skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Coping Power Program

Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2018.  Literature review updated June 2016.
Open PDF
The Coping Power Program is a preventive intervention for selected at-risk students. The program typically serves students in late elementary school (e.g. 5th and 6th grade) who exhibit aggressive behavior. The program consists of 34 group sessions for children and 16 group sessions for parents delivered over 16 months plus approximately six brief individual sessions per student. The child sessions target risk factors for substance abuse, delinquency, and conduct problems and use cognitive-behavioral techniques to teach self-regulation, conflict resolution, and social skills. The parent component focuses on stress management, communication, and behavior management.
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2017). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $988 Benefits minus costs $866
Participants $725 Benefit to cost ratio $1.47
Others $1,627 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($615) benefits greater than the costs 54 %
Total benefits $2,725
Net program cost ($1,859)
Benefits minus cost $866
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime $507 $0 $1,170 $249 $1,926
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $349 $770 $352 $0 $1,471
K-12 special education $59 $0 $0 $29 $88
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms $125 $35 $129 $61 $350
Costs of higher education ($53) ($80) ($24) ($26) ($182)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($928) ($928)
Totals $988 $725 $1,627 ($615) $2,725
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $919 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars) ($1,859)
Comparison costs $0 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 10 %
This program typically provides an estimated 61 contact hours over two years including group sessions for parents and children and individual contacts with each student. The per-student costs estimate assumes that a school counselor and a teacher jointly lead each session with groups of six students or parents. We use average compensation costs (including benefits) for counselors and teachers as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and divide by the number of students per group. The estimate also includes costs for training and materials obtained from Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development and the developer’s website (;
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime 9 2 162 -0.073 0.135 12 -0.073 0.135 22 -0.193 0.155
Externalizing behavior symptoms 9 2 451 -0.065 0.101 11 -0.036 0.062 14 -0.204 0.328
Grade point average^ 9 1 351 0.052 0.128 12 n/a n/a n/a 0.138 0.281
Substance use^ 9 2 162 -0.088 0.135 12 n/a n/a n/a -0.233 0.087

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2003). Effectiveness of the Coping Power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 493-515.

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2004). The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(4), 571-578.

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2009). Dissemination of the Coping Power program: importance of intensity of counselor training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 397-409.

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2012). Coping Power dissemination study: Intervention and special education effects on academic outcomes. Behavioral Disorders, 37(3), 192-205.

Lochman, J.E., Baden, R.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., Salekin, K.L., & Windle, M. (2014). Does a booster intervention augment the preventive effects of an abbreviated version of the Coping Power Program for aggressive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(3), 367-381.