“Our failure to invest in early years today will create significant problems for decades. As disadvantaged babies and children grow up, they will fall behind their richer peers, and the evidence suggests that early childhood development has an impact on mid-life economic and social outcomes” argues Ben Cooper, Senior Researcher at the Fabian Society

Sure Start recognised this, and transformed thousands of lives over the long term. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that this ‘one-stop shop’ for families with children under 5 reduced hospitalisations, supported safer home environments, and tackled behavioural problems. Indeed, many of the impacts of Sure Start were only felt in adolescence – especially for young people in disadvantaged areas.

But austerity has been catastrophic for the early years. In government, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats essentially dismantled Sure Start. They forced 1,000 centres across England to close and the services provided in remaining centres were dramatically reduced.

This affected poorer places more than richer places. Spending per young person on Sure Start and other children’s services fell significantly in the most deprived local authorities between 2010-11 and 2020-21, while spending rose in the least deprived areas. All three regions of the North saw falls in spending per young person on children’s services, while the South East saw an increase.

The last 13 years of policy choices have widened inequalities both between young children and between places. We will not know the full consequences on health, wellbeing, and prosperity for years to come

Recently, the government announced £300m to invest in Family Hubs, delivering an array of services for families with children, from conception to age 19 – or to age 25, in the case of families with disabled children. This may sound positive and comprehensive, but is actually a major problem.

First, the funding is insufficient to provide for such a large group of children and young people. At its peak, in 2010, Sure Start centres received £2.1 billion (in January 2023 prices) – that’s 7 times more funding in one year than Family Hubs will have for 3 years.

But beyond low funding, there are fundamental problems with the Family Hubs concept. The rhetoric has often been that the ‘first 1,001 days’ are crucial, including from the Prime Minister and from Andrea Leadsom, the government’s  Early Years Healthy Development Adviser. Rightly so: the evidence suggests investment between conception and age two is the best opportunity to tackle inequalities, and help every child to grow up happy, healthy, and successful. But Family Hubs are part of a policy trend that has seen the focus slip from the very earliest years, to children aged over two – largely through expanded childcare entitlements.

An offer to every child and young person under the age of 19 and their families risks crowding out support and funding for our youngest, poorest children. We simply cannot expect Family Hubs to dedicate as much resource, time or space to early years services. Many communities will actually see their Sure Start replaced, losing the only public service for under-fives and their families.

So a dedicated early years support service is needed – one that is focused on helping all families with babies and children under-five. Such a service should not aim to support every young person up to the age of 19, many of whom would be better supported through schools, colleges and youth clubs.

There should be a mixture of universal help and targeted interventions, with an emphasis on peer-to-peer support that enables parents, grandparents, and carers to provide mutual help and advice to new parents. A national entitlement should be established, including access to baby and parental health services, parenting support programmes, childcare, and help on the home learning environment. Families should also be able to co-produce the local offer because the types of services required, and how they are delivered, can vary between different communities.

Adequate, long-term investment must be provided, particularly for those areas with the highest level of disadvantage and need – recognising that while there will be some benefits in the short term, the real success will be measured as the next generation grow up and have children themselves. The success of Labour’s Sure Start shows us that a dedicated early years support service may not be cheap, but it is a sound investment.

Ultimately, families, babies and young children deserve serious solutions to tackling health and educational inequalities that open up right from birth. Get this right, and we will all be better off.