Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Other school-wide positive behavior programs
Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost estimates updated December 2016.  Literature review updated August 2015.
The "positive behavior" program in this analysis is School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SPBIS) (note: the Positive Action and Responsive Classroom programs are examined separately). This program encourages pro-social behavior for all students rather than using discipline to control problem behaviors among troubled students. The school-wide behavior program includes a specialized curriculum focusing on behavior expectations developed by school staff; professional development for teachers and staff; encouragement of and rewards for positive behaviors such as being on time and listening in the classroom; a consistent approach across classrooms to behavioral violations; and consistent collection of student discipline data.
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2015). 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 $2,164 Benefits minus costs $7,644
Participants $4,489 Benefit to cost ratio $13.49
Others $1,873 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($270) benefits greater than the costs 77 %
Total benefits $8,256
Net program cost ($612)
Benefits minus cost $7,644
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
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Labor market earnings associated with test scores $2,090 $4,603 $2,036 $0 $8,729
Health care associated with educational attainment $127 ($35) ($139) $64 $18
Costs of higher education ($53) ($80) ($25) ($27) ($185)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $1 $0 ($307) ($305)
Totals $2,164 $4,489 $1,873 ($270) $8,256
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $207 2013 Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars) ($612)
Comparison costs $0 2013 Cost range (+ or -) 10 %
The effect in our meta-analysis reflects three years of program participation. Annual per-participant costs are based on a model for the total cost for implementation as described in Blonigen, B.A., Harbaugh, W.T., Singell, L.D., Horner, R.H., Irvin, L.K., & Smolkowski, K.S. (2008). Application of economic analysis to school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) programs. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(1), 5-19. The cost estimate assumes district-wide implementation of a positive behavior program in ten schools. We calculated the value of staff time using average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. To calculate a per-student annual cost, we used the average number of students per school in Washington's prototypical schools formula.
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.
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-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 non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. 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.

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.

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 Primary or secondary participant 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
Test scores 1 14530 0.123 0.061 7 0.058 0.067 17 0.285 0.001
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Horner, R.H., Smolkowski, K., Todd, A.W., Esperanza, J., Sugai, G., Eber, L., & Nakasato, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 133-144.

For more information on the methods
used please see our Technical Documentation.