Why the economics of providing childcare in poor communities does not add up

There is no doubt in my mind that Covid-19 and its associated kerbs on life, learning and work has had profound effects on all of us, and its reverberations will be felt for many years to come. I have worked closely with all local authorities over the past 18 months, with a particular focus on early years and childcare provision, learning loss, and shifts in supply and demand across the marketplace. That work has revealed many things.

• Read more: Pandemic ‘worsening inequalities’ for children in the north of England

Of course, there will always be huge differences between the lives and opportunities of those living in the more affluent areas of London than almost anywhere else. The resources and prosperity they benefit from are truly staggering. Comparisons result in well-documented health and life expectancy inequalities, as well as learning and attainment gaps, and education and employment failures. 

The Northern Health Science Alliance (NHSA) report warned the impact of the virus and restrictions introduced made a “child health crisis unfolding in the north of England much worse”. What occurs to me is the prevalence of large urban areas identified as areas where such inequalities are manifested. It calls me to question if we are doing enough to tackle the particular issues of the inner cities and diverse communities. Are services unable to reach them and make the interventions and impacts they have a right to benefit from? Is this an issue of resource or engagement or both? Is there too much emphasis placed on services finding communities ‘hard to reach’, rather than them properly contemplating their own abilities or dare I say inabilities or failures institutionally in finding they cannot reach said communities?  That might sound unfair, but there is a moral imperative here. 

The growing effects of economic poverty can only exacerbate the already deep-rooted social conditions and disadvantage, and Covid-19 with its added isolation, domestic stressors, ability (or not) to home school, disengagement with services including schools – all of which results in a triple whammy of difficulties. 

Money, in the form of increased funding will help, yet it is a lazy ask. These problems cannot be cured by financial resource alone. Resource allocation, especially in early years, needs to be both simplified and made more advanced. hat doesn’t make initial sense, bear with me.

The core offers need to be streamlined and the various criteria and details ironed out, so we can dispense of the ‘labyrinth of process’ currently endured by the sector.

Then, we need additionality, so we can do more where it is needed because the economics of providing early years and childcare in disadvantaged communities don’t easily add up, and the sector is facing a schism. 

The risk is that provision will thrive in areas of affluence and fall by the wayside, or get bought up by large chains, everywhere else. Disadvantaged areas, including (but not exclusively) in the north, do need more, because we need to ask them to do more. We have a moral duty to do so.

Early years providers need to become greater agents of change, supporting inter-generational behaviour transformation, opening up learning and employment opportunities for all the family, that way inequalities have half a chance to be reduced. That takes time, effort, professional recognition, and resource.  Resource that report after report demonstrates will be recouped in the long-run, if we dare to be a little more patient.

James Hempsall is director of Hempsall’s Consultancy