Although the program aimed at eliminating homelessness among adolescents and young adults seems rather relevant, it is necessary to compare its advantages with other interventions. The suggested CBA will analyze the costs needed for three projects and expected benefits offered by each of them. The rationale behind choosing one of the programs will be given.
Comparison of Programs for CBA
CBA Rationale
The selection of benefits used for comparison is associated with the ultimate positive goals that are expected to be achieved with the help of the intervention. For the first program, the major benefit is the reduction of homelessness among adolescents and young adults as one of the most serious current social problems (Haskett, Armstrong, & Tisdale, 2016; Koh & O’Connell, 2016). Other advantages of this program are the reduction of such adverse social issues as teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide attempts, and substance abuse. Since these problems are usually spread among homeless individuals, it is expected that by decreasing the number of homeless adolescents, it will be possible to eliminate the rates of other negative social factors. The main benefits listed for the second program are the reduction of suicide attempts and the decreased rates of depression among adolescents. These issues are rather significant since the rates of such attempts are high among the US youths (Jacobson, Batejan, Kleinman, & Gould, 2013). It is noted that social support is likely to help disadvantaged adolescents cope with their depressive moods that are most common causes of suicides (Farrell, Bolland, & Cockerham, 2015). Finally, the third program’s benefit is the reduction of substance use and abuse. Scholars remark that the prevalence of this issue is high (Bertrand et al., 2013; Tanner-Smith, Wilson, & Lipsey, 2013). Thus, it is necessary to eliminate the spread of substance use and abuse among adolescents and young adults since such practice may cause significant harm to health.
Costs associated with the comparison include financial support, human resources, equipment, community support, and healthcare support. What is more, the second and third programs require additional psychological research since they require a thorough analysis of the causes and prevalence of suicide attempts and substance abuse respectively. What concerns human resources and healthcare support, they are approximately the same in each program. However, for the first program, there is a team of specialists in the agency whereas for the other two interventions, it will be necessary to assemble new teams that will include more psychiatrists and social workers. Also, the second and third programs will necessitate the close collaboration with families and schools, which may require additional time and costs. Equipment is similar for every project: computers and printers will be needed to prepare educational materials and distribute them as well as to analyze the obtained data.
As a result of cost benefit analysis, the most relevant program is the first one. The main reason for choosing it is that this intervention has more benefits than two others while all of them require similar costs. The primary advantage of the first program is eliminating the number of homeless adolescents and young adults. If this goal is reached, it will have a positive impact on other negative social issues such as suicide attempts, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and teenage pregnancy. Providing the youths with an opportunity to receive education will enhance their chances of finding a job and leaving the status of homeless individuals. Costs needed for this intervention are somewhat smaller than for other projects (the first one does not require much research, analysis, or observation). Thus, comparing costs and benefits makes it possible to conclude that the first proposed campaign is the most promising, and its implementation will help to manage other social problems.
References
Bertrand, K., Richer, I., Brunelle, N., Beaudoin, I., Lemieux, A., & Ménard, J. M. (2013). Substance abuse treatment for adolescents: How are family factors related to substance use change? Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45(1), 28-38.
Farrell, C. T., Bolland, J. M., & Cockerham, W. C. (2015). The role of social support and social context on the incidence of attempted suicide among adolescents living in extremely impoverished communities. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(1), 59-65.
Haskett, M. E., Armstrong, J. M., & Tisdale, J. (2016). Developmental status and social–emotional functioning of young children experiencing homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(2), 119-125.
Jacobson, C., Batejan, K., Kleinman, M., & Gould, M. (2013). Reasons for attempting suicide among a community sample of adolescents. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 43(6), 646-662.
Koh, H. K., & O’Connell, J. J. (2016). Improving health care for homeless people. JAMA, 316(24), 2586-2587.
Tanner-Smith, E. E., Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2013). The comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatment for adolescent substance abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(2), 145-158.