Investing in the Future: A Discussion on the Economic and Broader Social Impact of Early Intervention Programs

Abstract

The study of early intervention programs for at-risk children and their families is a continuously evolving field. As a result, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners focus on the effectiveness of these programs. The educational outcomes of the implementation of early intervention programs have been well studied. However, regarding the financial and societal benefit of the implementation of these programs, studies are limited. Studies conducted in the past have indicated that early intervention programs are cost-effective; early intervention programs reduce the need for costly public services in the future by supporting the child’s wellbeing and development, promoting family stability, providing early access to appropriate support services, enhancing families’ knowledge and skills, and providing them with the resources necessary to support their children. There is a great need for updated financial evaluations related to the implementation of early intervention programs for at-risk children and their families to broaden their social impact. Thus, it is important that policymakers consider financial evaluations, in combination with qualitative data, in their decision-making procedures. Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners should closely cooperate in the planning and implementation of programs that meet the needs of the children and families who are at risk.

1. Introduction

The study of early intervention programs is a growing field (Feldman et al., 2022). Research conducted across several scientific fields, such as child development, education, neurosciences, economics, etc., has highlighted the importance of early intervention programs, deepening our understanding of the profound influence of the environment on a child’s overall development, particularly during the early years of life (Cannon et al., 2018; Nores & Barnett, 2010). The term “early intervention” refers to programs that are prevention-focused and implemented early in the child’s life (Katušić, 2011). Early childhood is a critical period, marked by both heightened vulnerability and exceptional potential for brain development and growth. This development is directly linked to the child’s interaction with their familiar environment. Providing appropriate support to at-risk children, children with disabilities, and their families significantly enhances the likelihood of more effective developmental outcomes and improved quality of life (Smythe et al., 2021) because interventions undertaken during this period are more effective due to brain plasticity (Katušić, 2011).

The term “early intervention program” describes the services and support that are available to at-risk children (e.g., low-birthweight or preterm babies, children in low-income families, etc.), babies and young children with developmental delays and disabilities, and their families (Fenske et al., 2000). Early intervention programs are defined as multidisciplinary services aimed at supporting children from birth to age five by promoting their health and well-being, encouraging the development of emerging abilities, minimizing developmental delays, addressing existing or potential disabilities, preventing functional deterioration, and strengthening parenting skills and overall family functioning (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000).

The effectiveness of these programs has garnered considerable attention in both research and policy contexts.

This theoretical paper builds on previous research and seeks to advance the discussion concerning early intervention programs and their effectiveness. Beyond highlighting the benefits for children and their families, which most studies have focused on, this study introduces an additional dimension for consideration: the broader economic and social benefits of such interventions.

2. Early Intervention Programs and Key Factors Influencing Their Effectiveness

Early intervention programs often target the child’s environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), aiming to strengthen the child’s skills, to provide parents with all the useful information and appropriate support (social, emotional, resources, etc.), and to improve parents’ ability to support their child’s wellbeing and development, as well as to help them cope with parenting challenges (Essa & Burnham, 2019; Guralnick & Bennett, 1987).

In the literature, several differences among the early intervention programs are reported, which are considered key factors influencing their overall effectiveness.

Some indicated differences are related to (a) the services provided; (b) the type of organization that provides early intervention programs; (c) the context in which the programs take place; (d) the funding methods and the policies implemented; (e) the approaches that the programs follow; (f) the intensiveness of the programs; (g) the programs’ duration; and (i) the level of intervention.

In further detail, there are differences with respect to the service focus, such as cognitive development, physical development, health, nutrition, mental health, communication development, and social development. Another significant difference is the type of organizations that offer such programs. More specifically, some early intervention programs are implemented in the context of non-governmental organizations, federally supported programs, state-supported programs, and university-supported programs (Black et al., 2017; Essa & Burnham, 2019; Fenske et al., 2000).

The early intervention services differ in terms of the context in which they take place. Some early intervention services take place at children’s homes, in formal or non-formal educational settings, at community centers, and at daycare centers (Essa & Burnham, 2019; Nores & Barnett, 2010). Additionally, other differences are relevant to the funding, i.e., whether the program is funded by the public or the private sector. The selection of funding for early intervention programs is closely linked to national policy decisions, which vary across countries based on their socio-economic contexts and the priorities established by the policymakers (Black et al., 2017).

Some of the early intervention programs follow a family-centered approach. In this approach, families are given training to improve their knowledge, attitudes, practices, and skills aimed at promoting the child’s overall development (Iversen et al., 2003; Jeong et al., 2021). Other early intervention programs facilitate a child-centered approach, which often includes some parent involvement (Kagitcibasi et al., 2001). The aim is to provide the child with various experiences and opportunities that at-risk or disadvantaged families ordinarily do not provide, and to promote the overall development of the child. Additionally, some early intervention programs combine family-centered and child-centered approaches (Kagitcibasi et al., 2001). Moreover, there are place-based interventions. These interventions focus on the communities in which families live (Shonkoff et al., 2021).

Additionally, some early intervention programs are more intensive than others. Also, there are differences regarding the program’s duration; for example, some are offered from birth to six-year-old children, others from birth to five-year-old children, and some extend up to eight years of age (Essa & Burnham, 2019; Sapiets et al., 2021). Another difference that is indicated through literacy is the level of interventional support for child development. More specifically, three levels of interventional support for child development are referred to: (a) universal programs offered to all children; (b) targeted programs aimed at-risk children, such as home visits to young mothers; and (c) specialized intensive interventions for children with specific needs, including those with disabilities (Wackerle-Hollman et al., 2021).

All the aforementioned factors are relevant to the effectiveness of early intervention programs.

3. Early Intervention Programs: Impact on Child Development and Family Well-Being

Early intervention programs have become a focal point for researchers and practitioners, particularly during periods of economic and social crisis. As a result, several studies assess their effectiveness. Early intervention programs are a key element in the long-term developmental and health outcomes of children at risk. This is because disadvantaged and adverse environments often lead to insecure relationships between the caregiver and the child, negatively affecting cognitive, language, and social development, increasing the risk of educational failure, and creating challenges in the transition to adulthood (Tomlinson et al., 2022). Cognitive advantages, family support, environmental quality, social adjustment, and school support represent distinct individual and environmental dimensions that align with ecological systems theory, which posits that both proximal and distal environmental factors play a crucial role in a child’s development (Johnson, 2016; Ou, 2005).

The positive impact of early intervention programs on children’s overall development and their transition into adulthood are well studied. Early childhood, a period of significant brain growth and heightened neuroplasticity, represents a significant period for brain development as well as for the development of language, motor, cognition, emotion, and social skills (Shonkoff et al., 2016; Van Belle, 2016). These skills evolve through the child’s interactions with both familiar and broader social environments. Through the appropriate interactions with the environment, children learn, evolve, and develop their autonomy. Consequently, the early years of life offer an opportunity to prevent risk factors that could negatively affect a child’s development and overall well-being.

For example, recent findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis of early intervention programs conducted by Gómez-Cotilla et al. (2024) demonstrate the effectiveness of early intervention programs in supporting children aged 0 to 6 with developmental difficulties. The findings demonstrate that such programs produce significant improvements in cognitive, motor, language, autonomy, and social skills, as well as enhance overall quality of life.

Seager et al. (2022) conducted a review study of the effectiveness of early intervention programs for children 0–6 years of age with Down syndrome in terms of communication skills. The findings highlighted that the early intervention programs have a positive impact on children’s language and communication skills.

Dodge et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal study to assess the outcomes of early intervention programs relevant to the prevention of adult psychopathology and enhancing well-being among children with behavioral problems. The early intervention program focused on developing social skills through relevant social training, family centered approaches and training, home visits, peer coaching, and classroom-based social–emotional curricula. The findings revealed that children who received early intervention showed significantly lower severity-weighted scores for violent and drug-related offenses, were at reduced risk for engaging in sexual behaviors, and reported higher overall well-being. Additionally, Reynolds et al. (2001) conducted a longitudinal study with 1539 low-income minority children, examining outcomes such as high school graduation and failure rates by age 20, juvenile arrests for both violent and nonviolent crimes, as well as the need for special education services by age 18. The results indicate that engagement in an early childhood intervention program for low-income children is strongly linked to improved educational achievement and social development that persist into early adulthood.

Along the same lines, it has been recorded that early intervention programs also offer significant benefits for children’s families, especially when the early intervention programs have a family-centered approach and include home visits. The family-centered approach focuses on treating families with respect, providing them with accurate information to support informed decision making, and enhancing families’ strengths. This practice also involves active family participation in all levels of intervention programs offering the necessary resources and support tailored to each family’s needs (Dunst & Espe-Sherwindt, 2016). Programs that include home-visiting services can also improve family relationships, reduce child maltreatment, improve health and educational outcomes as well as improve financial conditions (Duffee et al., 2017; Johnson, 2016). For example, Fang et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review and meta-regression of parenting programs addressed to families of children with developmental disabilities. Findings revealed that parenting interventions can decrease child emotional and behavioral problems and strengthen the parent–child relationship, although only a single study directly measured abuse incidence.

Along the same lines, a study conducted by Leite and Pereira (2019) examined the outcomes for 999 families of Early Intervention in Portugal. The findings showed that families experienced benefits across multiple dimensions, including the development and enhancement of skills in both the child and the family. Moreover, families gained access to appropriate and valuable information about available support systems and other resources, which contributed to a greater sense of perceived control and shared responsibility in the caregiving and developmental process.

A study conducted by Singla et al. (2015) investigated the effectiveness of a family-centered early intervention program implemented in low socio-economic settings, involving a sample of 75 families. The intervention consisted of thematic modules focused on various aspects of parenting and child care, including play, verbal interaction, nutrition, hygiene, and the promotion of respect. Findings indicated a statistically significant improvement in children’s cognitive development and receptive communication skills. Furthermore, participating mothers reported a notable reduction in depressive symptoms.

In a nutshell, prevention and early intervention programs are widely recognized as a key element for reducing the impact of any potentially serious condition, such as health and mental issues, poverty, and related adversities. These programs also play a critical role in enhancing the children’s and families’ well-being, supporting successful transitions to adulthood, and promoting long-term financial stability.

In recent years, there have been several continuous changes regarding the implemented policies that address early intervention services. In a study conducted by Black et al. (2017), two key issues were identified. On the one hand, there was evidence of political commitment to the development of early intervention programs; on the other hand, concerns were raised regarding the approach to reaching the most vulnerable children, children with disabilities and families, the monitoring of intervention progress, and the associated financial cost. Consequently, changes regarding the implemented policies are made based on the ‘what works’ approach that politicians use to make decisions about policy making. Policymakers focus on the financial evaluation of several educational programs. Financial evaluation provides a systematic and organized framework that helps policymakers to determine what interventions are cost-effective and help to continue or increasing their funding (Lynn & Corbijn van Willenswaard, 2018; Murphy et al., 2022).

4. Financial Value and Indirect Social Outcomes

Financial evaluations consider early intervention programs as a future investment in young children at risk or with disabilities and their families. The aim of these evaluations is to identify the financial benefits or costs of early intervention programs, as well as the broader impact these outcomes may have on society (Barnett, 2000). More specifically, financial analysis takes into account all costs and outcomes of the early intervention program regardless of whether the costs are incurred or the benefits received by the child, family, professionals, or society. For this reason, a detailed description of the program is essential. More specifically, financial evaluations require a detailed description of the number, type and the intensity of services provided to the child and family; the qualifications and the training of the professionals involved in the early intervention programs; the target children (e.g., children with disabilities or those from a low socio-economic background); and the programs’ duration (Atinc, 2015; Barnett, 2000; Gustafsson-Wright & Boggild-Jones, 2018). Then, an estimation of the resources required for all the aforementioned activities is conducted, and these resources are subsequently converted into costs. This process allows for the identification of the program’s financial value.

Despite the importance of the financial evaluation of early intervention programs due to policy making, there are limited studies examining their financial benefits and costs (Atinc, 2015; Cannon et al., 2018; Gustafsson-Wright & Boggild-Jones, 2018). In most longitudinal studies, participants are typically children up to the age of 16. Consequently, these studies primarily emphasize the educational outcomes of early intervention programs (Van Belle, 2016). The limited availability of cost-effectiveness analyses is attributed to several challenges, including the long-time horizons needed for meaningful assessment, variability in the implementation of early intervention programs, differences in the amount and types of provided services and difficulties in measuring long-term social and economic impacts.

More specifically, cost–benefit calculations often rely on underlying assumptions. Since the program provides some benefits early, while some benefits occur later, the value of those future benefits depends on how much society prefers benefits now over benefits in the future. In the same way, the size of the financial benefits can vary depending on which factors are included in the analysis (Currie, 2001). A long-term study is needed to identify the economic benefits of the programs. The economic benefits are identified over time and not immediately with the child’s transition to another educational context. Moreover, the researchers who study the effectiveness of the early intervention programs do not have the expertise to measure the financial benefits (Cannon et al., 2018). Additionally, a complete financial benefit analysis should consider not only the program’s benefits relative to its costs but also compare these benefits with those of other programs aimed at improving children’s development (Currie, 2001).

Inequalities, racism, and lack of early intervention programs cause human and economic costs on societies worldwide (Shonkoff et al., 2021). For example, a study published by Penn State Social Science Research Institute (2023) suggests that the way young children behave in kindergarten can have a lasting impact on their lives, but also on society. Researchers found that children exhibiting serious behavior problems—like acting aggressively, being defiant, or showing signs of antisocial behavior—could end up costing society over USD 144,000 (≃EUR 123.969) each in crime-related expenses, medical bills, and lost work productivity by the time they reach adulthood. In 2022, Rissanen et al. (2022) used data from a national cohort of all children born in Finland in 1981. The authors followed thousands of Finnish children from the age of 8 all the way into their 30s. The study aimed to examine how early conduct problems impact society in the long run. More specifically, the authors wanted to know how much these behaviors cost in adulthood via medical care, medication, and criminal justice involvement. The findings revealed that children who had serious behavior issues at age 8 ended up costing society up to four times higher by the age of 30 compared to their peers without such difficulties. Another study set out to understand the full economic impact of intellectual disability (ID) in children aged 2–10 years in Australia for the healthcare system, the families and the wider society. The results showed that it costs around AUD 72,000 (≃EUR 40.401) each year to support just one child, highlighting the significant financial impact on families and services (Arora et al., 2020).

Understanding the way that early intervention programs influence lifelong well-being and the evolution of societies is crucial for informed decision making. However, convincing policymakers to prioritize the quality and broad accessibility of early intervention programs—rather than limiting them to only the most at-risk populations—remains a significant challenge, especially during periods of economic austerity. The key is to identify which programs are the most cost-effective.

Ondruskova et al. (2024) explored the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted parenting programme (Stepping Stones Triple P) for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying challenging behaviors. The results showed that the parenting programme is cost-effective. The families who took part in the program saved around GBP 500 (≃EUR 576,24) to GBP 1100 (≃EUR 1.267) in total costs compared to those who received usual care. These savings came from using fewer services like health and social care over time. Frizelle et al. (2022) present a financial analysis of an early intervention program relevant to language development. The authors indicate that considering the long-term outcomes, the certain program was cost-effective in the long term despite the fact that it was more expensive (EUR 82.06) than usual care (cost-effectiveness ratio is EUR 13.02 per unit change). Sampaio et al. (2022) conducted a study aiming to determine which treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents offer the best value for money. The researchers reviewed existing economic evaluations to support policymakers in making informed decisions about resource allocation. The findings highlight the cost-effectiveness of early childhood programs, which deliver long-term benefits in developmental progress and reduce the future need for more intensive support services. Cronin et al. (2020) calculate the indirect costs of interventions targeting children with communication needs. The results indicate that early intervention programs have a positive financial impact, as AUD 355 (≃EUR 200) per person can be saved annually. This means almost AUD 5.22 billion (≃EUR 2,928,179,880) lifetime savings for children with communication needs. Another study by Nystrand et al. (2020) explores whether investing in parent training programmes is not only beneficial for families but also cost-effective for society. This study focused on children aged 5 to 12 in Sweden. The findings highlight that evidence-based parent training programs significantly reduce child behavior problems and offer long-term financial benefits. The programs showed a strong return on investment. More specifically, for every EUR 1 spent, the benefits ranged from EUR 6 to EUR 39, depending on the program and size of the population it served. Cannon et al. (2018) focused their study on 115 early intervention programs. Of the 115 early intervention programs, only 25 had a formal financial evaluation. The cost of implementing the early intervention programs seems to be high. However, positive returns were identified. More specifically, the benefits range from USD 2 to USD 4 for every dollar invested, although higher ratios are possible. Long-term programs have higher positive returns. Moreover, the authors state that their results highlighted that public sector savings were identified because of the early intervention programs. Bastian and Michelmore (2018) studied the effects of early intervention programs on educational and employment outcomes in adulthood. The findings indicated that an additional USD 1000 (≃EUR 860.62) in early intervention programs between the ages of 13 and 18 is associated with a 1.3% enhancement in high school graduation rates, a 4.2% increase in college graduation rates, a 1.0% rise in young adult employment, and a 2.2% increase in earnings. These outcomes appear to be primarily mediated by increases in pretax family income. In the same way, Lynch et al. (2017) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Kids in Transition to School (KITS) intervention for young children in foster care, a group at high risk for emotional and behavioral issues due to prior neglect and abuse. These issues can impair school readiness, which is linked to long-term health and development. The study aimed to provide communities with evidence on the costs and benefits of early intervention to support informed decision making. The participants were 192 foster children entering kindergarten receiving usual services. KITS consisted of a 4-month program offering school readiness groups for children and training for foster caregivers. Results showed that the program was very affordable, costing about USD 932 (≃EUR 802) per family. When researchers looked at how much it cost to gain each extra day where a child was emotionally or behaviorally stable, it came out to roughly USD 64 (EUR 55) for emotional stability and USD 63 (EUR54) for behavioral stability. Importantly, families in the KITS program did not rely more heavily on other public services, suggesting the intervention was not only helpful for children but also efficient in terms of overall community resources.

Additionally, Bertram and Pascal (2014) conducted a study examining the societal impact of early intervention programs. The authors noted that the primary objective of identifying children and families at risk is to prevent the escalation of needs or to mitigate the effects of adverse circumstances. Early intervention, therefore, has the potential to reduce future dependence on statutory services, resulting in significant cost savings for public services, families, and communities. In the same way, Law et al. (2012) estimated that for every GBP 1 invested in early intervention programs for children with speech and language impairments, it is possible to annually benefit almost GBP 623.4 (≃EUR 719) million in England, GBP 36.1 (≃EUR 42) million in Wales, GBP 24.2 (≃EUR 28) million in Northern Ireland, and GBP 58 (≃EUR 66) million in Scotland. Moreover, a study by Bonin et al. (2011) explored how evidence-based parenting programs can help prevent long-term behavioral problems in children, specifically persistent conduct disorder. The findings were encouraging; children who participated in these programs were less likely to continue experiencing conduct problems into adulthood. Importantly, the benefits extended beyond just improved behavior—there were also notable financial savings. Within just 5 to 8 years, the public sector began to see cost reductions. Over a 25-year period, each participating family was estimated to save society around GBP 16,435 (≃EUR 19,000), while the programs themselves cost between GBP 952 (≃EUR 1100) and GBP 2078 (≃EUR 2400) per family (in 2008–09 prices). These results highlight how early support for families can lead to meaningful, long-term rewards for both individuals and society as a whole.

Marsh et al. (2010), through their study, assessed the financial value of early intervention programs for children with communication needs and those with autism spectrum disorders. The authors estimated that the annual net benefit is GBP 623.4 m (≃EUR 718 m) in England, GBP 36.1 m (≃EUR 41 m) in Wales, GBP 24.2 m (≃EUR 28 m) in Northern Ireland, and GBP 58 m (≃EUR 66 m) in Scotland. For the children with autism spectrum disorders, the results show that the estimated annual net benefit is GBP 8.3 m in England, GBP 0.4 m in Wales, GBP 0.3 m in Northern Ireland, and GBP 0.8 m (≃EUR 0.9 m) in Scotland.

In 2007, Edwards et al. (2007) conducted a study aimed at investigating the cost-effectiveness of a family-centered program delivered to 116 parents of children identified as being at risk of developing a disorder. The authors, through their financial analysis, estimated that there is an 83.9% chance of the intervention being cost-effective. Heckman (2008) indicates that providing high-quality early childhood programs for children at risk could increase high school graduation rates from 41% to 65% and boost college enrollment from 4.5% to 12%. More importantly, if such support continues throughout childhood and adolescence, the combined intervention could raise high school graduation rates to 90% and college attendance to 37%. These outcomes would yield significant societal benefits, particularly through the development of a stronger, more capable workforce, the foundation of economic growth.

Additionally, Schweinhart (2005), in a cost–benefit analysis of the Perry Preschool Project, estimated an economic return of approximately USD 17.00 (≃EUR 15) to society for every dollar invested in the program. The author highlights that this financial return to society is primarily attributed to reduced welfare, criminal justice, and education expenditures, along with increased tax revenues from program participants.

A study by Karoly et al. (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of 20 early intervention programs. Their research demonstrated that many benefits of these childhood programs persist into adulthood, with the economic returns from five of the programs exceeding their initial costs. Similarly, Aos et al. (2004) conducted a series of cost–benefit analyses on various early intervention programs. Their results indicate that some programs—such as early childhood education for low-income families, and home visits—yield benefits that significantly exceed their associated costs.

In a nutshell, early intervention programs appear to offer societal financial benefits by reducing the future demand for costly services throughout children’s lives. Furthermore, early intervention programs facilitate smoother transitions to adulthood, improving opportunities for academic success and long-term financial stability. Additionally, by enhancing families’ knowledge and providing access to information and resources, early intervention programs can contribute to increased family income.

5. Discussion

Numerous studies have determined that early intervention programs have positive educational, social, and financial outcomes. These outcomes not only enhance the well-being of both the at-risk children and their families but also generate long-term financial benefits for society. More particularly, such programs support the overall development of the child while also strengthening the skills of at-risk families (Dodge et al., 2015; Gómez-Cotilla et al., 2024; Leite & Pereira, 2019; Seager et al., 2022).

It is important to note that children who do not receive early intervention services when they need them are significantly more likely to perform poorly in school, experience low income in adulthood, exhibit higher fertility rates, and provide inadequate care to their own children—thereby contributing to the intergenerational transmission of poverty (Grantham-McGregor et al., 2007; Lake & Chan, 2015). Early intervention programs help reduce the future need for costly public services. With the resolution of challenges relevant to disabilities, behavioral problems, and a series of environmental risk factors at an early point in time, such as child abuse, juvenile delinquency, school failure, and long-term unemployment, these programs play a critical role in preventing outcomes that would otherwise impose significant financial costs on the public sector (Bertram & Pascal, 2014; Law et al., 2012).

For the at-risk families, early intervention programs play a crucial role in promoting overall children’s development and family stability. Early access to appropriate support services not only improves quality of life but also helps reduce the long-term costs associated with future support needs. Early intervention programs enhance families’ knowledge and skills while providing resources necessary to support their children effectively. This support may lead to strengthening household capacity, and even income potential and economic stability through providing relevant resources. For example, Miller et al. (2023) investigated the way that parent workshops, within the context of early intervention programs, impact families of children with neurodisabilities. The findings showed that participation in these workshops helped caregivers feel more empowered, informed, and supported. Caregivers reported improved ability to manage challenges related to their children’s neurodisabilities and greatly valued the opportunity to connect with other families facing similar experiences. The study highlights the important role that early intervention programs play not only in supporting children’s development but also in enhancing caregiver well-being and skills. In the same way, Jeong et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies regarding the parental support offered by early intervention programs. More specifically, the authors reviewed 102 randomized trials from 33 countries, spanning high-, middle-, and low-income settings, and investigated the way that programs were designed to improve parental skills of parents. The findings highlighted that, within the context of early intervention programs, parents gained confidence and knowledge about child development, adopted improved parenting practices, and facilitated more interactive relationships with their children. Crossman et al. (2018) investigated the impact of early intervention home visits on mothers of children with developmental disabilities. The authors found that when mothers perceived the home visits as highly beneficial, they were more likely to develop stronger parenting skills by the time their child turned three. Additionally, the findings highlighted that positive family relationships played a significant role in enhancing parental skills. A study conducted by Bailey et al. (2005) with a sample of 2586 parents of 3-year-old children shows that parents enhanced their skills. More specifically, through early intervention programs, they enhanced their knowledge regarding the child’s care, their advocacy skills, and had access to several formal and informal resources. In the same line, another study by Raspa et al. (2010) highlighted that families participating in their study referred to as outcomes the enhancement of knowledge and abilities regarding their parental role, as well as their access to resources.

Overall, the literature strongly supports the view that early intervention is both a socially and economically sound strategy. The potential for significant cost savings, combined with improvements in individual and societal well-being, presents a compelling case for sustained and increased public investment in these programs.

Stakeholders and policymakers seem to have certain directions. However, it is more persuasive to policymakers to frame early intervention programs in terms of “what works” and “what is financially beneficial”. Therefore, financial evaluations of early intervention programs are essential tools for planning and implementing programs aimed at supporting at-risk children and families while also maximizing their broader social impact.

Therefore, it is important that further studies be conducted on the social and financial benefits of early intervention programs, including comparative analysis with other programs, as the existing body of research remains limited. The implementation of early intervention programs needs to be based on current evidence-based policy frameworks. Relying on past studies may lead to misalignment with present social and financial reality. Updated data and analysis are necessary to address the many issues that modern societies face, including rising rates of crime, substance abuse, child abuse, and single parenthood, as well as evolving financial concerns like long-term unemployment, shifting employment patterns, and growing poverty. The financial assessments have to be updated and expanded on a regular basis. Researcher, policymaker, and practitioner efforts to create models, programs, and services that help at-risk infants, toddlers, and preschoolers and their families can be guided by these kinds of studies. But it is crucial to stress that financial assessments should not be the sole basis for decisions because they frequently pertain to particular eras and socioeconomic settings (Penn & Lloyd, 2007; Verguet et al., 2022). A more balanced approach is needed that includes financial data and qualitative data, such as child and family benefits.

In conclusion, more recent research that looks at the financial and social effects of implementing early intervention programs is needed. Policymakers must adopt a more comprehensive approach to decision-making processes that balances financial assessments with the welfare of children and families. To ensure that the early intervention programs are effectively designed and implemented in a way that meets the needs of at-risk children and families, collaboration among policymakers, researchers, and practitioners is essential. It seems that early intervention programs constitute a vital strategy for promoting the development and wellbeing of at-risk children and families, while also contributing to the broader strengthening of community.