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

Positive Action

Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated January 2025.
Positive Action is a school-wide social and character development program that aims to improve students’ behavior, character, and academics. It consists of classroom curricula, schoolwide climate changes led by the principal and a Positive Action coordinator, and family and community resources. For the classroom component, teachers deliver about 140 15-minute lessons per academic year in grades K-5 and 70 15-minute lessons in grades 6-8. Lessons are organized in six sequential units. Most studies in this analysis evaluated Positive Action implemented in grades K-5.
 
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 (2023).  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 $11,101 Benefits minus costs $46,968
Participants $22,676 Benefit to cost ratio $182.07
Others $12,803 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $647 benefits greater than the costs 97%
Total benefits $47,227
Net program cost ($259)
Benefits minus cost $46,968

^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 to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on 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 on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change 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. 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 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
7 1 5754 -0.297 0.160 12 -0.297 0.160 12 -0.297 0.063
7 4 29275 -0.297 0.104 10 n/a n/a n/a -0.297 0.004
7 5 37558 0.274 0.089 11 0.198 0.098 17 0.274 0.002
7 1 416 0.044 0.192 8 n/a n/a n/a 0.044 0.819
7 4 31801 -0.450 0.198 10 n/a n/a n/a -0.450 0.023
7 5 37558 0.150 0.077 10 n/a n/a n/a 0.150 0.052
7 2 1169 -0.423 0.072 11 -0.423 0.072 11 -0.423 0.001
7 1 193 -0.348 0.162 13 -0.348 0.162 13 -0.348 0.032
7 2 1169 -0.354 0.098 11 -0.354 0.098 11 -0.354 0.001
7 1 976 -0.771 0.212 11 -0.771 0.212 11 -0.771 0.001
7 1 416 -0.057 0.070 8 0.000 0.141 9 -0.057 0.415
7 1 585 -0.193 0.059 13 -0.076 0.060 14 -0.193 0.001
7 1 585 -0.140 0.059 13 0.000 0.310 15 -0.140 0.017
7 3 6425 -0.315 0.169 12 -0.173 0.126 15 -0.315 0.063
7 1 4864 0.024 0.020 12 0.024 0.020 14 0.024 0.227
7 1 976 -1.039 0.192 11 n/a n/a n/a -1.039 0.001
7 1 193 -0.220 0.105 13 n/a n/a n/a -0.220 0.037
Click to expand Click to collapse
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
Test scores Labor market earnings associated with test scores $9,548 $22,493 $11,855 $0 $43,896
K-12 grade repetition K-12 grade repetition $347 $0 $0 $174 $521
Cannabis use before end of middle school Criminal justice system $131 $0 $286 $65 $482
Alcohol use before end of middle school Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $4 $7 $0 $11
Major depressive disorder Mortality associated with depression $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Externalizing behavior symptoms K-12 special education $441 $0 $0 $220 $661
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms $650 $184 $671 $325 $1,829
Internalizing symptoms Health care associated with internalizing symptoms ($16) ($4) ($16) ($8) ($44)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($130) ($130)
Totals $11,101 $22,676 $12,803 $647 $47,227
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $70 2024 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($259)
Comparison costs $0 2024 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
The per-participant program cost includes the cost of the Positive Action program kit for each year, the cost of a 2-day teacher training, and the cost of teacher time (including salary and benefits) needed to receive the training. We calculate the cost of teacher time using information from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. We assume an average class size of 19 students based on current information from the National Center for Education Statistics on Washington class sizes.
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

Bavarian, N., Lewis, K.M., Acock, A., DuBois, D.L., Zi, Y., Vuchinich, S., Silverthorn, N., Day, J., & Flay, B.R. (2016). Effects of a school-based social-emotional and character development program on health behaviors: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Primary Prevention, 37(1) 87-105.

Bavarian, N., Lewis, K.M., DuBois, D.L., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., Silverthorn, N., Snyder, F.J., Day, J., Ji, P., & Flay, B.R. (2013). Using social-emotional and character development to improve academic outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial in low-income, urban schools. Journal of School Health, 83(11), 771-9.

Beets, M.W., Flay, B.R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F.J., Acock, A., Li, K.K., Burns, K., Washburn, I.J., & Durlak, J. (2009). Use of a social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. American Journal of Public Health, 99(8), 1438-1445.

Flay, B.R., & Allred, C.G. (2003). Long-term effects of the Positive Action program. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Suppl. 1), S6-S21.

Flay, B.R., Allred, C.G., & Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of the Positive Action program on achievement and discipline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prevention Science, 2(2), 71-89.

Lewis, K.M., Bavarian, N., Snyder, F.J., Acock, A., Day, J., DuBois, D. L., Ji, P., Schure, M.B., Silverthorn, N., Vuchinich, S., & Flay, B.R. (2012). Direct and mediated effects of a social-emotional and character development program on adolescent substance use. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 4(1), 56.

Lewis, K.M., Dubois, D.L., Silverthorn, N., Bavarian, N., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., Day, J., Flay, B.R., & Ji, P. (2013). Effects of positive action on the emotional health of urban youth: A cluster-randomized trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 706-711.

Lewis, K.M., Schure, M.B., Bavarian, N., DuBois, D.L., Day, J., Ji, P., Silverthorn, N., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., & Flay, B.R. (2013). Problem behavior and urban, low-income youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(6), 622-30.

Ruby, A., & Doolittle, E. (2010). Efficacy of schoolwide programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem behavior in elementary school children. Social and Character Development Research Consortium.

Snyder, F., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A., Washburn, I., Beets, M., & Li, K.K. (2010). Impact of the Positive Action program on school-level indicators of academic achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 26.

Wu, Q., Guo, S., Evans, C.B.R., Smokowski, P.R., Bacallao, M., & Stalker, K.C. (2019). Modeling ecological risk, health promotion, and prevention program effects for rural adolescents. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(1), 35–68.