Reimagining early years services to address childhood inequities: learning from the Born in Bradford evaluation of a Better Start Bradford

TL;DR

The paper summarizes lessons learned from a 10-year initiative in Bradford aimed at reducing early childhood inequalities through preventative interventions and community-driven approaches.

Contribution

The study provides insights into the effectiveness of a place-based, test-and-learn model for early years prevention and highlights the need for a coordinated system to address childhood inequities.

Findings

Place-based models and community empowerment were effective in delivering early years interventions.

Robust evaluation infrastructure is crucial for understanding the impact of preventative programs.

Scattered interventions are insufficient to resolve complex childhood inequalities.

Abstract

‘A Better Start’ was a 10-year (2015–2025), £215 million initiative funded by the National Lottery Community Fund, supporting five areas in England to address inequalities in the early years of life across socio-emotional development, language and communication, and nutrition outcomes. It aimed to provide a place-based, test-and-learn model, putting parents at the heart of design and delivery. As a result, each of the five sites developed and implemented distinct local programmes.

The Better Start Bradford programme delivered multiple preventative interventions across the outcome domains. Bradford was the only site to embed a research partner, Born in Bradford, from the very beginning. This enabled the establishment of a fully resourced research hub—the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub, which included the world’s first interventional birth cohort, Born in Bradford’s Better Start, designed to efficiently evaluate multiple interventions simultaneously. This evaluation has provided in-depth learning about the inequalities faced in contemporary urban populations and evidence of the implementation and impact of multiple early years interventions.

In this review, we reflect on our ‘decade of discovery’: what worked well, what we have learnt about evaluating and delivering early years prevention at scale, and what we would do differently if we had the opportunity again. Examples of what worked well include the place-based model, the test-and-learn approach, a robust evaluation infrastructure and community empowerment. Our learning has evidenced important changes for future programmes and for commissioners, chief among them: complex inequalities cannot be resolved through the delivery of individual or scattered interventions. This collective learning points to a clear call for change to create a jointly commissioned, appropriately funded and continuously evaluated early years system, underpinned by a long-term commitment to prevent inequity in the early-years before it becomes entrenched.

Figures