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

Families and Schools Together (FAST)

Public Health & Prevention: Community-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2019.  Literature review updated March 2018.
Open PDF
Families and Schools Together (FAST) is a multi-family after school program intended to increase parents’ involvement in school and their child’s education, increase parent-child bonding and communication, and enhance parents’ self-efficacy. Groups of 8 to 12 families meet weekly for eight consecutive weeks. Sessions last about 2½ hours and take place after school or early in the evening. Trained facilitators conduct the meetings, which involve experiential learning, parent-child play, and a shared meal. The initial eight weeks are followed by two years of monthly parent-led meetings.
 
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 (2018). 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 $1,910 Benefits minus costs ($924)
Participants ($1,664) Benefit to cost ratio $0.04
Others ($1,043) Chance the program will produce
Indirect $833 benefits greater than the costs 50 %
Total benefits $35
Net program cost ($959)
Benefits minus cost ($924)

^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. 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
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 7 1 273 0.009 0.150 8 0.009 0.150 18 0.024 0.873
Externalizing behavior symptoms
Symptoms of externalizing behavior (e.g., aggressive, hostile, or disruptive behavior) measured on a validated scale.
 7 5 1900 -0.027 0.043 7 -0.015 0.027 10 -0.029 0.508
Grade point average^
Non-standardized measure of student performance calculated across subjects.
7 1 140 -0.085 0.197 7 n/a n/a n/a -0.085 0.666
Internalizing symptoms
Symptoms of internalizing behavior (e.g., sadness, anxiety, or withdrawal) measured on a validated scale.
 7 5 1900 -0.056 0.049 7 -0.056 0.049 9 -0.047 0.342
K-12 grade repetition
Repeating a grade. This is sometimes called "grade retention."
 7 3 1623 0.107 0.324 7 0.107 0.324 7 0.107 0.742
K-12 special education
Placement into special education services.
7 1 67 -0.118 0.312 7 -0.118 0.312 7 -0.310 0.324
School attendance^
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
 7 1 140 0.000 0.197 7 n/a n/a n/a 0.000 1.000
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
7 1 188 -0.035 0.125 8 -0.019 0.137 17 -0.092 0.459
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
null Criminal justice system ($96) $0 ($213) ($48) ($357)
Labor market earnings associated with test scores ($715) ($1,679) ($886) $0 ($3,280)
K-12 grade repetition ($141) $0 $0 ($71) ($212)
K-12 special education $2,809 $0 $0 $1,404 $4,213
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms $54 $15 $55 $27 $151
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($479) ($479)
Totals $1,910 ($1,664) ($1,043) $833 $35
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $926 2017 Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars) ($959)
Comparison costs $0 2017 Cost range (+ or -) 50 %
Family and Schools Together (FAST) offers one session each week for eight weeks. The cost estimate includes per-participant costs for service provision as well as per-participant training costs. The training cost assumes each trained facilitator completes eight cycles, each of which includes eight sessions. We estimated annual per-participant costs using a weighted average of the cost estimate reported in Kratochwill et al. (2009) and a cost estimate provided to us in April 2018 by Molly McGowan, a representative of the program developer.
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

Fiel, J., Shoji, M., & Gamoran, A. (2015). An intervention approach to building social capital: effects on grade retention. In Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Social Capital. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kratochwill, T.R., McDonald, L., Levin, J.R., Scalia, P.A., & Coover, G. (2009). Families and Schools Together: An experimental study of multi-family support groups for children at risk. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), 245-265.

Kratochwill, T.R., McDonald, L., Levin, J.R., Young Bear-Tibbetts, H., & Demaray, M.K. (2004). Families and Schools Together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42(5), 359-383..

Layzer, J.I., & Webb, M.B. (2001). National Evaluation of Family Support Programs, Volume B: Research Studies (Final report). Cambridge, MA.

Moberg, D.P., McDonald, L., Posner, J.K., Burke, M.L., & Brown, R.L. (2007). Randomized trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report on NIDA Grant R01-10067. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Madison.

Turley, R.N.L., Gamoran, A., McCarty, A.T., & Fish, R. (2017). Reducing children’s behavior problems through social capital: A causal assessment. Social Science Research, 61, 206-217.