|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$451||Benefits minus costs||$148|
|Participants||$233||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.20|
|Others||$429||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($223)||benefits greater than the costs||53 %|
|Net program cost||($742)|
|Benefits minus cost||$148|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||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|
Externalizing behavior symptoms
Symptoms of externalizing behavior (e.g., aggressive, hostile, or disruptive behavior) measured on a validated scale.
Symptoms of internalizing behavior (e.g., sadness, anxiety, or withdrawal) measured on a validated scale.
Grade point average^
Non-standardized measure of student performance calculated across subjects.
Nonspecified substance use (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, or illicit drugs) that does not rise to the level of "disordered."
Criminal or delinquent behavior that occurs outside of formal involvement with the justice system (i.e., behavior that does not result in arrests, charges, convictions, incarcerations) for young people.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Externalizing behavior symptoms||Criminal justice system||$32||$0||$76||$16||$123|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$78||$182||$100||($39)||$321|
|K-12 special education||$96||$0||$0||$48||$143|
|Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms||$252||$71||$260||$126||$709|
|Costs of higher education||($13)||($20)||($6)||($7)||($46)|
|Internalizing symptoms||K-12 grade repetition||$8||$0||$0||$4||$12|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($371)||($371)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$716||2017||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($742)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2017||Cost range (+ or -)||40 %|
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.|
Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2002). The Coping Power Program at the middle school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4 Suppl), S40-S54.
Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2003). Effectiveness of the Coping Power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 493-515.
Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2004). The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(4), 571-578.
Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2012). Coping Power dissimination study: Intervention and special education effects on acadimic outcomes. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 192-205.
Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2009). Dissemination of the Coping Power program: importance of intensity of counselor training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 397-409.
Lochman, J.E., Baden, R.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., Salekin, K.L., & Windle, M. (2014). Does a booster intervention augment the preventive effects of an abbreviated version of the Coping Power Program for aggressive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(3), 367-381.
Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Jones, S., Qu, L., Ewoldsen, D., & Nelson, W.M. (2017). Testing the feasibility of a briefer school-based preventive intervention with aggressive children: A hybrid intervention with face-to-face and internet components. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 33-50.
McDaniel, S.C., Lochman, J.E., Tomek, S., Powell, N., Irwin, A., & Kerr, S. (2018). Reducing risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in late elementary school: A comparison of two targeted interventions. Behavioral Disorders, 43, 370-382.
Mushtaq, A., Lochman, J.E., Tariq, P.N., & Sabih, F. (2017). Preliminary effectiveness study of Coping Power Program for aggressive children in Pakistan. Prevention Science, 18, 762-771.
Peterson, M. A., Hamilton, E. B., & Russell, A. D. (2009). Starting well: Facilitating the middle school transition. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 286-304.