Assessing the impact of a complex programme like A Better Start, calls for an approach that draws on a mosaic of evidence and that’s where contribution analysis comes in. Richard Newson lifts the lid on the mechanics of the national evaluation.
In September, researchers from NatCen presented details of how the national evaluation is structured around testing different ‘contribution claims’. While we’ll have to wait until 2026 for the final results to become available, the webinar was a unique opportunity to see how researchers approach the complex job of understanding the impact of A Better Start.
What is contribution analysis?
When it comes to improving the lives of babies and young children, there is rarely a single silver bullet.
That is especially true for A Better Start (ABS) - a ten-year, £215 million programme funded by The National Lottery Community Fund. ABS has worked across five distinct areas of England to support families and improve outcomes for babies and toddlers, through more than 120 interventions co-produced with local communities.
From supporting nutrition and language development to enhancing emotional wellbeing, ABS is ambitious in scope and deeply embedded in local systems.
But here’s the challenge: how do you evaluate the impact of a programme that is just one part of a bigger picture?
That’s where contribution analysis comes in.
Contribution analysis is a method used to assess the role an intervention plays in achieving outcomes - especially when those outcomes are influenced by many other factors. It doesn’t try to isolate ABS as the sole cause of change. Instead, it asks: what contribution did ABS make, and how do we know?
In complex ecosystems like those that ABS operates in - where local services, national policies, and ‘social’ dynamics (like housing and access to green spaces) all interact - contribution analysis helps evaluators build a credible case for how and why change happened.
Why ABS needs a complexity-aware evaluation
ABS isn’t a simple programme. It spans multiple policy domains, involves a wide range of people and organisations, and operates in areas where other initiatives are also underway.
With complex systems like ABS, more ‘traditional’ evaluation methods - which often assume a straight line from intervention to outcome - aren’t always fit for purpose.
Instead, ABS’s national evaluation, led by NatCen in partnership with RSM UK, Research in Practice, the National Children’s Bureau, and the University of Sussex, takes a complexity-aware approach. It is designed to be flexible, responsive, and grounded in the real-world contexts that families raise their children in.
How contribution analysis works in practice
The evaluation team is using contribution analysis to explore four key questions:
- What contribution has ABS made to children’s life chances?
- What factors have helped improve children’s nutrition, emotional wellbeing, and communication skills?
- What are families’ experiences of ABS services and support?
- Has ABS helped reduce public spending related to primary-aged children?
To answer these, the method follows a step-by-step process. It starts with analysing the Theory of Change (ToC). The ToC can be seen as an articulation of how ABS is expected to improve outcomes. Each of the five ABS partnerships has its own ToC, alongside a national version developed by the Fund. These theories help evaluators map out the assumptions, pathways, and context behind the programme.
Then, using a wide range of evidence - from local evaluations to national data - the team tests what’s known as a contribution claim. For example: did ABS interventions help improve babies and toddler’s diet and nutrition in a particular area? If so, how do we know it was ABS, and not something else?
A collaborative approach to evaluation
One of the strengths of this approach is its collaborative nature. The Fund, the national evaluation team, the five local partnerships and families themselves, all bring different perspectives, expertise and insights. The evaluation team bring this data together, interpreting it, challenging assumptions, and identifying the part A Better Start has played.
As the Fund puts it: “As a funder we were keen to understand the contribution that ABS made towards achieving its aim and objectives. The use of contribution analysis for the national evaluation recognised how ABS sites operated in complex contexts and how ABS was only one component in what was taking place in local sites to address early childhood development.”
Why it matters
In a world where public programmes are increasingly expected to demonstrate impact, contribution analysis offers a realistic and nuanced way to do just that. It acknowledges complexity, embraces uncertainty, and focuses on building a credible narrative of change.
For ABS, that means being able to show how its work, from national programmes like HENRY to local innovations like Bradford Doulas, has made a real difference in children’s lives.
And for funders, policymakers, and practitioners, it means having robust evidence to guide decisions, improve services, and ultimately help give every child the best possible start in life.
- Find out more about the national evaluation of A Better Start and how it uses contribution analysis in the webinars here and here.
About A Better Start
Sign-up to join the ABS mailing list and read the latest updates here.
A Better Start is a ten-year project set-up by The National Lottery Community Fund, the largest community funder in the UK.
Five A Better Start partnerships based in Blackpool, Bradford, Lambeth, Nottingham and Southend are supporting families to give their babies and very young children the best possible start in life. Working with local parents, the A Better Start partnerships are developing and testing ways to improve their children’s diet and nutrition, social and emotional development, and speech, language and communication.
The National Children’s Bureau is coordinating an ambitious programme of shared learning for A Better Start, disseminating the partnerships’ experiences in creating innovative services far and wide, so that others working in early childhood development or place-based systems change can benefit.