Best Beginnings Episode 12: What Anna Heuschkel told us about the evidence, the funding gap and who early years policy keeps leaving behind

Anna Heuschkel is Policy Researcher and Early Years Lead at the Centre for Young Lives, the think tank founded by Baroness Anne Longfield, the former Children's Commissioner for England. In just over two years the Centre has become one of the most influential voices in UK children's policy, with its research directly shaping the government's Young Futures programme, its school readiness targets and the rollout of Best Start Family Hubs.

In this episode of Best Beginnings, Anna sets out the evidence on what is driving the gaps in child development, what local authorities are up against and what it will actually take to close them.

The picture is stark

The Centre's State of the Nation report laid out the scale of childhood vulnerability in the UK: 4.5 million children in poverty, 160,000 in temporary accommodation, mental health problems in young people doubled since 2017 and A&E visits among under-fives up 40% in a decade. Joined-up family support now receives less than a quarter of the funding it received at the peak of Sure Start.

The Centre's work spans the full zero to twenty-five age range, covering play, inclusive education, mental health and more. But throughout, Anna explains, there is a consistent focus on children facing additional barriers: those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, from certain ethnic minority backgrounds, children with SEND and adverse childhood experiences. "That is a really particular focus," she says. "We try to close some of those gaps in outcomes between those children."

The 75% target and the risk it carries

Only 68.3% of five-year-olds in England are currently reaching a good level of development. The government has set a target of 75% by 2028. Progress is growing at roughly one percentage point a year. The maths is uncomfortable.

Anna welcomes the target. Targets align thinking and effort at national and local level. But she is clear about the risk it carries. "What it risks is local authorities focusing on those children who are really close to meeting that target - maybe have one area of learning - and it disincentivises some of that longer term work that needs to be done to support children who are facing multiple barriers or who are much further away from reaching a good level of development."

The gap between children eligible for free school meals and those who are not widened over the last two years. Regional disparities are significant. And for children with SEND and complex needs, the headline measure may never reflect their progress at all. The target, Anna argues, needs to be used as a springboard for longer-term transformation, not just a short-term race to 75.

What the evidence says works

Anna is unequivocal about family hubs. Joined-up, community-anchored support that reaches families where they are rather than waiting for them to turn up is central to the evidence base. But she is equally clear that a hub is not just a hub. It needs spokes out into the community, relationships with early years settings, data joining up across children's services and health, and a genuinely welcoming atmosphere that removes the stigma that can sit around accessing family support.

"Having that welcoming place," she says, "somewhere that someone who might not know anyone in the community, who might be new, who might never have accessed support, can just walk into. That sounds really simple, but it is really, really important."

She points to community navigator roles and voluntary sector partnerships as tools that local areas are not using enough. Government and local authorities need to be taking support to where children are, not waiting for the families who need it most to find their way in.

The Sure Start lesson

The story of Sure Start is a warning. IFS evidence showed it reduced hospitalisations, improved GCSE outcomes and had its strongest impact on the most disadvantaged. The Centre's own research found it decreased the probability of having a criminal record by 9% by age 16. It was dismantled anyway.

"The question," Anna says, "is how we make sure the next generation of children, this generation of children, don't get overridden."

Her answer is legislation. The Centre for Young Lives has called for government to put Best Start Family Hubs into law, so that the next government cannot simply remove them. Not just for funding certainty, but so families and communities can rely on that support being there for the long term. "Not being worried that at the end of the next funding cycle, it's going to be completely dismantled and you'll have nothing left."

What the government needs to do

Anna's ask to the Treasury is specific: £1.2 billion in this spending review period for scaled-up joined-up family support, rising to £2.2 billion in year nine. She would also like to see the Department of Health step up. The Department for Education has led on early years under this government, which is welcome. But the health system, from preconception through to the two-and-a-half year review, is a critical part of the picture that is not yet joined up at the top.

"We're not asking for much," she says. "But we are asking for a bit more investment to make sure these hubs are really impactful."

There is cautious optimism. Anna sees a genuine shift in how this government thinks about early years - a recognition, after decades of underfunding, that getting it right in the first 1,001 days unlocks potential across education, health and employment. That momentum matters. The question is whether the spending decisions will match it.

What this means for families

When asked what every parent should know, Anna's answer is direct. "You are your child's first teacher. There is support out there and you should go and access it. Maximising that time you spend with your child - even just a bit of time - is really important."

At Babyzone, we see every day what happens when families have the right support at the right time. The research Anna and her colleagues are doing - tracking the gaps, naming the failures and building the evidence base for what works — gives all of us the language and the data to demand better.

Getting to 75% means nothing if the 25% who need it most get left furthest behind. Good policy for the early years is not a luxury. It is the foundation. And the gap between what we know works and what we actually fund is a choice — one that can be made differently.

Read the Starting Well report from the Centre for Young Lives.