News

Research suggests that early intervention to support families with babies in their first year has the long-term potential to cure many of society’s ills - a message that the government has at least partially recognised, writes Liz Kendall.

We have known for a long time that children’s early years can have a major impact on their later life chances. New research suggests that the first year of life, including months before birth, may be particularly important.¹

There is now clear evidence linking low birth weight with later outcomes in childhood and adult life. The Medical Research Council has shown that low birth weight babies are more likely to grow up with a low cognitive ability compared with babies born at a higher birth weight. Research from abroad has linked low birth weight with adult ill-health, such as coronary heart disease. Birth weight is determined by several factors, including a mother’s health and diet before and during pregnancy. Income has a major role to play here - studies show that mothers who are reliant on state benefits may not be able to afford a healthy diet.

Research on the beneficial impact of breast feeding has been growing over recent years. Breast feeding has been shown to reduce the likelihood of infant mortality and to decrease the incidence and severity of childhood infections. It has also been shown to protect against adult diseases. For example, babies fed with breast milk are less likely to suffer from high blood pressure than those who are not. Cognitive development also appears to be linked to breast feeding. A Scandinavian study found that children who were breast fed for less than three months were more likely to achieve lower scores for cognitive development at 13 months old than children who were breast fed for six months or more. However, despite considerable efforts to encourage breast feeding in the UK, rates have remained static for the past 20 years with a strong disparity between social classes and ethnic groups.

New research from the US indicates that pregnancy and the first year of life are critical to brain development.² During this period, a child’s brain is “wired” to match his or her daily experiences. The amount of stimulation babies get - how much they are talked and read to, played with and encouraged - can influence language development and later reading ability and numeracy skills. Again, socio-economic factors play a significant role. Studies have found significant differences in the range of vocabulary that babies of more affluent parents are exposed to compared with those whose parents are less well off. Reasons for these differences include parents’ own reading abilities, and amount of money spent on books.

Two key factors underlie the new evidence into this early period of life. The first is that poverty and disadvantage can harm early child development and that the effects can persist into adult life and across the generations. However, it is important to stress that the associations between poverty, disadvantage and later outcomes are in no sense determinist: risk is not destiny.

Which leads to the second factor: the importance of parents’ roles. Parents can clearly help protect their children against the risks of poverty and disadvantage. However, while much has been written about what constitutes good or bad parenting, it is difficult to isolate what makes a good parent let alone develop interventions which alter parenting in ways that affect children’s subsequent development. Too often policy makers and the media seek to find simplistic answers to difficult questions about parenting.

One such question is the impact of mothers working during their children’s early years. Some studies suggest that maternal employment while children are under one year old may have a detrimental effect on child development. Others claim that good quality child care during the first year of life actually benefits child development, leading to higher scores in tests of cognitive and language development. Most of the evidence on this issue comes from the US; we know very little about the sorts of child care UK parents want or use during the first year of life.

There is no doubting the government’s commitment to tackling these issues. A range of policies are being implemented to help meet the government’s target of abolishing child poverty by 2020 such as the New Deal, increases in child benefit, the minimum wage and tax credits, including the child and baby tax credits. In addition, programmes such as Sure Start are seeking to enhance and co-ordinate services for toddlers in deprived areas.

Yet major challenges remain. The first is to reach parents much sooner. And there are still serious gaps in the provision of early preventive services, despite the government’s efforts in this area.³

The second is to improve information and support for parents. Surveys show parents think services are too often focused on the process of giving birth or on the baby and fail to give families the information they really want about what it is like to become a parent.

Thirdly, while public policy should be guided by what’s best for children, it also needs to support parents whatever the situation they are in. Not every mother is able or chooses to breast feed. Not every mother wants to or can stay at home during their child’s early years. Practitioners need to recognise this  and develop responses to support parents, whatever decisions they take.

Finally, the government should consider shifting the focus of its child poverty strategy specifically to pregnancy and the first year of life. This is not to say that it should stop funding interventions further down the line now, but because the earlier the intervention the more effective it is. And there is a case over time for a significant shift in resources upstream.

Liz Kendall is associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research.

¹ This article draws on evidence outlined in The First 12 Months: a Literature Review, available from www.ippr.org.uk

² JP Shonkoff, DA Phillips (eds), Neurons to Neighbourhoods, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2000

³ C Henricson et al, National Mapping of Family Services in England and Wales,  National Family and Parenting Institute, 2001

The current preoccupation with youth crime and antisocial behaviour has led policy makers to forget the positive contribution they can make to young people's lives, writes Tom Wylie.

It is understandable that politicians want to help youngsters spend their leisure time constructively, get a decent education, avoid unwanted pregnancy, eat sensibly. But a general drive to have teenagers stay at home after dark, not to mention stop them troubling the neighbourhood watch by "hanging about"? Aren't we just going a little too far in this endless, officially-promoted steering of young people?

Of course, some youngsters need more help and guidance than others. Some need well-focused programmes to confront their poor behaviour. Others will benefit from the direct individual support of a learning mentor or from the "new profession" of a Connexions personal adviser. But, in a social policy environment supposedly shaped by evidence-based practice, there seems to be a singular lack of research on the factors which lead to success in such interventions.

What we need is a whole-hearted attempt to foster young people's confidence and creativity; to help them make informed choices and contribute to the lives of others - their peers, their families, their communities. There is no shortage of prototypes. We can see it in "Youth Bank", the young people-led grant-giving body; or in the various community action projects celebrated by the Philip Lawrence Awards. Or in the variety of youth forums and councils across the country or in the host of local music-making or video projects. Such projects rarely get the sustained support needed to go from prototype into production. Whitehall is obsessed with new-ness. Longevity, proven worth, sustainability have gone out of fashion. Young people do not only need individual support but a range of opportunities for their development as people and as members of society. Rebuilding the UK's youth services would help.

Action on crime, certainly, but let's hear less talk about young people's capacity for idleness, drunkenness or misbehaviour. We need a youth policy framework which will transform existing youth services to focus on young people's development, and their active citizenship. And a politics that does not demonise whole age groups because of adults' fears.

Tom Wylie is chief executive of the National Youth Agency.