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

Project Towards No Drug Abuse

Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated June 2014.
Open PDF
Project Towards No Drug Abuse is a substance use prevention program for youth in regular and alternative high schools. The curriculum is comprised of twelve 45-minute lessons implemented in classroom settings by teachers or health educators. Using a variety of activities, the program aims to increase self-control, communication, decision-making, and motivation to not use substances.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). 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 $167 Benefits minus costs $392
Participants $161 Benefit to cost ratio $6.04
Others $120 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $21 benefits greater than the costs 57%
Total benefits $469
Net program cost ($78)
Benefits minus cost $392

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. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

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
Alcohol use before end of high school
Any use of alcohol by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
16 6 4467 -0.004 0.034 16 -0.004 0.034 18 -0.017 0.729
Smoking before end of high school
Any smoking of tobacco by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
 16 6 4467 -0.010 0.033 16 -0.010 0.033 18 -0.040 0.420
Cannabis use before end of high school
Any use of cannabis by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
16 6 4467 -0.009 0.034 16 -0.009 0.034 18 -0.031 0.465
Illicit drug use before end of high school
Any use of illicit drugs by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 to 18. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
 16 6 4467 -0.027 0.034 16 -0.027 0.034 18 -0.098 0.058
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
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Alcohol use before end of high school Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Smoking before end of high school Labor market earnings associated with smoking $62 $146 $0 $0 $208
Mortality associated with smoking $0 $0 $0 $8 $9
Cannabis use before end of high school Criminal justice system $9 $0 $22 $4 $35
Illicit drug use before end of high school Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence $96 $15 $98 $48 $257
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($39) ($39)
Totals $167 $161 $120 $21 $469
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $63 2012 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($78)
Comparison costs $0 2012 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
The per-student cost estimate assumes teachers provide nine hours of instruction over 12 sessions to approximately 26 students per class. The estimate also includes training and material costs provided by the program developer (http://tnd.usc.edu/training.php and http://tnd.usc.edu/to_purchase.php).
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.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Rohrbach, L.A., Sun, P., & Sussman, S. (2010). One-year follow-up evaluation of the Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) dissemination trial. Preventive Medicine, 51, 313-319.

Sun, W., Skara, S., Sun, P., Dent, C.W., & Sussman, S. (2006). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Long-term substance use outcomes evaluation. Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 188-192.

Sun, P., Sussman, S., Dent, C.W., & Rohrbach, L.A. (2008). One-year follow-up evaluation of Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND-4). Preventive Medicine, 47(4), 438-442.

Sussman, S., Sun, P., McCuller, W.J., & Dent, C.W. (2003). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Two-year outcomes of a trial that compares health educator delivery to self-instruction. Preventive Medicine, 37(2), 155-162.

Sussman, S., Sun, P., Rohrbach, L.A., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2012). One-year outcomes of a drug abuse prevention program for older teens and emerging adults: evaluating a motivational interviewing booster component. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 31(4), 476-85.

Valente, T.W., Ritt-Olson, A., Stacy, A., Unger, J.B., Okamoto, J., & Sussman, S. (2007). Peer acceleration: Effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction, 102(11), 1804-1815.