This paper combines novel data on the time use, home-learning practices and economic circumstances of families with children during the COVID-19 lockdown with pre-lockdown data from the UK Time Use Survey to *

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

No abstract

The COVID-19 crisis has caused drastic changes to most parents' work lives and other responsibilities. Millions of adults have lost or are forecast to lose their jobs permanently; many more have stopped work temporarily. Others are newly working from home, while many key workers are experiencing additional pressures and risks in their work. For most parents, school and childcare closures have meant that children are at home, and requiring care, for at least an extra six hours a day. Although an economic downturn may be inevitable, the effects of COVID-19 and the public health response on the economy as a whole and on specific groups are likely to look very different from those of the economic crises that we are used to. The complete shutdown of certain sectors and the huge increase in households' care responsibilities are both completely new. And the impacts of these sectoral shutdowns and increases in family responsibilities are likely to look very different for mothers and fathers.

Public expenditure on education in the UK represents around £90 billion, or 4.3% of national income. Yet until last year, there was no comprehensive analysis of how that expenditure is targeted at different stages of education, how it has changed over time, the factors driving those changes, and the associated pressures and challenges. That gap was filled by the 2017 IFS report-funded by the Nuffield Foundation-Long-run comparisons of spending per pupil across different stages of education. The influence of that report on policy debates convinced both the Foundation and IFS of the value of producing this type of analysis on a regular basis. All those working in the education system, as well as the wider public, stand to benefit from a clear and independent assessment of trends in education spending over time and from better understanding the balance of public and private financial contributions at different stages. Such data are essential considerations in decision-making, particularly in the context of continued pressure on public finances, economic uncertainty, and rising pupil and student numbers. It is for these reasons that we have worked with IFS to instigate a series of three annual reports on education spending, of which this is the first. The report provides impartial analysis of spending across each stage of education, complementing the Foundation's goal to explore the impact on outcomes of educational participation across the systemfrom the early years, through school, and into further and higher education and vocational training. Each report will feature a more detailed focus on a particular stage of education, and this year that focus is on further education (including school sixth forms and adult education). The authors show that further education has been a big loser from education spending changes over the last 25 years. There have been significant cuts to spending per student since 2010, and further changes are on the horizon in terms of the regional devolution of responsibility for adult education, the tight timescale for the development of the new T levels, and the continued focus on apprenticeships for adult learners. The Nuffield Foundation has long been concerned about the particular challenges facing further education, and its relative neglect in both financial and policy terms. We are keen to improve the evidence base in this area and hope that this report will help to generate discussion, and ultimately interesting research proposals that we might consider funding. We extend our thanks to the IFS team, in particular to Luke Sibieta, who has led the analysis, and to his co-authors Chris Belfield and Christine Farquharson. We hope the publication of this series of reports will become an important part of the education calendar.

This paper evaluates the short-and medium-term health impacts of offering families with children under 5 universal access to centres providing childcare, health services, parenting support and parental job assistance. Increased access to these centres during early childhood increases the probability of hospitalisation for infants in the local area. As children age this effect turns negative and grows larger through primary and secondary school. The impacts are concentrated among boys from the poorest areas. The reductions in hospitalisations are driven by reduced infections, injuries, and mental health. The impacts during post-childcare age suggest that operating mechanisms are stronger immune systems, safer parenting practices and home environments, and improved emotional and behavioural development among children.

These effects are substantial; our calculations suggest that an additional centre per thousand children under 5, on average, generates around 6,700 additional hospitalisations of 1-year-olds each year. But it also prevents around 13,150 hospitalisations each year between the ages of 11 and 15 -meaning that Sure Start averts nearly twice as many hospitalisations among older children as it induces in 1year-olds.Our results also suggest that Sure Start had particularly big benefits for some groups of children. The fall in hospitalisations the programme brought about is concentrated among boys and, at later ages, in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Key findings1 Sure Start increased hospitalisations among very young children. At age 1, having access to an extra centre per thousand children under 5 increased the probability of a hospitalisation in the neighbourhood cohort by 10%. This translates to roughly 6,700 additional hospitalisations a year.2 However, Sure Start's effects on reducing hospitalisations during childhood and adolescence more than compensate for the increase in admissions at very young ages. At age 5, an additional centre per thousand children prevented around 2,900 hospitalisations a year; for 11-to 15-year-olds, the total was over 13,150 prevented hospitalisations each year.3 Sure Start's impacts on child health last well beyond the end of the programme itself. Indeed, some of the biggest impacts are only felt in adolescence, nearly a decade after children have 'aged out' of eligibility.4 Sure Start services seem to have affected children's health through several different channels. At younger ages, large impacts on infectious illness suggest that Sure Start significantly strengthened children's immune systems. A drop in poisonings in these age groups suggests that advice on child-proofing the home also had an effect. In

The authors are grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for funding this work (grant EDO/FR-000022584). The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance educational opportunity and social well-being. It funds research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare and Justice. It also provides opportunities for young people to develop skills and confidence in science and research. The Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and the Ada Lovelace Institute.Almudena Sevilla thanks the European Research Council for funding her time through the PARENTIME project. Co-funding from the ESRC-funded Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy (ES/M010147/1) is gratefully acknowledged.2