The Childhood Lottery: Reflecting on the findings and response

27 Oct 2026 01:38 PM

The Childhood Lottery: Reflecting on the findings and response 27 October 2026.

I recently published The Childhood Lottery report – bringing together 162 metrics, including children’s own views and experiences, to create one of the most comprehensive datasets on children’s lives.  

I am so grateful for the thoughtful and constructive engagement I have had directly and on social media.  

Representatives from across the country have asked about using the data and the recommendations to drive change in their area. I want to thank everyone for their engagement and to highlight some interesting points raised about the report.  

Why did I do the report? 

As anyone following these blogs will know, I have been travelling across the country, speaking to thousands of children for The Big Future survey. They are ambitious, they love where they live and are proud of it. But that pride is not rose-tinted. They are aware of the challenges in their area.  

Throughout my time in office, I’ve used data to bring to the fore the challenges children face, and this is no different.  

I launched The Childhood Lottery with a panel of decision makers and experts – Professor Peter Fonagy, Chair of the Independent Review into Mental Health, ADHD and Autism;  AC Laurence Taylor, Head of Counter Terrorism for the Metropolitan Police; Tim Bowman, Executive Director of Education, Work and Skills, Greater Manchester Combined Authority; Joanne McCartney, Deputy Mayor of London for Children and Families, and Georgia Gould OBE MP, Minister for School Standards – all facing tough questions from my brilliant Youth Ambassadors Annabel, Sebastian, Temi, Tanvi, Valerie, Issy, Penelope, Ella and Aaliya. This moment was what this report, and in fact my entire tenure as Children’s Commissioner, is all about. 

What metrics are included? 

The report brings together 162 metrics across education, health, community, safety and children’s views of their area. Too many to list here – but you can find the full set in The Childhood Lottery Evidence Annex. 

The Childhood Lottery uses a range of contextual, service-level and outcomes-based datasets I have gathered using my powers, publicly available data from public bodies, and data from my survey The Big Ambition on children’s views and experience. But some gaps remain and I encourage public bodies to reach out to my research team if they feel they can fill any of those gaps.  

My findings 

The findings were stark. As the report shows the childhood lottery is very real – and not simply explained by poverty or demographics.  

I gave overall scores to areas using around 100 scoreable metrics, giving an overall look at the full range of services available, their quality, and the outcomes we see. I made the difficult decision to publish the rankings. I understand why some people found this uncomfortable – but once I began to see the huge overall disparity in children’s experiences between areas, it would have been wrong to ignore it. I have spoken to children in many of the lowest scoring places – they want to talk about it. I want the data to be an aid to those areas where childhood is hardest. 

The dataset includes metrics like poverty – which are largely beyond the control of local areas. That is because poverty is part of a child’s reality, and the point of this research is to describe children’s reality in the round. It is true and important to acknowledge that it can be more challenging for professionals to deliver high quality services and improve outcomes in areas of high poverty, but it is equally important to acknowledge that this does not make it any easier to be a child in those places. 

Throughout this analysis, my aim has been to put children’s experiences at the heart of the data, exploring how their own views and feelings relate to measures of service delivery and the environment in which they grow up. The links I have drawn between the metrics – such as crime data and children’s feeling of safety – are examples of the kinds of analysis that can now be done by others, locally, regionally, and for the whole of England. It is now over to practitioners, professionals and other researchers to build on my initial data exploration.  

How have you spoken to the places you’ve singled out? 

Ahead of publication my office reached out to every authority to set out the findings and give them a chance to respond, with particular attention paid to those areas towards the bottom of the rankings. That is because I want places like Middlesbrough to be the best place to grow up. I want to see local services share and use the data so they can come together and deliver the best possible outcomes. 

You’ve focused on local areas but what about central Government? 

This is a crucial question. Most of the data points are not new – and central government is aware of the challenges areas face. But this has not translated into the scale of action required. These places cannot wait hopefully for the attention and resourcing they need; it is too urgent. I want this report to be an engine for real change. I want to see government grasp the opportunity of devolution to empower local leaders and transform young lives in places like Middlesbrough.   

This is a challenge for local leaders, but just as importantly and more urgently it is a challenge to national government. To show that it has seen the urgency and level of need in these areas, and to give local areas the tools and resources they need to address it.