Where should the new best start family hubs be located to improve outcomes in the early years?

In early July, the Secretary of State for Education announced the government’s ambition to "create up to 1,000 hubs across the country by the end of 2028”, including funding for the family hubs programme in every local authority, backed by an investment of £500 million over three years.  

How should this additional investment be spent to best support disadvantaged children, and help the government reach its target for improving outcomes in the early years? 

This analysis explores: 

• the funding allocation for family hubs
• the current distribution of family hubs across the country
• the need to utilise existing early-years infrastructure
• how to decide the strategic placement of best start family hubs to support the most disadvantaged children
• our recommendations for government.

Based on our analysis, we recommend that as part of the national rollout of best start family hubs the government uses data on access to family hubs, free school meals, inequality, and deprivation at a neighbourhood level to decide on the strategic placement of hubs. In addition, we recommend that the government give priority to areas that do not have an existing family hub.

1. How generous is funding for the national rollout of best start family hubs?

The money committed from the Department for Education for best start family hubs – £500 million over three years – represents only a small uplift in terms of funding per annum relative to the last four years of funding for the family hubs and Start for Life programme. The funding so far committed by the Department for Education for 2026-27 to 2028-29 averages £166 million per year. This compares to the joint funding from the Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care for the years 2022-23 to 2025-26 that averaged around £130 million per year. 

A critical difference, however, is that funding up to this year only aimed to cover the expansion of the programme in 75 local authorities, while funding from next year onwards will aim to cover all local authorities. This means that, based on announcements so far made, average funding per local authority will be lower than it used to be. 

This situation raises serious questions about whether, without additional funding, the ambition to transform family services nationally, as outlined in the Best Start in Life strategy, can truly be achieved. Because of this relatively modest funding pot, efficient targeting of investment across and within local authorities will be vital to realise the Department of Education’s Best Start in Life strategy ambitions and reach the government’s target of 75% of children being school-ready by 2028. 

2. How many family hubs are there and how many more will be created?

Currently, 86% of local authorities have adopted some form of the family hub service model – regardless of central government funding. Overall this amounts to a total of 900 family hubs nationally: approximately 600 in local authorities that received some central government funding and 300 in other local authorities.

The government has committed to funding family hubs in the local authority areas where there is currently no provision. This amounts to 400 additional hubs and would increase the overall level of provision from 0.29 to 0.43 family hubs per 1,000 0-4 years old. This represents a 67% increase in provision relative to the number of family hubs in funded local authorities currently, and a 44% increase relative to the number of family hubs everywhere.

3. How can the government build on existing early-years provision?

The family hubs programme is built on the long-standing legacy of Sure Start children's centres – a flagship Labour policy which emerged in 1999. While the number of children's centres has decreased over time, many remain in place. Existing early-years provision therefore includes both family hubs and children’s centres. When we also consider the provision of children’s centres, we see there is a huge variation in family support services available across local authorities; Figures 1.1-1.3 show the proportion of each of these across local authorities. 

It is important that the government takes into account existing early-years infrastructure when making decisions about funding allocation for new family hubs to avoid duplication of services. Accurate data on children’s centres is needed to do this properly – including where they are currently located, what services they are offering and for whom, and how this compares to the provision of services via family hubs. 

Due to years of poor and inconsistent data capture, current data significantly overstates children’s centres' provision: many of the settings listed have closed, been repurposed, or converted into family hubs. We have only a fragmented understanding of what these centres deliver. As a result, we are left with only indicative figures for how many children’s centres are still operating, and no reliable national data on the services they provide or the families they serve.

4. How can data be used to decide the strategic placement of new best start family hubs to support the most disadvantaged children?

To meet their 2028 good level of development (GLD) target, the government must ensure new hubs are strategically placed near children who stand to benefit most in terms of their development. Children from low-income households and those with additional vulnerabilities are significantly less likely to be school-ready compared to their peers. In 2023/24, only 51.5% of children eligible for free school meals (FSM) achieved a GLD, compared to 71.5% of those not eligible. The gap is even more pronounced for children with special educational needs: just 19.7% reached a GLD, compared to 75.6% of children without such needs.

Family hubs should therefore be located within or near the communities where these children live. So, where should the government prioritise funding new hubs to ensure they reach the children and families who need them most?

Our analysis has found that existing family hubs are fairly accessible to most, including those living in deprived areas. Using a definition of access as living within a 15-minute drive, 15-minute walk, or 25-minute public transport journey to a family hub, we found that approximately 80% of 0 to 4-year-old children in relative poverty – equivalent to 400,000 children – live within an accessible distance to their local hub. However, this means that approximately 100,000 0- to 4-year-olds in relative poverty do not have access to vital family hub services that could support their development.

Whilst the governments’ family hubs and Start for Life programmes have funded 88 local authorities, 43 local authorities (of the 65 that are not funded) have established family hubs independently, while 22 have no family hubs provision at all. Large parts of the country – including areas like Devon, Somerset, the East Riding, and Derbyshire – remain with very limited and sometimes no family hubs. 

Figure 2 shows the distribution of central government funding for family hubs across England and the location of all current family hubs, regardless of funding.

It is important that the national rollout ensures access to a family hub for those 100,000 children living in relative poverty who do not currently have access.

Importantly, our analysis has found that:

• Inequalities in outcomes at age five are more pronounced in local authorities without central government funding or family hubs. The gap between FSM and not-FSM-eligible children reaching a GLD is 28.9 percentage points in local authorities with family hubs but without funding, compared to 15.0 percentage points in authorities with funding from central government (Figure 3.1) 
• There are children in pockets of deprivation in more affluent local authorities missing out on funding and/or provision of hubs (Figure 3.2). We know from previous Nesta analysis that these children tend to have the poorest outcomes at age five.

When considering how funding should be allocated for family hubs, the government should take into account measures of deprivation beyond an aggregate local authority level deprivation score so that particular pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent authorities can be prioritised. Within these local authorities, it’s equally important that new family hubs are placed in locations that are most accessible to the children and families who need them most.

5. Nesta's recommendations for government

These insights offer a practical and data-led approach to allocating best start family hubs funding to ensure that access to family hubs is secured for the children who need them most. We recommend that, given the modest funding pot and ambitious target associated with the national rollout of best start family hubs, the government considers the following as part of the national rollout strategy:

• The use of granular deprivation data – beyond aggregate local authority scores – to support pockets of deprivation within otherwise affluent areas.
• The accessibility of family hub sites, including transport links and reasonable travel times for families, particularly those living in relative poverty.
• The existing early-years infrastructure (eg, children’s centres and locally-funded family hubs) to minimise duplication and make the most of what’s already in place.

We also encourage the prioritisation of hubs in areas where there is:

• a high proportion of children eligible for FSM not achieving a GLD
• significant levels of inequality in GLD achievement
• no current family hub investment from central government 
• a high percentage of very deprived neighbourhoods

Factoring in these indicators will help ensure family hubs are located where they can make the greatest difference – supporting families who stand to benefit most and helping the government meet its target of 75% school readiness by 2028.