Project EX
Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023. Literature review updated December 2014.
Project EX is a school-based cessation program for youth. The program consists of eight sessions for smokers trying to quit. Two versions of this program are included in the meta-analysis: One version implemented the program as a clinic within the school, while the other, Project EX-4, was implemented as a classroom-based intervention where all students (smokers and non-smokers) receive the intervention. In all available evaluations, the program was implemented in continuation high schools. The program includes a "train-the-trainer" component and generally is implemented by health educators.
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 (2022). 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 |
|
|
Taxpayers |
$879 |
|
Benefits minus costs |
$3,677 |
|
|
Participants |
$1,939 |
|
Benefit to cost ratio |
$53.04 |
|
|
Others |
$65 |
|
Chance the program will produce |
|
|
|
Indirect |
$864 |
|
benefits greater than the costs |
88% |
|
|
Total benefits |
$3,747 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net program cost |
($71) |
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits minus cost |
$3,677 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Taxpayers |
Participants |
Others2 |
Indirect3 |
Total
|
|
Regular smoking |
Labor market earnings associated with smoking |
$800 |
$1,884 |
$0 |
$0 |
$2,684 |
Health care associated with smoking |
$63 |
$18 |
$65 |
$32 |
$178 |
Mortality associated with smoking |
$16 |
$37 |
$0 |
$868 |
$921 |
|
Program cost |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
($35) |
($35) |
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$879 |
$1,939 |
$65 |
$864 |
$3,747 |
|
Click here to see populations selected
Click here to hide populations selected
Populations - Primary |
Crime |
All people All people with or without prior ciminal justice system involvement |
Education |
All students A general population of students (i.e., all students in a school or in a classroom) |
Tobacco |
Treatment population People who smoke at least 30 cigarettes per month |
Earnings |
General population All people |
For more information on populations see the
Technical Documentation
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant |
Program costs |
$59 |
2014 |
Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) |
($71) |
Comparison costs |
$0 |
2014 |
Cost range (+ or -) |
10% |
This program is typically delivered over a six-week period. Costs were estimated from components reported by the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=47). These costs include workbooks for students, training for teachers, and teacher time for program delivery. The costs are specific to the clinic version of the program; we would expect costs to be slightly lower per student for the classroom version of the program.
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. |
Benefits by Perspective Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the breakdown of the estimated cumulative benefits (not including program costs) per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. These cash flows provide a breakdown of the classification of dollars over time into four perspectives: taxpayer, participant, others, and indirect. “Taxpayers” includes expected savings to government and expected increases in tax revenue. “Participants” includes expected increases in earnings and expenditures for items such as health care and college tuition. “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. “Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the changes in the value of a statistical life and changes in the deadweight costs of taxation. If a section of the bar is below the $0 line, the program is creating a negative benefit, meaning a loss of value from that perspective. |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis
Sussman, S., Dent, C.W., & Lichtman, K.L. (2001). Project EX: Outcomes of a teen smoking cessation program. Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 425-438.
Sussman, S., Miyano, J., Rohrbach, L.A., Dent, C.W., & Sun, P. (2007). Six-month and 1-year effects of project EX-4, a classroom-based smoking prevention and cessation intervention program. Addictive Behaviors, 35(12), 3005-3014.