Well I'm sure Frank Field's report is not without substantial basis, despite it being govt comissioned.
And how about this research for starters (though no doubt you will object to it being a Scottish Govt study)
To save you time the key findings were:
> The short term savings from investing in early years services and support from pre-birth to aged five could be up to <strong>£37,400 a year per child in the most severe cases</strong> - children who have complex health and social care needs, and approximately <strong>£5,100 a year for a child with moderate health and social care needs</strong>.
> The potential medium term savings, if interventions from pre-birth to eight are 100 per cent effective, could be up to £131 million a year across Scotland, while in the long term, <strong>failure to effectively intervene to address the complex needs of a child in early life could result in a nine fold increase in costs to the public purse</strong>.
> A package of effective early years support to reduce the frequency and type of services demanded by children with the most severe needs could have a <strong>significant impact on improving outcomes for them and reducing long term costs to the public purse</strong>. If earlier, effective support could be given to a child with the most severe needs, resulting in a 10 per cent reduction in the total amount paid out to cover services later in life, <strong>this could result in a potential savings of around £94,000 for each individual</strong>.
And how about the conclusions of the EPPE study (Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project). Here is a link to the main findings of the original study
Also you could do worse that looking here with the National evaluation of Sure Start by Birkbeck college. Plenty of analysis and evaluation there of early interventions, including reasons why Sure Start may not be working so well.
I'm no big advocate of the nanny state TBH, but it does seem sensible to me that intervening at a point where children are developing and at their most impressionable you can go some way to preventing a need to intervene with them at a later stage. The fractured nature of our society also means that many more people are living without close family or community support - this is a terrible thing, and we need to address it in some way. I'm not saying this HAS to come from central government, more localised and grass roots support would probably be preferable. How to ensure it is available for those who most need it, and that it is of sufficient quality to achieve the desired aims?
Oh, and yes not doubt we managed before sure start, but as at least one other poster pointed society also offered support in a different way too - extended family etc. Futher back it also consigned failing families to workhouses too - shall we go back to that way of doing things?