Using data to accelerate equitable systems for children

Australia should close the equity gap in children’s health, development and wellbeing within a generation. Yet progress has stalled. Children living in the most disadvantaged Australian communities are almost three times as likely to experience developmental vulnerability in two or more domains at school entry as those in the most advantaged areas (20.3% vs 7.6% on the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC)). These gaps widen over time, with children on persistently disadvantaged trajectories facing a seven‑fold increased risk of poorer outcomes across multiple developmental domains by late childhood.

These inequities persist into adulthood, contributing to chronic disease and generating significant costs for individuals and society. Investing in early childhood, and acting earlier, is more effective and less costly than remediation later in life. The Intergenerational report 2023: Australia’s future to 2063 underscores the urgency for more timely and targeted action. Yet investment alone has not reduced inequities.

Right now, Australia’s policy conditions present an extraordinary opportunity for change. Initiatives like Thriving Kids, Closing the Gap and reforms across early education and care and child and family health services reflect substantial commitment from Australian, state and territory governments. However, realising this opportunity depends on service systems and programs being delivered equitably — ensuring the very best quality is available to those most likely to benefit. This can only really be achieved by ensuring data are collected and used to inform action, so system “course correction” can occur in real time rather than years after the window for prevention has closed. 

We already have robust outcome measures like the AEDC and The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Outcome measures capture what has happened but provide limited guidance for immediate action. More timely data are needed to complement outcome measures and to make clear directions for early action possible.

Clearer, earlier directions for action can guide fairer outcomes

Our recent papers ‘Data for equity’, and ‘Clearer signals, earlier action’ propose a practical decision-making approach applied through both population and place-based lenses. This approach is a ‘data logic’: a data roadmap that ensures every decision for children is informed by the right data, in the right hands, at the right time. 

As an analogy to our current service system challenge, imagine running a business without knowing daily sales and only receiving a profit report years later. While early years systems are more complex than any single business, the same challenge applies. We are making decisions about how to improve early years services (includingearly childhood health, education and community services) without early, clear data and directions for action, and without feedback loops indicating whether efforts are making a difference. 

The early years data logic (Figure 1) identifies six key types of data and purposes.

• To prioritise effort, we need lag data. This data shows how children are faring and where inequities exist. These data are important but arrive too late for immediate action.

• To guide service planning and delivery, we need lead indicator data. This data provides early signals or predictors with concrete, measurable targets that services can act on immediately.

• To inform action, we need context and conditions data. This data explains why indicators look the way they do. This includes both social determinants data (the conditions and systems that shape inequities) and local context data (describing service development, community needs and demographic changes).

• To support shared service goals, we need experience data (e.g. community voice). This data ensures the voices of children, families, practitioners, and communities inform responses.

• To enable improvement, we need improvement data (e.g. impact evaluation). This data tracks the actions being taken to address problems.

• To estimate benefit, we need impact data (e.g. cohort studies). This data reveals whether efforts are making a difference over time and for whom.

• Across all data types, an equity lens is essential. Data should be routinely collected and consistently reported by key socioeconomic, geographic and cultural factors, in partnership with the groups they represent.

The data logic shows how existing data can be better organised to inform decisions that shape how service systems are delivered. With access to timely insights, services can adapt in real time rather than waiting years for feedback. Communities gain the insights needed to advocate for resources they need. And governments can target investment where it will make the biggest difference. 

Decisions about early years services shape systems for generations. Australia already collects rich data across health, education and social care, from government administrative datasets to service-level records (such as the Person Level Integrated Data Asset; PLIDA). When linked with longitudinal cohort studies, these provide a life-course view of children's health, development and wellbeing. The challenge is not whether enough data are collected, but whether they are used early and with clear purpose.

The priority now is to ensure that decision-making is data informed, and those working with children are better placed to act. Clinicians, service leaders, communities and governments should champion data systems that are connected for purpose and invest in earlier, clearer directions for action. Used well, existing data can identify unmet need and enable more timely, equitable decisions. We must not squander the current policy investment by not providing the data tools and systems for change. The prevention opportunity is now. 

This article draws on our published papers ‘Data for equity’, and ‘Clearer signals, earlier action.’ Read more and access both papers via the Centre for Community Child Health.

Professor Sharon Goldfeld is a paediatrician, Director of the Centre for Community Child Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital, and Director of Population Health at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

Dr Elodie O’Connor is a Research Fellow at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Honorary Fellow at the Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne.

Jacqui McCann is the Policy and Advocacy lead for Restacking the Odds and early childhood at Social Ventures Australia.

Dr Sarah Gray is Research Manager of Changing Children’s Chances at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, and Honorary Fellow at the Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne.

Dr Lynne Millar is the Senior Research Manager for Restacking the Odds at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, and an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia.

Olivia Hilton is the General Manager for Restacking the Odds at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.