|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$410||Benefits minus costs||$2,201|
|Participants||$468||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$383||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$380||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||$560|
|Benefits minus cost||$2,201|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$211||$464||$211||$0||$886|
|K-12 grade repetition||$3||$0||$0||$1||$4|
|K-12 special education||$87||$0||$0||$44||$131|
|Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder||$112||$36||$138||$56||$342|
|Costs of higher education||($21)||($32)||($10)||($11)||($73)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$281||$281|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$367||2010||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||$560|
|Comparison costs||$881||2010||Cost range (+ or -)||20 %|
|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|
|Disruptive behavior disorder symptoms||5||8||1154||-0.170||0.043||5||-0.081||0.041||8||-0.491||0.001|
Hahlweg, K., Heinrichs, N., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., & Naumann, S. (2010). Long-term outcome of a randomized controlled universal prevention trial through a positive parenting program: Is it worth the effort? Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 14-27.
Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluation of the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. Family Process, 42(4), 531-544.
Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M.R. (2007). The efficacy and acceptability of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program with Japanese parents. Behaviour Change, 24(4), 205-218.
Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M.R. (2010). Investigation of the effectiveness and social validity of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program in Japanese society. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 87-91.
Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(6), 463-470.
Turner, K. M. T., Richards, M., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Randomised clinical trial of a group parent education programme for Australian indigenous families. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 43(6), 429-437.
Whittingham, K., Sofronoff, K., Sheffield, J., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Stepping stones Triple P: An RCT of a parenting program with parents of a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(4), 469-480.
Zubrick, S. R., Ward, K. A., Silburn, S. R., Lawrence, D., Williams, A. A., Blair, E., et al. (2005). Prevention of child behavior problems through universal implementation of a group behavioral family intervention. Prevention Science, 6(4), 287-304.