Family Hubs vs Children's Centres: What Changed and Why
A detailed comparison of Family Hubs and Sure Start Children's Centres: what changed, why the government made the shift, and what it means for local authorities delivering family support.
The shift from children's centres to Family Hubs represents the biggest restructuring of local family support services in England in over two decades. Understanding what changed — and why — matters for everyone involved in delivering, commissioning, or accessing family services.
TL;DR: Family Hubs extend the children's centre model from an early years focus (0-5) to a whole-family approach (0-19, up to 25 with SEND). They operate as hub-and-spoke networks rather than standalone buildings, have stronger digital and data requirements, and integrate a wider range of services including Start for Life. The change reflects both lessons learned from children's centres and new evidence about what families need. Over 75 local authorities are now funded to deliver the Family Hub model, backed by over £300 million in government investment.
What you'll learn: How and why Family Hubs differ from children's centres across every major dimension.
Key context: The policy, evidence, and funding behind the transition.
Practical implications: What the shift means for local authorities, practitioners, and families.
A Brief History: From Sure Start to Family Hubs
The Sure Start Era (1998-2010)
Sure Start was launched in 1998 as one of the most ambitious early years programmes in English history. At its peak, over 3,600 Sure Start Children's Centres operated across England, providing integrated early education, childcare, health, and family support for children under five and their parents.
Original Vision: Sure Start aimed to tackle child poverty and improve outcomes through area-based programmes in the most disadvantaged communities. Early Sure Start Local Programmes had considerable local flexibility in design and delivery.
National Rollout: From 2004, the programme expanded from targeted areas to a universal network of children's centres, with a statutory duty on local authorities to provide "sufficient" centres to meet local need.
Impact Evidence: Research from the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) found mixed results initially but increasingly positive effects over time, particularly for the most disadvantaged families. By 2012, the evaluation found improvements in family functioning, home learning environments, and child health.
The Decline of Children's Centres (2010-2020)
From 2010 onwards, children's centres faced significant funding reductions.
Closure and Reduction: Between 2010 and 2020, over 1,000 children's centres closed in England, according to analysis by the Sutton Trust. Remaining centres often reduced their service offer and opening hours.
Funding Cuts: Local authority spending on children's centres fell by approximately 60% in real terms during this period. The removal of ring-fenced funding meant councils could redirect money to other pressures.
Variable Quality: Without consistent funding, the quality and breadth of remaining children's centres varied enormously between local authorities. Some maintained strong provision; others retained buildings in name only.
The decline of children's centres created a gap in family support that the Family Hubs programme aims to address — but with a different, more integrated model.
The Family Hubs Programme (2021 onwards)
The policy foundations for Family Hubs emerged from several strands.
Andrea Leadsom Review: The 2021 Best Start for Life review, led by Andrea Leadsom, recommended a network of Family Hubs as the primary way to deliver joined-up family support, with a particular focus on the first 1,001 days.
Government Commitment: The government committed over £300 million to the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, initially funding 75 local authorities. This funding covers hub establishment, workforce development, Start for Life services, and digital infrastructure.
Broader Policy Context: Family Hubs align with wider reforms including the integration of health and social care through Integrated Care Systems, SEND reforms, and the commitment to reducing inequalities.
The Key Differences
Age Range and Scope
This is the most fundamental change and has wide-reaching implications for service design.
| Aspect | Children's Centres | Family Hubs |
|---|---|---|
| Primary age range | 0-5 years | 0-19 years (up to 25 SEND) |
| Service focus | Early years education and care, health visiting, parenting for under-5s | Whole-family support across childhood and adolescence |
| Youth provision | Not included | Integral part of the offer |
| SEND support | Limited to early years | Extended to age 25 |
| Parent/carer support | Focused on parents of young children | Support for parents at all stages |
Why It Changed: Evidence consistently shows that family support needs do not stop when a child starts school. Adolescence brings distinct challenges — mental health, exploitation risks, transitions — that require coordinated support. The children's centre model left a gap for families with older children. Around 1 in 6 children aged 6 to 16 in England have a probable mental health disorder, according to NHS Digital surveys, highlighting the need for support beyond the early years.
Practical Implications: Local authorities must now design services that span a much wider age range, requiring different skills, partnerships, and delivery models. A Family Hub might run a baby group in the morning, a homework club after school, and a youth drop-in in the evening.
Delivery Model
The shift from building-based to network-based delivery is a significant operational change.
| Aspect | Children's Centres | Family Hubs |
|---|---|---|
| Primary model | Single building | Hub-and-spoke network |
| Virtual services | Limited or none | Expected as core component |
| Outreach | Variable | Embedded in model |
| Partner locations | Occasional | Systematic use of schools, GP surgeries, libraries, community venues |
| Geographic reach | Catchment around building | Networked across authority area |
Why It Changed: Many families, particularly in rural areas, could not easily access a children's centre building. The network model aims to bring services closer to where families are. The digital element extends reach further, particularly for families who face transport barriers.
Practical Implications: Managing a network is fundamentally different from managing a building. It requires digital systems for coordination, booking across multiple sites, and consistent service quality regardless of location. Platforms like Plinth are designed specifically for this hub-and-spoke model.
Integration and Partnership
Family Hubs require a deeper level of multi-agency integration than children's centres typically achieved.
| Aspect | Children's Centres | Family Hubs |
|---|---|---|
| Health integration | Health visiting, some midwifery | Health visiting, midwifery, perinatal mental health, school nursing |
| Voluntary sector | Variable partnership | Systematic partnership expected |
| Education | Childcare information, some early education | Early years through to youth transitions |
| Welfare services | Some signposting | Benefits, housing, employment integrated |
| Domestic abuse | Variable | Explicit pathway required |
| SEND | Early identification focus | Comprehensive SEND support |
Why It Changed: Families rarely experience problems in isolation. A parent struggling with mental health may also face housing insecurity, relationship difficulties, and concerns about a child's development. Children's centres addressed some of these needs but often in silos. The Family Hub model explicitly requires joined-up working across agencies.
Practical Implications: Multi-agency integration requires information sharing agreements, shared systems, joint training, and clear governance. This is operationally demanding and requires investment in both relationships and technology.
Data and Reporting
The data expectations for Family Hubs are substantially more structured than those for children's centres.
| Aspect | Children's Centres | Family Hubs |
|---|---|---|
| Data framework | Locally determined | National DfE framework |
| Reporting frequency | Variable | Quarterly to DfE |
| Demographic monitoring | Basic | Detailed, against national indicators |
| Outcome measurement | Variable | Required against programme outcomes |
| Digital infrastructure | Not specified | Expected as programme requirement |
Why It Changed: The government invested significant public money and wants evidence of impact. The lack of consistent data from children's centres made it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness nationally. The new framework aims to provide comparable data across all programme authorities.
Practical Implications: Local authorities need systems capable of collecting, aggregating, and reporting structured data across their hub network. Manual approaches to data collection and reporting are impractical at the scale required. This is one of the strongest drivers for adopting purpose-built software.
Digital Expectations
The digital component of Family Hubs has no equivalent in the children's centre model.
Virtual Hub: Family Hubs are expected to maintain an online presence where families can access information, find services, and book appointments.
Online Booking: Families should be able to find and book services digitally, reducing phone calls and improving accessibility for parents who cannot visit during office hours.
Data Systems: Digital infrastructure for data collection, reporting, and coordination is a programme requirement, not an optional extra.
Why It Changed: Children's centres were conceived before widespread smartphone adoption and digital service delivery. The expectation that public services should be accessible online is now standard. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital adoption across family services.
The digital element represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Authorities that invest in good digital infrastructure find it dramatically reduces administrative burden and improves reach.
What Has Been Preserved
Despite the differences, Family Hubs build on strengths from the children's centre model.
Physical Spaces: Many Family Hub main sites are former children's centres. The buildings remain, repurposed for the wider age range and service offer.
Universal Access: Like the best children's centres, Family Hubs maintain a universal offer available to all families, not just those in crisis. This reduces stigma and enables early identification of need.
Health Visiting Partnership: The link between health visiting and community-based family services, established through children's centres, continues and deepens in Family Hubs.
Community Identity: The best children's centres became trusted community spaces. Family Hubs aim to build on this identity and extend it to a wider group of families.
Evidence-Based Programmes: Many evidence-based programmes delivered through children's centres — parenting courses, infant feeding support, developmental checks — continue within Family Hubs.
The Family Hub model does not reject the children's centre legacy. It extends it, learning from both the strengths and the limitations of what came before.
What This Means for Local Authorities
For Funded Programme Authorities
The 75 authorities in the DfE programme have specific requirements and support.
Transformation Plans: Each authority must develop and deliver a transformation plan showing how they will establish their Family Hub network.
Start for Life Delivery: Funded authorities must deliver the six core Start for Life services: perinatal mental health, infant feeding, parenting support, home learning environment, parent-infant relationships, and family support.
Data and Reporting: Compliance with the national data framework is a condition of funding. This requires investment in digital systems.
Sustainability Planning: As transformation funding concludes, authorities must plan how to sustain services through core budgets.
For Non-Programme Authorities
Authorities not in the initial 75 are not prevented from adopting the Family Hub model.
Self-Funded Adoption: Some authorities are establishing Family Hub networks using existing resources, recognising the benefits of the integrated model.
Future Funding: The government's stated ambition is for all authorities to adopt the model. Early adopters may be better positioned for future funding rounds.
Learning from Others: The Family Hubs community of practice and published guidance are available to all authorities.
Technology Investment
Regardless of programme status, the shift from building-based to network-based delivery requires investment in digital infrastructure.
Booking Systems: Managing services across multiple sites requires online booking capable of handling the variety and complexity of hub provision.
Data Collection: Meeting reporting requirements — whether DfE mandated or locally determined — requires structured data systems.
Partner Coordination: Multi-agency delivery requires shared systems with appropriate access controls.
Plinth provides an integrated platform covering booking, data collection, and reporting specifically designed for the Family Hub model. Authorities including Westminster, Bristol, and Hammersmith & Fulham use Plinth to manage their hub networks.
What This Means for Families
For families, the transition should mean better, more joined-up support.
Wider Range of Help: Services now cover the full span of childhood and adolescence, not just the early years.
Easier Access: The hub-and-spoke model, combined with digital booking and virtual services, aims to make it easier to find and access the right support.
Joined-Up Experience: Instead of being passed between disconnected services, families should experience coordinated support where professionals share information (with consent) and work together.
Proactive Support: Family Hubs aim to identify and offer support early, before problems escalate, through universal services that reach all families.
The success of the programme ultimately depends on whether families experience genuinely better support — not just reorganised structures.
FAQs
Are all children's centres becoming Family Hubs?
Not necessarily. Some children's centre buildings have become Family Hub main sites or spoke locations. Others have closed or been repurposed. The Family Hub model uses a network approach, so some services may move to different locations including schools, libraries, and community venues.
Will families lose services in the transition?
The intention is to expand and improve services, not reduce them. However, the transition period can be disruptive, and some services may change format or location. The wider age range means services now also cater to families with older children, which may shift the balance of provision.
How long does the transition take?
Most funded authorities have been implementing over a two to three-year period. Establishing the governance, partnerships, workforce, and systems for a full Family Hub network is a substantial undertaking. Some authorities are further ahead than others.
Is the Family Hub model permanent?
The government has signalled long-term commitment to the model, with ambitions for national rollout. However, sustainability depends on continued funding and political commitment. Authorities that can demonstrate strong outcomes through good data collection are best positioned to secure ongoing investment.
What happens to children's centre staff?
Many children's centre staff have transitioned into Family Hub roles, often with an expanded remit. The wider age range and service offer means some additional recruitment and training is needed, particularly for youth services and SEND support.
Do Family Hubs replace social workers?
No. Family Hubs provide universal and early help services. They sit alongside statutory children's social care, not in place of it. Good Family Hub provision aims to reduce the number of families reaching the threshold for statutory intervention by providing effective earlier support.
Recommended Next Pages
What Are Family Hubs? A Complete Guide – Comprehensive overview of the Family Hubs programme.
Best Software for Family Hubs in 2026 – Software options for managing hub networks.
How to Manage Bookings and Reporting in Family Hubs – Practical operational guidance.
Data Collection in Family Hubs: Meeting Government Requirements – Meeting the new data requirements.
Family Hubs Management Features – See how Plinth supports Family Hub programmes.
Last updated: February 2026
For more information about Plinth's Family Hubs software, contact our team or schedule a demo.