Before you share these numbers with your board or finance team, this page shows you exactly where they come from and where the limits are. Written for district leaders, CFOs, and anyone who needs to defend the methodology.
Covers methodology, assumptions, scenario logic, and how to use results in a leadership conversation. This is a planning estimate, not a financial guarantee.
The CharacterStrong ROI Projection is a planning tool, not a pricing tool or a performance guarantee. It helps leaders put numbers around the impact of investing in structured student support systems. Every result is based on your inputs and research-informed assumptions — designed to help you ask better questions, not replace the conversation.
Value is estimated across up to six categories depending on which tiers you select. Each maps to a cost districts typically absorb without tracking it.
The value of class time lost to behavioral disruptions, estimated using your disruption frequency and teacher pay rate. Tier 1 only.
Estimated funding lift from improved daily attendance, calculated against your state's per-student daily rate. Tier 1 only.
Estimated savings from reducing or replacing overlapping programs with a unified system. Available when 2+ tiers are selected.
The value of staff hours redirected away from managing fragmented systems and toward student-facing leadership work. Tier 2 only.
Reduction in staff time spent on repeated behavioral incidents, based on decreased incident frequency with structured support. Tier 2 only.
Estimated reduction in the number of students requiring the most intensive, highest-cost interventions. Tier 3 only.
Each value combines your inputs with scenario-based multipliers.
Base rate for 2 tiers; +7% for all 3, capped at 25%.
Estimates the value of administrative hours redirected from system management to direct leadership and student support. Grounded in Bradshaw et al. (2020), which calculated each office discipline referral costs approximately $9 in administrator time (10 minutes at $55/hour), with net savings of $450,000 per 100 elementary students and $86,000 per 100 secondary students documented in a Maryland RCT.
Three scenarios represent a range of expected outcomes based on implementation quality and context. Most districts land between Conservative and Moderate in Year 1.
| Assumption | Conservative | Moderate | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior disruption reduction | 12% | 20% | 30% |
| Attendance improvement | 0.3% | 0.5% | 1.0% |
| Vendor consolidation savingsPlanning estimate | 10% | 18% | 25% |
| Admin time savings | 15% | 25% | 35% |
| Tier 2 incident reductionDirectional estimate | 3% | 5% | 7% |
| Tier 3 case avoidanceDirectional estimate | 10% | 18% | 25% |
These percentages reflect ranges observed in research on MTSS implementation outcomes. They are directionally grounded, not derived from CharacterStrong-specific longitudinal data.
The key studies behind the most consequential assumptions, with an honest assessment of which numbers are research-backed and which are directional estimates.
A 4-year group randomized controlled trial across 37 elementary schools found that children in SWPBIS schools were 33% less likely to receive an office discipline referral than those in comparison schools. Reductions in this general range are consistently reported across the broader PBIS evidence base, supporting the 12–30% behavior reduction range used in this calculator.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, PMC3483890
A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial across elementary schools in Hawaii and Illinois found that improved SWPBIS implementation was linked to improved perceptions of school safety and higher rates of third graders meeting state reading standards.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), crimesolutions.ojp.gov
A large-scale study across high schools in 37 states found statistically significant positive effects of SWPBIS on attendance, and that attendance improvement is a proximal indicator of reduced dropout risk.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), pbis.org research database
A cost-benefit analysis using data from a Maryland randomized controlled trial and a statewide quasi-experimental scale-up study estimated a net present-day cost savings of $450,000 per 100 students in elementary schools and $86,000 per 100 students in secondary schools, driven by improvements in academic performance, behavior, and reduced suspensions. The study also calculated that each office discipline referral costs approximately $9 in administrator time, based on 10 minutes of processing time at $55/hour. Implementation costs for statewide scale-up were estimated at $48.67 per student per year.
School Psychology Review, DOI:10.1080/2372966X.2020.1823797
Not all assumptions carry equal research weight. Here's where we're on solid ground and where we're estimating.
| Assumption | Evidence Level | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior disruption reduction | Research-backed | Multiple RCTs document consistent reductions in ODRs. Our 12–30% range is conservative relative to the literature. |
| Attendance improvement | Research-backed | Multiple studies show improvement; findings are mixed across grade levels. Our 0.3–1.0% range is conservative. |
| Admin time recovered | Research-backed | Bradshaw et al. (2020) calculated each ODR costs ~$9 in administrator time (10 min at $55/hr). Net savings of $450k/100 elementary students and $86k/100 secondary students were documented in a Maryland RCT and statewide scale-up study. |
| Tier 2 incident reduction | Directional estimate | Supported by incident and referral reduction research at the school-wide level; Tier 2-specific time savings are extrapolated. Treat as a planning estimate. |
| Tier 3 case avoidance | Directional estimate | Research supports upstream prevention reducing intensive case need; specific avoidance percentages are planning estimates. Treat as directional, not research-validated. |
| Vendor consolidation savings | Planning assumption | No published MTSS research directly measures vendor consolidation savings. This is a logical estimate based on program overlap, not an empirically derived figure. |
Vendor consolidation, Tier 2 incident reduction, and Tier 3 case avoidance are planning estimates, not research-validated figures. Bradshaw et al. (2020), the strongest source in this model, focused on Tier 1 only. Use the Conservative scenario when presenting these numbers to finance or board audiences.
No. The assumptions come from published MTSS implementation research, not CharacterStrong's own outcome data. Some are grounded in randomized controlled trials; others are directional estimates. The confidence table shows exactly which is which.
Yes, with appropriate framing. Present it as a directional planning model alongside your district's context, not as a budget commitment.
Two reasons. The costs being measured — instructional time, attendance revenue, staff capacity — are real but rarely tracked, so reducing them can look surprising. And the investment field often represents a fraction of the total value being modeled. If the number feels high, try the Conservative scenario or raise your investment figure.
Quite a bit, intentionally. It doesn't account for implementation costs beyond your entered investment, long-term culture change, or downstream outcomes like graduation rates. The scope is conservative so the model stays defensible.
Select only the tiers you're actively planning. Including tiers you won't use inflates the estimate and reduces credibility with skeptical audiences.
Building mode uses school-level defaults and hides district-scale fields. District mode models system-wide impact across multiple campuses. The math is identical; only the defaults and labels differ.
The most effective use isn't presenting the final number. It's anchoring a conversation about what your district is already spending on reactive, fragmented support.
The Cost of Inaction section tends to land hardest with finance-minded audiences. Framing instructional time lost as a dollar figure, or as an equivalent number of teacher salaries, makes an invisible cost visible in a way that resonates beyond the ROI multiple itself.
When presenting to leadership or a board, the Conservative scenario is the most defensible starting point. It's easier to explain how results exceeded projections than to walk back an optimistic estimate.
Some boards and finance teams will discount soft savings like staff time recovered. Lead with the direct financial impact bucket first if your audience is skeptical of time-based value, then bring in staff time as supporting evidence.
Explicitly naming that this is a planning model, not a contractual projection, actually increases credibility. It signals that you've done your homework and that you understand the limits of the tool.
Our team can help you contextualize these estimates for your district, review implementation options, and provide accurate pricing, not a calculator default.