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

Fast Track prevention program

Public Health & Prevention: Community-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated March 2018.
Fast Track is a comprehensive, long-term prevention program intended to address risk factors associated with antisocial development among children with externalizing behavior problems. The program is delivered for ten years, between grades one through ten. Fast Track services include a classroom-based social-emotional learning program, consultation and support for teachers, behavior-management training for parents, social-cognitive skills training for children, peer coaching and mentoring, and individualized academic skills tutoring.
 
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 $816 Benefits minus costs ($108,758)
Participants $3,510 Benefit to cost ratio ($0.44)
Others $694 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($38,128) benefits greater than the costs 0%
Total benefits ($33,108)
Net program cost ($75,650)
Benefits minus cost ($108,758)

^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
Crime
Involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration) measured through administrative records (e.g. court records, arrests) or self-report.
 7 1 445 -0.034 0.067 24 -0.034 0.067 32 -0.090 0.288
K-12 grade repetition
Repeating a grade. This is sometimes called "grade retention."
 7 1 445 0.030 0.067 16 0.030 0.067 16 0.079 0.515
Grade point average^
Non-standardized measure of student performance calculated across subjects.
7 1 445 -0.008 0.067 16 n/a n/a n/a -0.021 0.756
High school graduation
On-time completion of high school with a diploma (excluding GED attainment).
 7 1 445 0.007 0.089 18 0.007 0.089 18 0.018 0.860
K-12 special education
Placement into special education services.
7 1 445 0.038 0.067 16 0.038 0.067 16 0.101 0.580
Alcohol use disorder
Clinical diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.  
 7 1 445 -0.085 0.089 24 -0.085 0.089 34 -0.225 0.044
Cannabis use^
Adult use of cannabis that does not rise to the level of “disordered.”
7 1 445 -0.063 0.089 24 n/a n/a n/a -0.166 0.317
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms
Clinical diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
7 1 445 -0.099 0.089 24 0.000 0.141 25 -0.261 0.096
Antisocial personality disorder^
Clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
7 1 445 -0.118 0.089 24 n/a n/a n/a -0.309 0.022
Anxiety disorder
Clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (e.g., general anxiety, panic, social anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder) or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 7 1 445 -0.054 0.089 24 -0.028 0.109 26 -0.143 0.375
Major depressive disorder
Clinical diagnosis of major depression or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 7 1 445 -0.089 0.089 24 -0.046 0.109 26 -0.234 0.102
Disruptive behavior disorder symptoms
Clinical diagnosis of a disruptive behavior disorder (e.g., conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 7 1 445 -0.024 0.067 18 -0.013 0.041 21 -0.063 0.576
Emergency department visits
Whether someone visited the emergency department, or the number of times they visited the emergency department.
7 1 445 -0.057 0.089 18 0.000 0.086 20 -0.150 0.050
Illicit drug use^
Adult use of illicit drugs that does not rise to the level of “disordered.” When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use from this outcome.
 7 1 445 -0.125 0.089 24 n/a n/a n/a -0.330 0.021
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
Crime Criminal justice system $242 $0 $532 $121 $894
K-12 grade repetition K-12 grade repetition ($43) $0 $0 ($22) ($65)
K-12 special education K-12 special education ($1,004) $0 $0 ($502) ($1,506)
Alcohol use disorder Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $1,469 $3,460 $0 $0 $4,929
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $4 $7 $0 $10
Mortality associated with alcohol $2 $4 $0 $24 $30
Anxiety disorder Health care associated with anxiety disorder $151 $43 $156 $76 $425
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($37,825) ($37,825)
Totals $816 $3,510 $694 ($38,128) ($33,108)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $5,828 2004 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($75,650)
Comparison costs $0 2004 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
The program is delivered over a ten-year period. We estimated annual per-participant costs from Foster et al. (2006). Can a costly intervention be cost-effective? An analysis of violence prevention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(11), 1284-1291.
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

Bierman, K.L., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M., Lochman, J., McMohan, R., & Pinderhughes, E. (2013). School outcomes of aggressive-disruptive children: Prediction from kindergarten risk factors and impact of the Fast Track prevention program. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 114-130.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2011). The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Development, 82(1), 331-345.

Dodge, K.A., Bierman, K.L., Coie, J.D., Greenberg, M.T., Lochman, J.E., McMahon, R.J., . . . Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2015). Impact of early intervention on psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(1), 59-70.

Jones, D., Godwin, J., Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Greenberg, M. T., . . . Pinderhughes, E. E. (2010). Impact of the fast track prevention program on health services use by conduct-problem youth. Pediatrics, 125(1), e130-e136.