|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$938||Benefits minus costs||$1,016|
|Participants||$984||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.56|
|Others||$1,607||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($687)||benefits greater than the costs||55 %|
|Net program cost||($1,826)|
|Benefits minus cost||$1,016|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$478||$1,052||$483||$0||$2,013|
|K-12 special education||$9||$0||$0||$4||$13|
|Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder||$11||$4||$14||$6||$35|
|Costs of higher education||($48)||($72)||($22)||($23)||($165)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($914)||($914)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$919||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($1,826)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2015||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|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.|
|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|
|Externalizing behavior symptoms||9||2||451||-0.065||0.101||11||-0.031||0.054||14||-0.204||0.328|
|Grade point average^||9||1||351||0.052||0.128||12||0.052||0.128||12||0.138||0.281|
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.