggested that there is a considerable amount of evidence suggesting that early invention with young children and families living within disadvantaged communities can prevent later school failure, social exclusion and delinquency. Early intervention and compensatory strategies are essential to minimise and elevate the effects of disadvantage. To meet the needs of young children it is necessary to fulfil their needs and encourage them to reach their full potential as suggested by the UN Convention Rights of the Child (1989). As previously mentioned, there are certain communities where children’s life chances are considerably reduced and as much most strategies to promote the holistic development of children have been targeted within specific areas of social need. The introduction of Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLPs) (1999) {cited in Pugh and Duffy, 2010} were the main means of active intervention to improve outcomes for children and their families. Each SSLP is different because they reflect local needs and circumstances, but all share a common objective of promoting the development of supportive communities and providing a range of services for parents and children (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). For example, one of the prime intentions of Sure Start was to counter social exclusion by encouraging parents off benefits and into paid employment. SSLPs originally targeted at the 20% most disadvantaged local authority wards, the original Sure Start programme has grown and become the basis for wider provision of Children’s Centres (McDowall Clark, 2010).

The first National Evaluation for Sure Start (NESS) (2005) reported that the programme had made little impact to those living in its catchment area. The Second Bagley, Ackerley, Rattray, (2004) suggested that sure start practitioners have managed to accommodate and facilitate an integrated, holistic and user-centred approach to their programme. SSLPs seemed to benefit those families and children who have greater personal resources than those who are more social deprived. The Programmes also seemed to have an adverse effect on the most disadvantaged children (Belsky, Melhuish, Barnes, Leyland, Romaniuk, 2006). Evaluation for Sure Start, (2008) concluded that it made positive changes in children living in SSLP areas when compared with those not living in such areas (Belsky, Melhuish, Barnes, Leyland, Romaniuk , 2008). The contrast between these and previous findings on the effect of SSLPs might indicate increased exposure to programmes that have become more effective. Hutchings, Bywater, Daley, Gardner, Whitaker, Jones, and Edwards (2007) shared the effectiveness of parenting intervention delivered by sure start practitioners.

One of the most influential early formulations of universal human needs was by Maslow (1962) {cited in Sharp, Ward and Hankin, 2009}. He created a pyramidal hierarchy of needs, which began at the most basic physiological needs and ascended to safety, social and esteem needs, through to knowledge and understanding and self-actualisation. The more fundamental needs at the bottom of the hierarchy had to be met before it was possible to devote energies to higher needs. Families on low incomes may find it difficult to fulfil even the most basic physiological needs, so it would be unlikely that social and self-esteem needs would be met (Lister, 2007). Furthermore, Pringle (1980) saw needs as occurring at the same time, intertwining, rather than forming a progression. Pringle (1980) concentrated on children’s non-physical needs, because she wished to emphasise the less obvious damage which can result if these are not fulfilled. The needs were grouped into four categories: love and security; new experiences; praise and recognition; and responsibility. Pringle (1980) saw loving relationships as the basis for moral development. She also stressed the significance of praise and recognition, since there is evidence to suggest that frequent criticism, complaints or neglect by others can lead to low self-image and insecurity.

Bronfenbrenner ‘s (1979) {cited in Bartlett and Burton, 2012 ) model of ecological systems captures the essence of childhood with his ‘ecological niche’ approach. He proposed that each child’s ‘ecological niche’ is unique because each will experience the relationships and processes of interaction between home, nursery, wider world and ideology in which all these are embedded. This theory of situated cognition has influenced the work of many theorists, for example, Baltes (1996) {cited in Bartlett and Burton, 2012} and Davis and Sumara (1997) {cited in Bartlett and Burton, 2012}. However Dunlop (2002) {cited in Fabian, Hilary, and Dunlop, 2002} proposed that situated cognition occupies (at least) three environments: home world, pre-school world and the school world. Fabian and Dunlop (2002) {cited in Fabian, Hilary, and Dunlop, 2002} concluded that it is necessary to look beyond the single settings. This idea of overlap and interrelatedness draws from Bronfenbrenner's work (1989) {cited in Fabian and Dunlop, 2002}. In terms of working with young children it suggests that practitioners should take into account all the environments that children experience as they all interlock and relate to each other.

Early year’s practitioners do not work in isolation. Building purposeful and productive relationships is one key feature in ensuring effective practice with young children and their families, together with the key features of responsive care and respect. Whether you are a child’s substantial carer or you are part of a team with a group of children, you will always be working in partnership with other adults whom play a significant role in the child’s life. The aim of this essay is to investigate parental partnership within a pre-school setting. This piece will identify communication to enhance a quality partnership, recognise the opportunities made available for the involvement of parents in the setting and establish if there are any barriers which may hinder the partnership.

A successful partnership requires a two-way flow of information, knowledge and expertise. Whalley (1997) reminds us that working as a team is a process not a technique, while Rodd (1998) states that teamwork relies on open communication, democratic organisation and effective problem-solving skills. Lindon (2010) maintains that a group of people working in the same place do not automatically become a team. From personal experience it is obvious that a competent and effective team are those whom are in a shared enterprise, with common values and principles and with opportunities to contribute ideas. This will often be an interactive process since work with young children is dynamic and subject to change.

Parental partnership in the early years is certainly a current issue and is under much debate. Parents traditionally viewed their role as a supporter rather than a full or equal partner. Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) (1998) stated that parents are a child’s first teacher and that they play a fundamental role in helping their children learn. It has been known for many years that a quality partnership between staff and parents in a child’s early education will impact on their educational achievement. Curtis (1998) emphasised that for progress to be made in education, parents must be involved and that the partnership with parents should be a working relationship that shares a sense of purpose, mutual respect and the willingness to negotiate.

Harrison, Murphy and Thompson (2003) suggested that the potential benefit of multi-agency practise is that it provides a focus for energy and resources of different agencies. They concluded that it enables a coherent and holistic approach to providing services for children. Ofsted (2009) found that the integration of services to have the potential to make life changing differences for families.

Aubrey and Dahl (2006) concluded through a sure start programme evaluation that multi-agency working could disrupt existing professional and agency cultures and lead to conflicts. Powell (2005) {cited in Lindon, 2010} noted that multi-professional practices could be viewed as uncomplicated. He?? Advocated the multi-professional roles concluding that different professionals only see bits of the child but together they see the child holistically. Loxley (1997) emphasized that for multi-agency work to be successful, professionals needed to have an awareness and understanding of the role and responsibilities of other professionals. Lumsden (2005) {cited in Wuller, 2008} concluded that it is the relationships between individual practitioners that ultimately determines the success or failure of multi-agencies working.

To conclude