A Mixed-Methods Approach for Embedding Cost Analysis Within Fidelity Assessment in School-Based Programs

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr

This mixed-methods study presents a framework for conducting cost analyses of school-based programs by leveraging fidelity data and using the ingredients method. The approach is demonstrated through Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) using data from 77 U.S. schools trained in PBIS. Average cost per school was US$53,216 (median US$36,698), and average per-pupil cost was US$90 (median US$58), lower than other prevention models.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Keywords

Background and Rationale

Study Aims and Methods

Fidelity Assessment and Cost Capture

A Mixed-Methods Approach for Embedding Cost Analysis Within Fidelity Assessment in School-Based Programs Behavioral Disorders 2023, Vol. 48(3) 174–186 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/0198742920944850](DOI: 10.1177/0198742920944850)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/0198742920944850)[journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd](journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd) Catherine P. Bradshaw, PhD 1, Katrina J. Debnam, PhD 1, Daniel Player, PhD 1, Brooks Bowden, PhD2, and Sarah Lindstrom Johnson, PhD3 Abstract This mixed-methods study describes a framework for conducting cost analyses of school-based programs leveraging fidelity data and applying the ingredients method. We illustrate this approach by applying it to Positive Behavioral Interventionsand Supports (PBIS), drawing on multiple sources of data from a sample of U.S. 77 schools that were trained in PBIS. We concluded that the average per school cost of PBIS was US$53,216.00 (median = US$36,698), with an average perpupil cost of US$90.00 (median = US$58.00), which is considerably less than other school-based prevention models. The cost did, however, differ by implementation level, such that high-fidelity implementation tended to cost more than low-fidelity implementation. We provide a case illustration to elucidate some of the cost drivers of PBIS implementation. Specifically, these data highlight the variability in the amount of training and coaching by the specific evidence-based program implemented within the tiered PBIS framework. Through this case illustration, we demonstrate the utility of tracking costs of school-based program within the context of fidelity data collection. The findings also suggest the potential cost savings of PBIS, both when compared with other evidence-based interventions as well as the known costs of negative school outcomes like dropout. Keywords Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, cost, school-based programming Schools are increasingly held accountable for achieving a range of academic and behavioral outcomes, and thus are often turning to school-based prevention and early intervention programs to meet some of these goals (Lloyd et al., 2019). Yet, such programs often require additional resources and may place a financial burden on schools, districts, and states, particularly given the push for the use of evidencebased programs (McIntosh, Filter, et al., 2009). Although the number of programs identified as promising or effective by federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse or Blue Prints for Healthy Youth Development is growing (Lloyd et al., 2019), there has been less consideration of the costs associated with implementing these and other prevention programs (Crowley et al., 2018) . Moreover, many of the “true costs” may well exceed the price of the program materials or training, and include considerable personnel time, space, and in-kind (e.g., donations, volunteer) costs, which are typically underestimated orunaccounted for by program implementers. Given the increasing number of effective school-based prevention programs, an understanding of the true cost of each program, or the cost to achieve effects, becomes increasingly relevant. Few stakeholders have the expertise or tools to track the range of costs associated with program implementation and adoption, or the infrastructure needed to implement the program with fidelity (Fagan et al., 2019; McIntosh, Filter, et al., 2009; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2009). Moreover, many granting agencies (e.g., Institute of Education Sciences, 2020) now require the tracking of program costs. Yet, the education field presently lacks efficient methodological approaches for calculating these costs prospectively. 1 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA 2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA 3Arizona State

FAQs

What framework does the study propose for cost analysis in school-based programs?

It proposes a mixed-methods framework that embeds cost analysis within fidelity assessment using the ingredients method and fidelity data.

How were costs analyzed for PBIS in the sample of schools?

Costs were collected from multiple sources and summarized using average cost data, with contrasts between high- and low-fidelity implementation.

What factors did the case illustration highlight about PBIS costs?

The case illustration emphasized variability in training and coaching tied to the specific evidence-based program used within the tiered PBIS framework.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr