Triple P—Positive Parenting Program (System)
Public Health & Prevention: Population-level policies
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024. Literature review updated June 2020.
Triple P—Positive Parenting Program (System) is a universal prevention program that aims to increase the skills and confidence of parents to prevent and treat severe behavioral and emotional problems in their children. Triple P engages parents and children in programming that aims to improve long-term outcomes.
Triple P has five levels of intensity. The first level is a media campaign that aims to increase awareness of parenting resources, de-stigmatize help-seeking, and inform parents about solutions to common behavioral problems. Levels two and three are primary health care interventions for children with mild behavioral difficulties. In contrast, levels four and five are more intensive individual- or class-based parenting programs for families of children with more challenging behavior problems. Triple P targets children up to 12 years old and provides approximately 24 months of intervention.
Evaluations included in the analysis of Triple P (System) are population-based trials that provide all levels (1-5) of the Triple P program to families. Evaluations limited to particular levels of Triple P (i.e., Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: Level 4, individual or Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: Level 4, group) are excluded from the analysis and analyzed separately.
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 |
|
|
Taxpayers |
$1,024 |
|
Benefits minus costs |
$2,789 |
|
|
Participants |
$1,905 |
|
Benefit to cost ratio |
$8.87 |
|
|
Others |
$211 |
|
Chance the program will produce |
|
|
|
Indirect |
$4 |
|
benefits greater than the costs |
71% |
|
|
Total benefits |
$3,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net program cost |
($355) |
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits minus cost |
$2,789 |
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Child abuse and neglect |
Criminal justice system |
$53 |
$0 |
$106 |
$27 |
$186 |
Child abuse and neglect |
$30 |
$310 |
$0 |
$15 |
$355 |
K-12 grade repetition |
$8 |
$0 |
$0 |
$4 |
$12 |
K-12 special education |
$133 |
$0 |
$0 |
$67 |
$200 |
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Labor market earnings associated with child abuse & neglect |
$665 |
$1,566 |
$0 |
$0 |
$2,230 |
Mortality associated with child abuse and neglect |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$2 |
$2 |
|
Out-of-home placement |
Out-of-home placement |
$33 |
$0 |
$0 |
$17 |
$50 |
|
Externalizing behavior symptoms |
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms |
$101 |
$29 |
$105 |
$51 |
$286 |
|
Program cost |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
($177) |
($177) |
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$1,024 |
$1,905 |
$211 |
$4 |
$3,143 |
|
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) |
Child abuse & neglect |
General population All children |
OoHP |
General population All children |
Tobacco |
General population All people |
Alcohol |
General population All people |
Illicit drugs |
General population All people |
Cannabis |
General population All people |
Opioids |
General population All people |
Depression |
General population All people |
Anxiety |
General population All people |
ADHD |
General population All people |
Disruptive behavior |
General population All people |
PTSD |
General population All people |
Diabetes |
General population All people |
Obesity |
General population All people |
Earnings |
General population All people |
Populations - Secondary |
Internalizing |
General population All children |
Externalizing |
General population All children |
For more information on populations see the
Technical Documentation
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant |
Program costs |
$139 |
2011 |
Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) |
($355) |
Comparison costs |
$0 |
2011 |
Cost range (+ or -) |
50% |
To calculate per-participant costs for Triple P (System) we first use the training costs for levels 2 through 5 summed from Foster, E.M., Prinz, R.J., Sanders, M.R., & Shapiro, C.J. (2008). The costs of public health infrastructure for delivering parenting and family support. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(5), 493-501. We then use the population information from the program evaluations to estimate the cost per child in the community. Level 4 and 5 parenting program costs resulted by multiplying the average Washington cost per family (provided by Kimberlee Shoecraft, WA Department of Social and Health Services, personal communication, April 2012) by the portion of the population assumed to receive the parenting program (approximately 10% of participants).
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
Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P system population trial. Prevention Science, 10(1), 1-12.