It was exciting to see such a range of people from different sectors together in one room ready to challenge the evidence team to tackle some important issues: how to demonstrate fiscal as well as social value, how to define what good evidence looks like, how to ensure intergenerational change for children and families, and how to explain to a variety of different audiences what early intervention is and what impact it can have.

The discussions at the forum meeting felt like a culmination of the key ingredients for evidence-based early intervention policy: building on a strong evidence base, rigorous evaluation of impact and tailored interventions to suit a given context.

Feedback from attendees however highlighted the need to ensure that practitioners are intricately involved in this debate. The way in which evidence on early intervention is actually used and applied is crucial to its effectiveness. Kate Williams from ‘Ambitious About Autism’ emphasised that, “it would be great to look at the practical application of what we know.”

A crucial goal for EIF, reiterated throughout the day, is how to translate evidence into effective work on the ground with families and children. What use is strong evidence for the effect of maternal wellbeing during pregnancy on a child’s development if there is inadequate funding for programmes to support parents? What impact can a randomised controlled trial have, one of the strongest forms of evaluation, if there aren’t enough participants in each test group? How can practitioners use evidence about what works if they do not have sufficient training or tools at their disposal?

If practice is to change, policy must do the same. The panel discussion at the end of the day on goals for early intervention over the next parliament was particularly fascinating in seeking to pin down the issues for politicians writing manifestos and for ministers in the next government.

Suggestions included encouraging the electorate to question the evidence base, emphasis on quality rather than quantity of childcare, focus on the couple relationship for enhancing children’s outcomes, and a need to find the right balance between universal and targeted services.

It was inspiring to see the ambition that speakers and audience members had in their aims for early intervention and the drive of researchers and practitioners alike in seeking to overcome obstacles to evaluate programmes and measure the impact of their practice.

Julie Scurfield from Durham pointed out, “the panel at the end of the day was powerful if the comments are acted upon.” It is this momentum that EIF must harness, bringing politicians, policy makers, practitioners and researchers together to ensure that evidence-based early intervention truly comes to fruition.