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

Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)

Public Health & Prevention: Home- or Family-based
Benefit-cost estimates updated May 2017.  Literature review updated August 2017.
Open PDF
The Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program provides regular home visits and group sessions to parents with limited education. Parents of three- to five-year old children are invited to participate. The goal of HIPPY is to assist parents in preparing their children for school. Peer parent educators deliver a school readiness curriculum to parents during 30 home visits throughout an academic year and facilitate regular parent community group sessions. Parents are instructed to work daily with their own child. For the studies included in this analysis families were intended to receive 60 lessons over two years and on average received approximately 80% of the intended lessons.
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2016). 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 $1,306 Benefits minus costs ($499)
Participants $2,871 Benefit to cost ratio $0.88
Others $1,376 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($2,023) benefits greater than the costs 46 %
Total benefits $3,530
Net program cost ($4,029)
Benefits minus cost ($499)
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 $17 $0 $40 $8 $65
Labor market earnings associated with test scores $1,324 $2,915 $1,302 $0 $5,540
K-12 grade repetition ($1) $0 $0 $0 ($2)
K-12 special education ($8) $0 $0 ($3) ($11)
Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder $43 $14 $54 $22 $133
Costs of higher education ($68) ($58) ($19) ($34) ($179)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,016) ($2,016)
Totals $1,306 $2,871 $1,376 ($2,023) $3,530
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $2,050 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars) ($4,029)
Comparison costs $0 2016 Cost range (+ or -) 20 %
The average annual per-participant cost estimate retrieved from HIPPY USA is based on 30 home visits per family and regular group sessions over a one-year period with a program size of 120 families per year (https://www.hippyusa.org/site/assets/files/1048/start_up_manual_2016.pdf ). Cost will vary depending on program size, with larger programs having a lower cost per child. This cost includes staff salaries, training and technical assistance, license and affiliation, program development, curriculum materials, and other direct costs. We applied this cost to the weighted average number of visits (24 per year) received by participants in these studies.
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 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
Externalizing behavior symptoms 1 90 -0.296 0.132 7 -0.141 0.090 10 -0.296 0.025
K-12 grade repetition 1 66 0.000 0.164 14 0.000 0.164 14 0.000 1.000
K-12 special education 1 66 0.000 0.164 14 0.000 0.164 14 0.000 1.000
Preschool test scores^ 3 185 0.286 0.183 5 n/a n/a n/a 0.286 0.119
Test scores 5 295 0.096 0.079 6 0.038 0.087 17 0.096 0.229

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Baker, A.J.L., C.S. Piotrkowski, J. Brooks-Gunn. (1999). The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY). Future of Children, 9,116-133

Eldering, L., & Vedder, P. (1999). The Dutch experience with the home intervention program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY). Effective Early Education: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York: Falmer.

Kagitcibasi, C., Sunar, D., & Bekman, S. (2001). Long-term effects of early intervention: Turkish low-income mothers and children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 333-361.

For more information on the methods
used please see our Technical Documentation.
360.664.9800
institute@wsipp.wa.gov