Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe value of a program can be understood as referring not only to outcomes, but also to how those outcomes compare to the types and amounts of resources expended to produce the outcomes. Major potential mistakes and biases inassessing the worth of resources consumed, as well as the value of outcomes produced, are explored. Most of these occur when the evaluation is limited in contexts examined or perspectives adopted. In particular, it is noted that the price of a resource often is context‐dependent, and may not describe the value of a resourcefrom important perspectives. Also, the monetary value of outcomes as inferred from earned income, and from avoided human service expenditures, may not reflectoutcome value from key perspectives, possibly exacerbating discrimination according to gender, ethnicity, and age. Solutions for these problems are recommended. More complete and detailed information on resources consumed and outcomesproduced also may facilitate systematic optimization of program value, if theevaluation includes the amounts and types of resources used by those program activities that change the participant processes that lead to desired program outcomes. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

Though several training and support programs for foster carers improve child behaviors, few have been shown to have a large impact on child welfare outcomes such as permanency. Additionally, most training and support programs are expensive. The Quality Parenting Initiative (QPI) aims to improve outcomes at low cost by empowering foster carers as well as caseworkers. This paper uses administrative data to show that the earliest implementation of QPI shortened stays in care for children who were reunified. Savings from shorter stays in care are estimated to be more than three times greater than expenditures.

Purpose: There is limited research on the costs of social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions [Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg & Spoth (2012). Resource Consumption of a Diffusion Model for Prevention Programs: The PROSPER Delivery System.Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), 256–263]. This paper describes a comprehensive methodology for determining the costs of a successful universal, school-based SEL intervention that was implemented in nine public schools over 3 years.Methods: Resource costs were identified using the Cost–Procedure–Process–Outcome Analysis Model [Yates (1996).Analyzing Costs, Procedures, Processes, and Outcomes in Human Services.Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.; Yates (1999).Measuring and Improving Cost, Cost-Effectiveness, and Cost-Benefit for Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. No. NIH 99-4518, 135] and the ingredients model [Levin (Ed.) (1983).Cost-Effectiveness A Primer(Vol. 4). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Levin & McEwan (2001).Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]. This involved careful identification of resource use, finding the cost per unit for each resource by intervention activity, and ultimately calculating the total resource cost (resource use$\times$cost per unit).Results: Our analysis estimated the overall cost of this 3-year SEL and literacy intervention to be $1,831,296 for nine schools. This averages to $67,825 yearly per school and $130 yearly for each student. The analysis estimated the first year of the intervention to be the costliest ($683,106) and then decreasing in Year 2 ($581,764) and Year 3 ($566,426).Conclusion: This research emphasizes the need to study the costs of SEL interventions. By providing a detailed and standardized methodology, this cost analysis can provide added support for implementing an effective social and emotional learning intervention in a school setting. Furthermore, it provides groundwork for more advanced cost analyses, such as a cost–effectiveness analysis or a benefit-cost analysis (BCA).