The early years are when the foundations of physical, emotional and social development are laid, but currently, there isn’t enough evidence about the best ways to support children in these critical years.

To consider how that evidence base can be built in a way that is both methodologically sound and practically useful on the ground, Nesta brought together over 180 attendees from local authorities, academia, central government, the NHS, and the voluntary sector for an online discussion.

It was clear throughout the event that there is a strong appetite for genuine cross-sector discussion and collaboration. Researchers want to ensure their work speaks to local delivery, while local authority teams and practitioners are looking for clear, actionable insights to guide their strategies. In small breakout groups, the active discussion showed a desire for ongoing spaces where researchers, practitioners and local decision-makers can learn from one another.

Here are five takeaways on how better evidence can be developed and used. We began the event with a panel discussion: alongside me as chair, the panel included Claire Crawford, professor of economics at University College London, Eleanor Ireland, programme head for education at the Nuffield Foundation, and Dr Katherine Arbuthnott, public health specialist and consultant advisor to the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Claire Crawford kicked off the discussion by talking through several critical gaps in the existing research landscape. She explained that while policymakers understand the broad factors that matter for early development, such as warm caregiver interactions, the home learning environment, high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), and integrated family support, there is no complete picture of how public policy can reliably deliver these conditions for every child. Claire gave the example of the home learning environment. What happens in the home learning environment has a major impact on children’s early development, but there is little causal evidence on how to effectively support parents to develop a stronger home learning environment - and therefore little understanding of which policies around home learning would be best for children’s development. Persistent administrative data gaps contribute to this issue. Where evidence on effective programmes exists, it is often specific to three- and four-year-olds - our understanding of effective support for children aged zero to two is much more limited. 

Eleanor Ireland emphasised that addressing these challenges requires doing two things at once: continuing to generate new evidence where gaps exist, while actively working to embed and implement programmes that are already proven to work, such as the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) and Talking Time. She noted a clear gap in evidence around some widespread local practices and programmes that are currently without a formal evidence base, citing Nesta’s analysis of parenting support programmes as an example. Some widely used programmes are built on local knowledge, but developers and local commissioners lack the resources to generate the sort of robust evidence that would allow for these programmes to be refined and scaled. 

Dr Katherine Arbuthnott highlighted that public health frameworks can support the work of filling evidence gaps, pointing to the NIHIR’s current funding call around school readiness and the home learning environment. She also spoke about infrastructure such as NIHR’s Health Determinants Research Collaborations, Knowledge for Public Health and Applied Research Collaborations, which are designed to generate and scale evidence in real-world settings. She also stressed the importance of building evidence that demonstrates both impact and economic cost-effectiveness.

On the question of influencing policy, the panelists discussed the tension between political timelines and research timelines. To influence central government, it helps if early years interventions can offer metrics that demonstrate progress within a standard spending review period, even if this is just an early indicator. Claire Crawford noted that one of the aims of the new Economics of Education Research Centre will be to build the evidence base for short-term returns to educational investments.

However, as Eleanor Ireland noted, long-term studies remain equally vital. Evaluations of Sure Start, for example, have taken decades to show their full impact, but this evidence has now provided an important foundation for policy discussions.

Following the panel discussion, participants moved into breakout groups to discuss local delivery challenges, research translation, and service integration. One key theme which emerged across these discussions was how research can be created, disseminated and delivered collaboratively.

Participants noted that bringing research into local authorities should not be treated as a one-off information dump. Instead, it requires an ongoing partnership and discussion. Attendees pointed out that past budget cuts have reduced local authority capacity, removing specialist roles such as early language leads, who previously helped translate research into practice.

A recurring point in breakout conversations was the gap between high-level management metrics and the actual experiences of families. While senior leaders are often presented with output data (such as the number of health visitor contacts or good level of development rates), these measures do not always capture service quality or family engagement. Many local authorities run parent panels or co-design initiatives locally, but this intelligence rarely enters academic literature. Finding ways to distill and share insights from activities with parents across the research and local community could help develop a fuller picture of real-life experiences.

Evidence is just one factor influencing policy. Participants reflected on Start Strong’s unpublished polling showing that while 97% of the public agree early childhood is important, many do not see it as a priority for policy decisions. Academic evidence alone isn’t enough to change this. Alongside evidence generation, we need to amplify and translate what we know about the benefits to society of effective early years interventions in a way that resonates with the public.

Specifically around 'school readiness', attendees suggested that the focus should shift away from viewing readiness as a burden placed on a four-year-old child and their parents. Instead, it should be understood as a broader responsibility involving communities, services, and schools themselves. 

Connecting academic evidence with local delivery is not a simple task - but there is a clear desire from researchers and practitioners alike to bridge this gap. At Nesta’s  fairer start mission, we will continue to explore formats that bring researchers, local authority leaders, and practitioners together to generate and use evidence that improves outcomes for young children.