A landmark national scheme aimed at ensuring children get the best start in life may actually be failing to prevent deprived youngsters from falling behind better off peers, a study suggests.

The report from ScotCen, a leading social research organisation, has sparked concern that limitations in the criteria determining which two-year-olds are eligible for free childcare are resulting in some not getting the learning support and care they need.

Under a £1.5 billion deal between the Scottish Government and councils, the number of funded hours available to all three and four-year-olds, and eligible two-year-olds, is to nearly double from 600 – or roughly 16 hours per week in term time – to 1,140.

Children’s Minister Maree Todd said previously that it could save each family as much as £4,500.

The expansion was due to take effect from August this year but has been paused due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

It is part of a drive to narrow the poverty-related attainment gap, improve child development, increase opportunities for parents to be in work, training or study, and boost family wellbeing.

Currently, two-year-olds qualify for the entitlement if they meet certain criteria.

These include being looked after by a council, being the subject of a kinship care or guardianship order, or having parents who receive benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance.

But the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare phase three report suggests the policy may not be reaching all youngsters in need.

Poverty campaigners and charity leaders have said the research demonstrates the critical importance of providing support for all children, and that it is “vital” the rollout of funded hours proceeds as quickly as possible.

The Scottish Government said it would always welcome “suggestions and proposals” to improve how eligibility is targeted.

ScotCen’s report compares learning and development outcomes for a group of three-year-olds who received 600 hours of funded ELC provision over a year from the age of two (“Eligible 2s”) with those for a “nationally representative” sample of peers, of whom the vast majority did not access it or were ineligible (“Comparator 3s”).

It also examines changes in outcomes among the Eligible 2s after a year of ELC and across a range of areas including communication, behaviour, gross and fine motor skills, and problem solving.

While it found that many in this group made progress, the research uncovered evidence of a difference in outcomes between more and less deprived children in the Comparator 3s group.

It has also fuelled questions over whether some youngsters are adequately covered by eligibility criteria for two-year-olds and potentially missing out on vital support at the start of their lives.

In addition, the report says there “could be an argument for widening” the criteria for funded ELC at age two.

Stephen Hinchliffe of ScotCen, one of the authors, said: “Children and families in deprived areas are not necessarily eligible to receive the 600 hours of funded ELC as not everyone living in deprived areas is in receipt of the qualifying benefits – there may be some parents living in deprived circumstances or on a lower income who struggle to work due to a condition or illness, but are not in receipt of incapacity or severe disablement allowance.

“And when we look at the Comparator 3 children in the more deprived areas and the children of parents with lower levels of parental education, then we see that learning and development outcomes in the areas assessed within the research are very similar to those of children in the Eligible 2s group covered in our research.

“Increasing deprivation emerges as a significant factor in children’s development among the Comparator 3s, with this more likely to be on schedule in a number of learning and development areas as deprivation decreases.

“So it’s a question of whether some of those children in the Comparator 3 group – who are much less likely to have received, or been eligible to receive, the 600 hours of funded ELC – would benefit from the same at the age of 2, in terms of access to 600 hours of funded ELC, as those in the Eligible 2 group. Because some of them may not meet the current criteria.”

He added: “The research shows differences by income among the Comparator 3s, so we could potentially look at the criteria for eligibility for funded ELC at the age of two and ask if it covers every child in lower incomes – similarly, the research shows differences for those living in deprived areas, although those children in deprived areas may not necessarily be eligible under the existing criteria.”

Hinchliffe also noted that children of parents with a long-term illness tended to have worse outcomes.

“Many, but not all, of these meet the eligibility criteria, so it is worth looking further at those families who did not receive state funding,” he said.

“Local authorities may provide discretionary funded childcare for the children of parents living with a condition or illness which means they are possibly not able to work – and I have the impression lots of local authorities are doing it already.

“The research shows that the outcomes for children of non-white parents, for whom English is not their first language, are also lower [at the pre-school stage], although the number involved in our study was very small.

“Perhaps this is another category that could potentially be looked at further.”

Overall, ScotCen’s research paints a generally positive picture of the national policy, noting that the year of ELC the Eligible 2s have already received “appears to have helped them improve on measures of development”.

It adds: “The parents of the Eligible 2s tend to have engaged well with the ELC settings and they recognise the opportunities afforded to them in having their child in nursery, in terms of taking up employment or having more time to do other things.”

The report also points to frequent home learning as a significant and positive influence on development outcomes for children in the Eligible 2s group.

“Most of the Eligible 2 children covered in the research were living in deprived areas and so we wouldn’t expect that to show up as a factor among those children in terms of their development,” Hinchliffe explained.

“However, frequency of home learning did emerge as a significant factor affecting their development outcomes and studies have certainly shown the benefits of that to children over the course of their education.”

Campaigners said the research highlighted the importance of ensuring access to funded ELC for all those who need it.

John Dickie, director of Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, said: “With strong evidence emerging of real improvements in child outcomes and parents employment prospects after a year of funded early learning and childcare (ELC), it is vital that the rollout of funded hours moves as quickly as possible. It’s also really important that all children who are most likely to benefit from ELC are able to access it, with eligibility widened to include more two year olds if that what’s needed to ensure that all children that could benefit, do benefit.”

Jackie Brock, chief executive of the national charity Children in Scotland, said: “As well as reinforcing existing knowledge, this research provides further compelling evidence of the need for early learning and childcare support for all children.

“Additionally, it highlights the particular benefits for families in our most disadvantaged communities.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Our aim is to make sure we reach eligible two-year-olds with high-quality early learning. We have targeted eligibility at those the evidence has shown us will benefit most from an extra year of high quality ELC.

“We do, however, always welcome suggestions and proposals to improve that targeting and will consider new evidence as it is published.”