A Cost Analysis of Traditional Professional Development and Coaching Structures in Schools

A mixed methods partner-focused cost and budget impact analysis to deploy implementation strategies for school-based prevention

BACKGROUND

Obtaining information on implementation strategy costs and local budget impacts from multiple perspectives is essential to data-driven decision-making about resource allocation for successful evidence-based intervention delivery. This mixed methods study determines the costs and priorities of deploying Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP) to implement the Michigan Model for Health™, a universal school-based prevention intervention, from key shareholder perspectives.

METHODS

Our study included teachers in 8 high schools across 3 Michigan counties as part of a pilot cluster randomized trial. We used activity-based costing, mapping key Enhanced REP activities across implementation phases. We included multiple perspectives, including state agencies, regional education service agencies, lead organization, and implementers. We also conducted a budget impact analysis (BIA, assessing the potential financial impact of adopting Enhanced REP) and a scenario analysis to estimate replication and account for cost variability. We used an experimental embedded mixed methods approach, conducting semi-structured interviews and collecting field notes during the trial to expand and explain the cost data and the implications of costs across relevant perspectives.

RESULTS

Based on trial results, we estimate costs for deploying Enhanced REP are $11,903/school, with an estimated range between $8263/school and $15,201/school. We estimate that adding four additional schools, consistent with the pilot, would cost $8659/school. Qualitative results indicated misalignment in school and teacher priorities in some cases. Implementation activities, including training and implementation facilitation with the health coordinator, were sometimes in addition to regular teaching responsibilities. The extent to which this occurred was partly due to leadership priorities (e.g., sticking to the district PD schedule) and organizational priorities (e.g., budget).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research findings indicate that, from a societal perspective, universal prevention is an excellent return on investment. However, notable misalignment in cost burden and priorities exists across shareholder groups. Our results indicate significant personal time costs by teachers when engaging in implementation strategy activities that impose an opportunity cost. Additional strategies are needed to improve the alignment of costs and benefits to enhance the success and sustainability of implementation. We focus on those perspectives informed by the analysis and discuss opportunities to expand a multi-level focus and create greater alignment across perspectives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04752189. Registered on 12 February 2021.

Taking a School-Based Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program to Scale: a Cost Analysis

Cost analyses are used to determine overall costs of implementing evidence-based programming and may help decision makers determine how best to allocate finite resources. Child sexual abuse (CSA), regularly viewed as a human rights violation, is also a public health concern estimated to impact 27% of females and 5% of males by age 18. Universal, school-based CSA programs are one prevailing prevention strategy. However, there are no known cost analyses of school-based CSA prevention programming, thereby limiting potential scalability. Using the ingredients method, this cost analysis presents the findings of implementing Safe Touches, an evidence-based universal prevention program, across four sites (i.e., counties) in one mid-Atlantic state. Reaching a total of 14,235 s grade students, results indicate an average cost of $43 per student, an average classroom cost of $859, an average district cost of $10,637, and an average site cost of $154,243. There was a noted decrease in costs when more students were reached, suggesting a need to focus efforts on bolstering the reach of implementation efforts. Sensitivity analyses explored variations in implementation constraints such as personnel and facilities suggesting a range of per-student costs (lower-bound per-student cost = $34; upper-bound per-student cost = $64). Findings presented herein may be used to inform future universal CSA prevention efforts by providing detailed information about the costs of large-scale implementation of an evidence-based program among elementary-aged children.