|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,051||Benefits minus costs||$3,591|
|Participants||$544||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$800||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$683||benefits greater than the costs||97 %|
|Net program cost||$513|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,591|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$201||$443||$202||$0||$846|
|K-12 grade repetition||$4||$0||$0||$2||$6|
|K-12 special education||$319||$0||$0||$160||$479|
|Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder||$532||$150||$549||$267||$1,499|
|Costs of higher education||($33)||($49)||($15)||($16)||($113)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$256||$256|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$449||2017||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||$513|
|Comparison costs||$868||2010||Cost range (+ or -)||30 %|
|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||Primary or secondary participant||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||6||Primary||7||249||-0.183||0.094||6||-0.101||0.071||9||-0.676||0.001|
|Major depressive disorder^^||35||Secondary||1||20||0.208||0.326||35||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.401||0.222|
Leung, C., Fan, A., & Sanders, M.R. (2013). The effectiveness of a Group Triple P with Chinese parents who have a child with developmental disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 976-984.
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.
Little, M., Berry, V., Morpeth, L., Blower, S., Axford, N., Lehtonen, M., . . . Bywater, T. (2012). The impact of three evidence-based programmes delivered in public systems in Birmingham, UK. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 260-272.
Roux, G., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of Group Stepping Stones Triple P: A mixed-disability trial. Family Process, 52(3), 411-424.
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.
Wiggins, T.L., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M.R. (2009). Pathways Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Effects on parent-child relationships and child behavior problems. Family Process, 48(4), 517-530.