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

Guiding Good Choices (formerly Preparing for the Drug Free Years)

Public Health & Prevention: Home- or Family-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated August 2018.
Guiding Good Choices (formerly known as Preparing for the Drug Free Years) aims to improve parent-child interactions and reduce the risk for substance use initiation among middle school students. A trained group leader uses workbook and video-based discussion models to guide each session. Parents attend weekly group sessions lasting two hours for five weeks; youth accompany their parents to one of these sessions. The study in this analysis included youth in 6th grade and their families. On average, nine families participated in each group.
 
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 $398 Benefits minus costs $337
Participants $1 Benefit to cost ratio $1.42
Others $948 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($204) benefits greater than the costs 51%
Total benefits $1,142
Net program cost ($805)
Benefits minus cost $337

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
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 11 1 155 -0.045 0.132 12 -0.045 0.132 20 -0.118 0.373
Alcohol use before end of middle school
Any use of alcohol by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
11 1 155 -0.023 0.132 12 -0.023 0.132 13 -0.060 0.647
Cannabis use before end of middle school
Any use of cannabis by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
11 1 155 0.023 0.132 12 0.023 0.132 13 0.060 0.651
Smoking before end of middle school
Any smoking of tobacco by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
 11 1 155 -0.155 0.153 12 -0.155 0.153 13 -0.407 0.008
Illicit drug use before end of middle school
Any use of illicit drugs by the end of middle school, typically by age 13. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
 11 1 153 -0.033 0.132 12 -0.033 0.132 13 -0.086 0.548
Major depressive disorder
Clinical diagnosis of major depression or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 11 1 155 -0.006 0.132 12 0.000 0.310 14 -0.015 0.908
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
Crime Criminal justice system $398 $0 $947 $199 $1,543
Alcohol use before end of middle school Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $0 $1 $0 $1
Major depressive disorder K-12 grade repetition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Labor market earnings associated with major depression $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Health care associated with major depression $0 $0 $0 $0 $1
Mortality associated with depression $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($403) ($403)
Totals $398 $1 $948 ($204) $1,142
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $444 1994 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($805)
Comparison costs $0 1994 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
The per-participant cost includes the cost of training, materials, incentives for families, site management, and program facilitation, reported in Spoth, R.L., Guyll, M., & Day, S.X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 63(2), 219.
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

Mason, W.A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Haggerty, K.P., & Spoth, R.L. (2003). Reducing adolescents' growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a parent-training prevention intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203-212.

Mason, W.A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Haggerty, K.P., Spoth, R.L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541-564.