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

Adolescent Assertive Continuing Care (ACC)

Substance Use Disorders: Treatment for Youth
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated September 2018.
Adolescent Assertive Continuing Care (ACC) is a home-based program for youth with substance use disorders returning to the community following substance use treatment. ACC combines the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) with case management services. Trained providers deliver weekly in-home support to youth and their caregivers to improve abstinence and risk reduction skills, encourage youth to engage in more pro-social behavior, and refer youth to additional community services. On average, sessions last for an hour and treatment typically occurs over 12-14 weeks.

Among studies included in this analysis, youth in the comparison groups engaged in the same substance use treatment as the ACC youth but do not receive Assertive Continuing Care following substance use treatment.
 
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 $21 Benefits minus costs ($3,536)
Participants $19 Benefit to cost ratio ($0.45)
Others $23 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($1,166) benefits greater than the costs 41%
Total benefits ($1,102)
Net program cost ($2,435)
Benefits minus cost ($3,536)

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

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
Alcohol use disorder
Clinical diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.  
 16 3 249 -0.296 0.111 16 0.000 0.187 19 -0.296 0.008
Substance use disorder^
A non-specified alcohol or drug use disorder. Typically, a collection of different types of disorders reported by study authors. 
 16 3 397 -0.141 0.128 16 n/a n/a n/a -0.141 0.272
Cannabis use disorder
Clinical diagnosis of cannabis use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
16 2 169 -0.154 0.150 16 0.000 0.187 19 -0.154 0.304
Cannabis use before end of high school^^
Any use of cannabis by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
16 1 80 -0.340 0.262 16 n/a n/a n/a -0.340 0.194
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
Alcohol use disorder Criminal justice system $3 $0 $8 $1 $12
Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $4 $9 $0 $0 $13
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $1 $2 $0 $3
Mortality associated with alcohol $3 $7 $0 $44 $55
Cannabis use disorder Health care associated with cannabis abuse or dependence $12 $2 $13 $6 $33
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($1,217) ($1,217)
Totals $21 $19 $23 ($1,166) ($1,102)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,968 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($2,435)
Comparison costs $0 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
Per-participant costs are based on the weighted average therapist time as reported in the studies (approximately 12 hours of individual treatment and 2 hours of family treatment), multiplied by DSHS reimbursement rates reported in Mercer. (2016). Behavioral health data book for the state of Washington for rates effective October 7, 2016. The treatment cost represents the cost of providing only Adolescent Assertive Continuing Care and does not include the costs of residential substance use treatment received by both the treatment and comparison groups.
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

Garner, B.R., Godley, M.D., Funk, R.R., Lee, M.T., & Garnick, D.W. (2010). The Washington Circle continuity of care performance measure: Predictive validity with adolescents discharged from residential treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(1), 3-11.

Godley, M.D., Godley, S.H., Dennis, M.L., Funk, R.R., & Passetti, LL. (2007). Research report: The effect of assertive continuing care on continuing care linkage, adherence and abstinence following residential treatment for adolescents with substance use disorders. Addiction, 102(1), 81-93.

Godley, M.D., Godley, S.H., Dennis, M.L., Funk, R.R., Passetti, L.L., & Petry, N.M. (2014). A randomized trial of Assertive Continuing Care and Contingency Management for adolescents with substance use disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1),40-51.

Godley, S.H., Garner, B.R., Passetti, L.L., Funk, R.R., Dennis, M.L., & Godley, M.D. (2010). Adolescent outpatient treatment and continuing care: Main findings from a randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 110(1), 44-54.

Kaminer, Y., Burleson, J.A., & Burke, R.H. (2008). Efficacy of outpatient aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: A randomized controlled study. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(12), 1405-1412.