With a new government in place, a policy refresh is on the horizon. What examples of successful policy outcomes exist in the UK and around the globe for the government to draw upon? And what lessons can the UK learn to help tackle future policy challenges? As part of our How to make good things happen series, we looked at Sure Start, reflecting on the success that was achieved and the transferable lessons for other social policy areas.

Launched in the late 1990s by the incoming Labour government, Sure Start was an ambitious and innovative attempt to transform support for young children and families in the UK. At its peak in 2010, there were 3,600 Sure Start centres, supported with £2.5 billion of funding per year (in today’s prices) – a third of the total early-years budget at the time.

Sure Start has been shown to be responsible for improved GCSE outcomes for those living near centres, reductions in the number of secondary school pupils recorded as having Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and reduced hospitalisations among young people.

25 years on since the opening of the first local Sure Start programmes, The Nuffield Foundation’s Carey Oppenheim and Naomi Eisenstadt, the first Director of the Sure Start unit, joined Nesta’s Sarah Cattan and Louise Bazalgette to discuss what we can learn from the initiative's successes.

The temptation with any social programme is to use highly targeted, well-evidenced interventions on those with the greatest need. But it is notoriously hard to achieve sustained engagement with disadvantaged families, particularly when targeting comes with a risk of stigmatisation and a sense that things are being done to them as part of a fleeting policy initiative.

During the first four years of Sure Start services provided by Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLP) were co-designed with residents and were universally available to everyone in selected areas of high deprivation.

Our speakers believed that this approach contributed to high levels of engagement. Families felt like they were part of the solution rather than the problem, which helped build lasting relationships that were the foundations for impactful outreach with higher-need families.

However, both felt that as Sure Start was scaled up and switched over to a reduced and more uniform offer much of what made it successful in engaging families – something described in the session as its “neighbourhood feel” – was lost, and along with it, much of the impact of the early SSLPs.

The early results of Sure Start were not always positive. The fact that children of teenage mothers did worse in Sure Start areas than non-Sure Start areas made for challenging conversations with ministers. But there was a willingness to acknowledge failures and learn from them, rather than hide them.

Key to this was a built-in system of early and ongoing evaluation and adaptation. As Naomi Eisenstadt recalled, in the case of the children of teenage mothers, the government provided more funding rather than withdrawing it, in order to identify the cause of the problem and course-correct. After two years, the gap between these children and their peers was closed.

The variable approaches across Sure Start centres made robust impact evaluation challenging, but the in-built cycle of rapid, smaller-scale testing proved essential in identifying failures and adapting approaches.

The issues that vulnerable families face are rarely limited to a single domain. They will experience simultaneous challenges in housing, health, education and so on.

Our speakers felt that in the early stages of Sure Start, the autonomy granted to SSLPs meant there was freedom to convene local agencies and tailor services to the needs of children and their parents. This was also backed by cooperation between central government departments.

But over time, they felt that the shared purpose and sustained, high-level coordination between government departments began to wane. The Department of Health and Social Care played a smaller role, while the Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions jostled over ownership of different parts of the Sure Start agenda. At the same time, budget cuts and a shift towards a core offer reduced local decision-making.

Our experts highlighted what they believe was a key flaw in the expansion of Sure Start. In attempting to exert greater central control and consistency, later evolutions of Sure Start may have been less effective in pulling together the range of services that communities valued and needed most.

Adequate and protected funding was crucial to Sure Start's early success, according to the expert panel. The programme benefited from strong backing from Number 10 and the Treasury, which initially provided significant ring-fenced funding.

The removal of the ring-fence in 2010 led to deep funding cuts by local authorities, a reduction in services and the closure of many Sure Start centres. This underscores the need for long-term financial commitment to early years programmes. However, it's also worth noting that effective use of resources is just as important as the amount. Sure Start demonstrated the potential for early intervention to generate long-term savings and improve human capital.

Taking a much more long-term view and considering future programmes like Sure Start as investments, rather than just expenditures, may be key to creating sustained impact.

The next event in our How to Make Good Things Happen series takes place on Wednesday 13 November 2024: What can we learn about governance and public service leadership from Singapore?