1 / 49

Return on Investment in NREPP Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Programs

Return on Investment in NREPP Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Programs. Ted R Miller, PhD, PIRE. COST EFFECTIVENESS. Walk thru BCA of a typical program BCAs for NREPP programs BCAs for DWI & Crime Prevention Programs. Cost-Benefit Analysis of School-based SA Prevention Programs.

gerik
Download Presentation

Return on Investment in NREPP Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Return on Investment in NREPP Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Programs Ted R Miller, PhD, PIRE

  2. COST EFFECTIVENESS

  3. Walk thru BCA of a typical program • BCAs for NREPP programs • BCAs for DWI & Crime Prevention Programs

  4. Cost-Benefit Analysis of School-based SA Prevention Programs • Looked at a typical school-based program • % of youth 12-14 who delay start-up due to the program • Prevention delays start of substance use by 2 years on average • # youth delaying use • % reduction in substance use

  5. Total cost savings = Cost of use x % reduced • Divide the cost saving benefits by program cost • State & local government savings

  6. 2 Lit Reviews: Mean of Technically Sound Non-Zero Effectiveness Estimates

  7. Assume Effectiveness Drops 25% in Replication

  8. Suppose We Had Universal Prevention Programming in 2002

  9. Equally Large Reductions Would Occur in 2003

  10. What Costs Result from Using? • Illness/Poisoning • Violent Crime • Property Crime • Public Order/Supply Crimes * • Impaired Driving • Other Injury * * Not costed for tobacco

  11. What Costs Result from Using? MONETARY COSTS • Medical • Work Loss • Other Resources (Property Damage/Police) • Quality of Life – Controversial to Put a $ Value On

  12. Total Savings from Universal School-based SA Prevention in 2002, Ages 12-14 (B=Billions of $)

  13. Program Cost/Pupil • $220 average across 11 programs • Includes training of teachers • Teacher salaries, fringe, & overhead • Program materials

  14. Return on Investment (ROI)

  15. State & Local Government Savings = $1.3 Billion

  16. Effectiveness vs Cost-Effectiveness • % reduction in DWI deaths measures effectiveness • BCR also considers cost • The most effective interventions sometimes have lower returns on investment (measured by BCRs)

  17. BCRs for School-Based Pgms (D=drugs M=marijuana T=tobacco V=violence)

  18. Lower Return on Investment • Project TND (Toward No Drugs) 0%, D • STARS for families 8% binge • Original DARE (not on NREPP) did not work

  19. BCRs for Youth Development Programs (with costs & benefits computed comparably)

  20. CASAstart costs more than it saves • Across Ages – razor-thin savings • Project PATHE (not on NREPP) does not work

  21. Lack Costs for Indicated Programs • Use community referrals extensively • How much use of those services results • What does it cost

  22. BCRs for Other Environmental Interventions (costs & benefits computed comparably)

  23. 21 Minimum Drinking Age • Reduces youth DWI deaths • Reduces youth suicides • Raises age of initiation which lowers the risk of alcoholism in adulthood • Reduces % of youth who drink • Reduces % of youth who binge • Reduces sales & profits

  24. Other Interventions ? • Community mobilization & capacity building: advocacy to change laws, enforcement & norms • Adults work with youth to improve outcomes • Peer-to-peer • Media: social norms • Billboard campaign • Web education/social networking

  25. Underage Drinking Prevention • Aggressively enforce underage sales laws • Improve age-checking technology • Reduce outlet density • Social host policies that hold adults liable when kids drink at home parties

  26. College Drinking Prevention • Restrict pitchers & schooners • Discourage happy hours • Ban all-you-can-drink hours

  27. How do we sell prevention?

  28. Do not create the wrong story: 3 Soundbites, 2 dozen variants, work your way back – or the 10 seconds they use may not be on your story • A press conference is not live; if you mis-speak, say it over • Beware silence • Rule of 3s • Rhyme, alliteration • Passion • Paint pictures • T-shirts

  29. Plan how/when to release • People do not understand big numbers • You cannot spend some savings • Select costs to suit the audience • White on blue slides; large type size • Minimize words on slides • Do not read every # • Put a face with the $

  30. Free PIRE Technical Assistance Monique Sheppard & Ted Miller Children's Safety Network Economics & Data Resource Center Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws TA & Training Center CSAP State Epidemiological Workgroup TA 301-755-2728 sheppard@pire.org

  31. Prevention Approaches Can Impact Broadly or Narrowly • Thinning Alcohol Outlet Density or Raising Alcohol Taxes changes alcohol consumption & thus reduces all alcohol-related problems • Creating Defensible Space (thru lighting, gating, etc.) only reduces violence • Evaluations often do not assess some impacts, notably for midnight driving curfew, 0-tolerance, .08

  32. Some violence prevention measures will impact multiple problems. Others will not.

  33. Impaired Driving Measures • No one intervention will reduce impaired driving deaths by more than 17% • We need to select a package of complementary measures

  34. What Happens If We Implement Multiple Measures • Implementing one broad measure can have a large effect on the BCR for another because each reduces a % of the remaining problem

  35. When combine targeted & broad measures • Large impact on a narrowly targeted segment of the problem • Minimal effectiveness reduction in the BCR for the broad-based intervention

  36. DWI Deaths

  37. Rules for a Sensible DWI Package • Broader measures like regional trauma systems, 20% ETOH tax, occupant restraint, & graduated licensing lose little effectiveness as targeted DWI measures are implemented • Measures tightly targeting subgroups only modestly reduce the pool of injuries/effectiveness of all-driver DWI measures

  38. Multi-Problem Behaviour Is the Norm • Some Interventions Should Affect Multiple Problems • Spillover Benefits Of • DWI on Other Harm • Non-DWI on DWI • Non-ETOH Measures on ETOH

  39. Which General DWI Measures Impact Consumption or Harm? • .08 maximum driver BAC • Server training • Enforcing Laws vs Serving Intoxicated Patrons (SIP Laws) • Intensive Breath Testing • Could force drinking to the home, adding domestic violence, etc.

  40. Which "Youth" DWI Measures Impact Consumption or Harm? • 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age • 0 ETOH Tolerance f/Drivers < 21 • ETOH Tax Increase • Enforcing Underage Sales Laws • Graduated Licensing w/Curfew

  41. Which Hardcore DWI Measures Impact Consumption or Harm? • Jail • Mandatory offender treatment • House arrest (positive or negative effect: domestic violence ??)

  42. BCRs for Youth Smoking Prevention

  43. Conclusions • Some NREPP programs are better than others • Some NREPP programs should only be used in special circumstances • Often one must trade off the largest impact vs the largest return per $ spent

More Related