By Jaimie Kaffash
11 February 2010
Giving children the best possible start in life should be the priority to reduce inequalities in life expectancy, says a government-commissioned report published today.
Fair society, healthy lives, authored by Michael Marmot, a professor of public health at University College London, found that each socioeconomic group in England suffers from shorter life expectancy than the group directly above it.
It found that people living in the richest 5% of neighbourhoods will live seven years longer on average than those living in the poorest 5%. However, even excluding these groups, there is a six-year difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.
This has ‘profound’ implications for social policy, the report states, as action focused on the lowest socioeconomic groups will ‘only tackle a small part of the problem’. The authors recommend a ‘proportionate’ approach that will reduce inequalities throughout society.
‘To reduce the steepness of the social gradient in health, actions must be universal, but with a scale and an intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. We call this proportionate universalism,’ the report states.
It says that giving every child the best start in life must be the main policy objective. It says this is achieved through: increased spending on early years; giving priority to pre- and post-natal interventions; further support through parenting programmes; paid parental leave in the first year of life; and providing early years education and childcare proportionately across the gradient.
Children’s minister Dawn Primarolo welcomed the report. She said: ‘The Marmot Review recognises the key role played by children's centres in reducing health inequalities and I welcome the focus on the early years. It is government's priority to support all new parents and give every child the best start in life. That's why we are establishing more children's centres with more effective outreach to the most disadvantaged families.
‘We are on track to achieve our target of 3,500 children's centres by March 2010. By 2011 we will be investing over £1bn a year directly to support services in children's centres and we have committed to providing a named health visitor for each children's centre.’
But Tess Lanning, researcher at the IPPR, told Public Finance that the review’s recommendations were risky, demonstrated by the problems with the Sure Start programme to help families with young children.
‘IPPR has consistently argued for what we call “progressive universalism”. But it is the ideal and there are huge challenges to achieving it. In the current context of limited public money and all parties across the political spectrum arguing to reduce the deficit, universal services may be politically almost impossible,’ she said.
‘Where the government attempts to provide universal services with limited money, it risks diluting the quality of the service. For example, some academics and a select committee enquiry suggested that the government desire to provide a universal Sure Start service (with limited money) meant the quality of the programme was being reduced, and the impact for lower income service users was reduced.’
11 February 2010
Giving children the best possible start in life should be the priority to reduce inequalities in life expectancy, says a government-commissioned report published today.
Fair society, healthy lives, authored by Michael Marmot, a professor of public health at University College London, found that each socioeconomic group in England suffers from shorter life expectancy than the group directly above it.
It found that people living in the richest 5% of neighbourhoods will live seven years longer on average than those living in the poorest 5%. However, even excluding these groups, there is a six-year difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.
This has ‘profound’ implications for social policy, the report states, as action focused on the lowest socioeconomic groups will ‘only tackle a small part of the problem’. The authors recommend a ‘proportionate’ approach that will reduce inequalities throughout society.
‘To reduce the steepness of the social gradient in health, actions must be universal, but with a scale and an intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. We call this proportionate universalism,’ the report states.
It says that giving every child the best start in life must be the main policy objective. It says this is achieved through: increased spending on early years; giving priority to pre- and post-natal interventions; further support through parenting programmes; paid parental leave in the first year of life; and providing early years education and childcare proportionately across the gradient.
Children’s minister Dawn Primarolo welcomed the report. She said: ‘The Marmot Review recognises the key role played by children's centres in reducing health inequalities and I welcome the focus on the early years. It is government's priority to support all new parents and give every child the best start in life. That's why we are establishing more children's centres with more effective outreach to the most disadvantaged families.
‘We are on track to achieve our target of 3,500 children's centres by March 2010. By 2011 we will be investing over £1bn a year directly to support services in children's centres and we have committed to providing a named health visitor for each children's centre.’
But Tess Lanning, researcher at the IPPR, told Public Finance that the review’s recommendations were risky, demonstrated by the problems with the Sure Start programme to help families with young children.
‘IPPR has consistently argued for what we call “progressive universalism”. But it is the ideal and there are huge challenges to achieving it. In the current context of limited public money and all parties across the political spectrum arguing to reduce the deficit, universal services may be politically almost impossible,’ she said.
‘Where the government attempts to provide universal services with limited money, it risks diluting the quality of the service. For example, some academics and a select committee enquiry suggested that the government desire to provide a universal Sure Start service (with limited money) meant the quality of the programme was being reduced, and the impact for lower income service users was reduced.’
