Jeremy Peat: Time for a look at caring for children

SINCE the time of the Allander series of lectures, economists in Scotland have been aware of the work by American James Heckman showing that the rate of return on investment in children declines as they grow older. In other words, the return on investment in pre-school children is significantly higher than that on schooling, which in turn tends to be higher than the return on investment in post-school training. Having this fact (which so far as I am aware has never been subject to significant challenge) pigeonholed away has always made me ponder whether a shift in resources, at the margin, from post school and secondary education to pre-school and early stage primary education would yield benefits for the Scottish economy?

Two other factors have added to the importance of this debate. First, a far too high number of Scottish children appear to fail to benefit from education (broadly defined) and hence fail to contribute as they might to economic activity in Scotland. This is both a severe problem for each individual concerned and also a loss for the economy and society more generally.

The second point relates to Scottish demographics. We have a rapidly ageing population. Over the decades ahead, a proportionately larger share of the population will be beyond what we now see as “working age” and dependent upon the activities of a proportionately much smaller number of “working age” folk. That will mean working life for coming generations will be extended and retirement deferred. At the same time, this increasing “dependency ratio” will also add to the importance of achieving a state where as high as possible a share of the younger generation benefits from their early years and contributes to the economy and to society to the best of their abilities – again for their own sakes and for the sake of society.

This all points to the importance of “early stage intervention”; of investing in our young people as a priority to prevent waste and excessive costs in recovering the position later in life; and hence maximising young people’s potential for the sake of all involved. The welfare of Scotland as a whole will be heavily dependent upon the performance and contribution of coming generations of young people. To me that makes it a high priority to see how best to engage with these young people as they develop.

More recent scientific research has shown the complexity of such intervention while at the same time re-inforcing the case for investment in the early years. This research has also pointed to the extra costs for society in coping with those who miss out on development in early years. To quote Ann Buchanan, who runs the Centre for Research into Parenting and Children at Oxford University and was a recent speaker to a Hume Institute seminar: “I found significant relationships between emotional and conduct disorders at age seven with low attainment at school, poor relations with parents at age 16; poor relations with partners at age 33 and a greater tendency to mental health problems in adulthood. And so, we might surmise, the cycle continues into the next generation.” The cost to society is not just the “output foregone” but also the costs of dealing with a wide range of problems for individuals which are likely to emerge as a result of problems in the early years.

This case has been accepted for some time by the Scottish Government and picked up by the finance committee of the Scottish Parliament, as a key component of its focus on preventative spend. Our seminar, organised with the full support of the Scottish Government, explored further these issues and to considered the best way forward – taking due account of the constraints in this time of exceptional financial stringency. In addition to the seminar we arranged a workshop at Holyrood, involving practitioners and others, supported by the Parliament’s Scotland’s Futures Forum and by the Goodison Group in Scotland.

Ann was joined at the seminar by Professor Susan Deacon, a former Labour MSP and Scottish minister and author of the key report on this topic for the Scottish Government. I learned a huge amount about the scientific evidence from Ann; and about the wide-ranging implications from both Ann and Susan. Perhaps the most startling research revealed in the seminar relates to brain development. With a lack of stimulation there is a lack of neural development; and the vital links across the network of the brain are not developed. There are also problems due to an over-active adrenaline system and high levels of cortisol which can cause brain cells to die.

The first three years of any child’s life matter dramatically and the first six months are most important of all. To quote one highly respected researcher, “If [early life nurturing] is absent for the first three years of life and then a child is adopted and begins to receive attention, love and nurturing, the positive experiences may not be sufficient to overcome the lack of development/damage to the brain”.

This conclusion is backed up not only by really scary photos of different children’s brains at the age of three but also by research related to real life experience among children adopted to caring homes from Romanian orphanages. Again to quote Ann Buchanan: “Those [Romanian orphans] removed to loving adoptive parents before they were six months did just fine… but those who had languished in the orphanages for more than 18 months had ongoing cognitive and other difficulties despite their loving and nurturing adoptive parents”. As Susan Deacon stressed there are three key questions – do we know enough about the issue? Do we care – enough? What are we going to do? The answer to the first question is simple – yes we do and the evidence seems to be very widely accepted. The answer to the second is more difficult and a key conclusion for Susan for Scotland is that society has to take real responsibility for these issues. It cannot all be left to politicians and policies.

However, I would argue that policies matter too. Indeed the key purpose of this piece is to emphasise that society has to care and policies have to reflect the severity of our problems and what can be done to respond. According to Ann, “We have yet to see much happen” at the UK level. Indeed funding for relevant programmes, such as Sure Start is declining sharply.

There is scope for Scotland to take the lead, for our own benefit. Already some funding has been set aside, with a statement that the Government will invest £20 million/ £45m/£50m over the spending review period in early years programmes.

There are perhaps two key priorities. One is for quality pre-school opportunities for all children from age two or perhaps three – with regular assessments. The other is for targeted services for vulnerable families, especially those in disadvantaged areas.

We do not need to watch re-runs of The Scheme to understand the severity of this problem. Society must show it cares and take steps to acknowledge and respond to this massive set of issues in the way that only society can respond. Government must follow through its proposals, building on a clear understanding of the problems and the way in which different programmes have and have not worked. We at DHI have helped to illuminate and provoke the debate. Many more must now participate and move from debate to effective action.

• Jeremy Peat is director of the David Hume Institute. Ann Buchanan’s slides are available at site www.davidhumeinstitute.com