When New Labour took office in 1997 and set out to modernize the welfare state, early childhood quickly moved to the top of their agenda. Investing in early childhood was understood to be essential to address intergenerational poverty and inequality and improve the life chances of the disadvantaged. Dramatic new findings from brain science and other disciplines showed the powerful and lasting impact of early childhood experiences. And, rigorous experimental studies showed conclusively that well‐designed early interventions could significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged children and could yield substantial savings, improving educational attainment and reducing costly outcomes such as crime and welfare receipt. Expanding early childhood provision would also help advance other government priorities – supporting the employment agenda, promoting pay equity for women and improving health and reducing health disparities. In short, there were many reasons to invest in early childhood programmes, and many constituencies who would rally in support.
Some of the needed reforms were clear. The UK had only a minimal set of policies for children between birth and school entry – a relatively short period of paid maternity leave, no paternity leave and limited child care subsidies. In its time in office, New Labour addressed these shortfalls – doubling the period of paid maternity leave, introducing paid paternity leave, and instituting universal preschool for three and four‐year‐olds, while also greatly increasing income support and child care subsidies for low‐income families with pre‐school age children.
But what to do about the youngest children? There was really no model to turn to of a proven anti‐poverty and family support programme for families with children aged zero to three. So the government invented one – Sure Start, an ambitious area‐based programme for families with young children in the most disadvantaged areas. Boldly, the government did not just pilot or implement this on a small‐scale; they rolled out a national programme which at its height covered many of the poorest areas in the UK. And bravely, they subjected it to a rigorous evaluation.
The resulting story is a truly remarkable one, on many levels. And there is no better person to tell it than Naomi Eisenstadt. Originally an early childhood practitioner, Eisenstadt was spotted by the staff developing Sure Start and appointed its founding national director, a position she held for the next seven years. It is a rare practitioner who can also be effective as a civil servant, and even rarer is someone who combines those two qualities and can write a first‐rate book – but Eisenstadt is that rare person. Her account of Sure Start is well‐informed, clear and comprehensive, but also lively, engaging and deeply insightful. She is better positioned than anyone else to comment on both the politics and the science of the programme, and she does so with refreshing frankness as well as good humour.
The politics of Sure Start are indeed fascinating and Eisenstadt does an excellent job of situating this reform in the larger context of New Labour and its modernising agenda. A particular strength of the book is that she brings in the voices of the several ministers who were responsible for the programme during her time as director. What comes through clearly is that Sure Start was many things to many people – an anti‐poverty programme, but also a parenting programme, a health programme and an employment programme – and this understandably created tensions. There were also tensions as to whether Sure Start should be a targeted programme or a universal one. Eisenstadt relates how eventually, a victim of its own success, Sure Start became a brand name applied to children's centres that were to be made available in every community, not just disadvantaged ones.
The science of Sure Start is equally fascinating. The evaluation was contested from the start and its findings revealed strengths as well as weaknesses. Indeed, it could be argued that the programme as designed could not be evaluated, as an important element was to allow areas to design their own programmes with only minimal direction from the central government. Here as elsewhere Eisenstadt is candid about the tensions that arose but also does a superb job of objectively setting out the facts as to what the evaluation found, what changes it prompted and what lessons we can learn.
Although the book focuses primarily on Sure Start's development and evolution under New Labour, it does comment on its current status under the coalition government. Apparently Sure Start will remain in place, although funding levels may not be guaranteed. But Eisenstadt argues that ultimately the greatest legacy of Sure Start, and the related early childhood initiatives, will rest not so much with the fate of specific Sure Start programmes or children's centres but with the now widely accepted idea that early childhood provision is a central part of the modern welfare state. As her sub‐title indicates, a big part of the Sure Start story is how government discovered early childhood. Eisenstadt makes a good case that having made that discovery, there is no turning back. And this surely will be her, and Sure Start's, most lasting legacy.
