yep, early intervention and diagnosis (where appropriate) seems key. A different report outlined this -
'Overall, however, the net effect of these findings is that Sure Start reduced the financial outlay by the government in relation to children with SEN, in no small part because of the reduction in need for more severe plans at later ages."
'Our results imply that, even without accounting for the full range of potential effects, the benefits to society from the improvements in education outcomes reported herein equate to more than the costs of the programme at its peak in 2010. These benefits are primarily driven by a significant increase in lifetime earnings from improved academic performance at age 16, with the net reductions in spending on SEN making a small additional contribution. If we were to consider the reduction in hospitalisations identified in Cattan et al. (2021) and any additional benefits identified in ongoing research on the effect of Sure Start on children’s social care provision and juvenile offending, the cost–benefit figures might improve even further. And there may well have been other benefits of Sure Start that cannot be readily measured in monetary terms.
Our findings suggest that integrating services in deprived areas can make a material difference to children’s outcomes, but only if they are properly funded.'
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/short-and-medium-term-impacts-sure-start-educational-outcomes
Investing in services leading to cost savings overall.