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

Strong African American Families—Teen

Public Health & Prevention: Home- or Family-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated June 2016.
Strong African American Families - Teen is a five-week community-based program developed for 16 year-old African American youth and their caregivers. Families meet in interactive small groups with trained facilitators once a week for 2 hours. Lessons are intended to promote protective caregiving (setting limits, monitoring, racial pride and strategies for dealing with discrimination, monitoring and supporting academic achievement, and cooperative problem solving), as well as youth self-regulation. The aim of this program is to deter youth substance use, conduct problems, and depressive symptoms.
 
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 $790 Benefits minus costs $1,717
Participants $1,669 Benefit to cost ratio $3.63
Others $159 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($249) benefits greater than the costs 58%
Total benefits $2,370
Net program cost ($653)
Benefits minus cost $1,717

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 before end of high school
Any use of alcohol by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
16 1 237 -0.090 0.111 18 -0.090 0.111 18 -0.236 0.033
Major depressive disorder
Clinical diagnosis of major depression or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 16 1 237 -0.090 0.111 18 0.000 0.310 20 -0.236 0.033
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.
 16 1 237 -0.029 0.147 18 -0.016 0.089 21 -0.076 0.629
Problem alcohol use
Alcohol use reflecting problem behaviors (e.g., high frequency drinking, binge drinking, or drinking that has a high impact on daily life) for individuals who do not have an alcohol use disorder.
 16 1 237 -0.068 0.111 18 -0.068 0.111 28 -0.179 0.106
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
Major depressive disorder K-12 grade repetition $2 $0 $0 $1 $3
Problem alcohol use Labor market earnings associated with problem alcohol use $701 $1,652 $0 $0 $2,353
Property loss associated with problem alcohol use $0 $4 $8 $0 $12
Health care associated with problem alcohol use $42 $8 $47 $21 $118
Mortality associated with problem alcohol $2 $5 $0 $34 $41
Alcohol use before end of high school Criminal justice system $43 $0 $105 $21 $169
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($327) ($327)
Totals $790 $1,669 $159 ($249) $2,370
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $528 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($653)
Comparison costs $0 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
Treatment cost estimate reflects the per family cost to implement the Strong African American Families - Teen program. Cost data come from the developer at the Center for Family Research, Universty of Georgia, in 2015. The estimate includes start-up costs for materials and initial facilitator training, as well as per family implementation costs for a five-week program. We spread start-up costs across participating families, assuming three groups of facilitators each implementing two times per year, with the recommended 12 families per group.
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

Brody, G.H., Chen, Y.F., Kogan, S.M., Yu, T., Molgaard, V.K., DiClemente, R.J., Wingood, G.M. (2012). Family-centered program deters substance use, conduct problems, and depressive symptoms in black adolescents. Pediatrics, 129(1), 108-15.

Ingels, J.B., Corso,P.S., Kogan, S.M., Brody, G.H. (2013). Cost-effectiveness of the Strong African American Families-teen program: 1-year follow-up. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 133(2), 556-561.