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

PROSPER (PROmoting School-community-university Partnerships to Enhance Resilience)

Public Health & Prevention: Community-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated February 2020.
Open PDF
The PROmoting School-community-university Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) partnership model is a delivery system designed to help communities implement effective programs to prevent substance use and problem behaviors in youth. PROSPER forms local teams comprising staff from the Cooperative Extension System, representatives and service providers from the public school system, youth and parents, and other community stakeholders. These teams implement one school-based program and one family-based program from a menu of effective programs. PROSPER teams offer technical assistance, coordination, and other supports. In addition, this intervention includes needs assessments, quality assurance, fundraising support, and evaluation.

For the studies included in this analysis, PROSPER teams provided the Strengthening Families Program to students in 6th grade. They implemented one of three school-based programs, including All-Stars, LifeSkills Training, and Project Alert to students in 7th grade. On average, PROSPER occurs across two school years.
 
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
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $167 Benefits minus costs ($49)
Participants $266 Benefit to cost ratio $0.88
Others $80 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($161) benefits greater than the costs 44%
Total benefits $352
Net program cost ($402)
Benefits minus cost ($49)

^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 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. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

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 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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Alcohol use before end of high school
Any use of alcohol by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
12 1 3749 -0.013 0.023 16 -0.013 0.023 18 -0.035 0.128
Smoking before end of high school
Any smoking of tobacco by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
 12 1 3749 -0.017 0.023 18 -0.017 0.023 18 -0.045 0.047
Drinking and driving^
Official or self-reported drinking and driving—arrests, citations, or behavior.
 12 1 3749 -0.004 0.023 18 n/a n/a n/a -0.011 0.624
Cannabis use before end of high school
Any use of cannabis by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
12 1 3749 -0.015 0.023 16 -0.015 0.023 18 -0.040 0.078
Illicit drug use before end of high school
Any use of illicit drugs by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 to 18. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
 12 1 3749 -0.013 0.023 18 -0.013 0.023 18 -0.033 0.142
Delinquent behavior^
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.  
12 1 3749 -0.022 0.023 16 n/a n/a n/a -0.057 0.012
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 before end of high school Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $110 $258 $0 $0 $367
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $0 $1 $0 $1
Smoking before end of high school Mortality associated with smoking $0 $1 $0 $11 $12
Cannabis use before end of high school Criminal justice system $15 $0 $37 $8 $60
Illicit drug use before end of high school Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence $42 $7 $43 $21 $113
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($201) ($201)
Totals $167 $266 $80 ($161) $352
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $67 2010 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($402)
Comparison costs $0 2010 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
The per-participant annual cost is the total cost of PROmoting School-community-university Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) delivered in seven communities in Pennsylvania, as reported in Crowley, D.M., Jones, D.E., Greenberg, M.T., Feinberg, M.E., & Spoth, R.L. (2012). Resource consumption of a diffusion model for prevention programs: The PROSPER delivery system. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), 256-263. The estimated costs were incurred at the university, cooperative extension, and local team levels and included salaries and wages; operations (e.g., travel, copying, printing.); overhead; and program implementation and delivery (e.g., facilitators, materials, meals). To calculate the annual per-participant cost, we use the average costs divided by the number of participants served and the number of years of program implementation (five years).
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

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Feinberg, M., & Schainker, L. (2013). PROSPER community-university partnership delivery system effects on substance misuse through 6 1/2 years past baseline from a cluster randomized controlled intervention trial. Preventive Medicine, 56, 190-196.

Spoth, R.L., Trudeau, L.S., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M.T., Feinberg, M.E., & Hyun, G.H. (2015). PROSPER partnership delivery system: Effects on adolescent conduct problem behavior outcomes through 6.5 years past baseline. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 44-55.