|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$287||Benefits minus costs||$885|
|Participants||$622||Benefit to cost ratio||$12.49|
|Others||$62||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($9)||benefits greater than the costs||66 %|
|Net program cost||($77)|
|Benefits minus cost||$885|
|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|
Adult use of cannabis that does not rise to the level of “disordered.”
Problem alcohol use
Alcohol use reflecting problem behaviors (e.g., high frequency drinking, binge drinking, or drinking that has a high impact on daily life) for individuals who do not have an alcohol use disorder.
Smoking tobacco on a regular basis.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Problem alcohol use||Criminal justice system||$0||$0||$29||$0||$29|
|Labor market earnings associated with problem alcohol use||$261||$612||$0||$0||$873|
|Property loss associated with problem alcohol use||$0||$3||$5||$0||$8|
|Health care associated with problem alcohol use||$25||$5||$28||$13||$70|
|Mortality associated with problem alcohol||$1||$2||$0||$17||$20|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($39)||($39)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$72||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($77)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||Cost range (+ or -)||20 %|
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.|
Borsari, B., & Carey, K.B. (2000). Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 728-733.
Carey, K.B., Carey, M.P., Maisto, S.A., & Henson, J.M. (2006). Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 943-54.
Chiauzzi, E., Green, T.C., Lord, S., Thum, C., & Goldstein, M. (2005). My Student Body: A High-Risk Drinking Prevention Web Site for College Students. Journal of American College Health, 53(6), 263.
Collins, S.E., Carey, K.B., & Sliwinski, M.J. (2002). Mailed personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(5), 559-567.
DiFulvio, G.T., Linowski, S.A., Mazziotti, J.S., & Puleo, E. (2012). Effectiveness of the brief alcohol and screening intervention for college students (BASICS) program with a mandated population. Journal of American College Health, 60(4), 269-280.
Dimeff, L.A. (1997). Brief intervention for heavy and hazardous college drinkers in a student primary health care setting (Doctoral dissertation). UMI No. 9819231.
Hansson, H., Rundberg, J., Zetterlind, U., Johnsson, K.O., & Berglund, M. (2006). An intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism (oxford, Oxfordshire), 41(6), 655-663.
Juarez, P., Walters, S.T., Daugherty, M., & Radi, C. (2006). A randomized trial of motivational interviewing and feedback with heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 36(3), 233-246.
Kulesza, M., McVay, M.A., Larimer, M.E., & Copeland, A.L. (2013). A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of two active conditions of a brief intervention for heavy college drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 38(4), 2094-101.
Larimer, M.E., Turner, A.P., Anderson, B.K., Fader, J.S., Kilmer, J.R., Palmer, R.S., & Cronce, J.M. (2001). Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(3), 370-380.
Marlatt, G.A., J.S. Baer, D.R. Kivlahan, L.A. Dimeff, M.E. Larimer, L.A. Quigley, J.M. Somers, and E. Williams. (1998). Screening and Brief Intervention for High-Risk College Student Drinkers: Results From a 2-Year Follow-Up Assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604-615.
Murphy, J.G., Duchnick, J.J., Vuchinich, R.E., Davison, J.W., Karg, R.S., Olson, A.M., . . . Coffey, T.T. (2001). Relative efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(4), 373-379.
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M.E., & Weis, M.A. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of acomputer-delivered personalized normative feedback interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 434-447.
Schaus, J.F., Sole, M.L., McCoy, T.P., Mullett, N., & O'Brien, M.C. (2009). Alcohol screening and brief intervention in a college student health center: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Suppl. 16, 131-141.
Turrisi, R., Larimer, M.E., Mallett, K.A., Kilmer, J.R., Ray, A.E., Mastroleo, N.R., . . . Montoya, H. (2009 A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(4), -67.
White, H.R., Morgan, T.J., Pugh, L.A., Celinska, K., Labouvie, E.W., & Pandina, R.J. (2006). Evaluating two brief substance-use interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(2) 309-17.