|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,149||Benefits minus costs||$3,348|
|Participants||$2,384||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.09|
|Others||$1,024||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($391)||benefits greater than the costs||56 %|
|Net program cost||($818)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,348|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$1,110||$2,444||$1,109||$0||$4,663|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$67||($18)||($73)||$33||$9|
|Costs of higher education||($28)||($42)||($12)||($14)||($96)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($410)||($410)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$794||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($818)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2013||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
Erion, R.J. (1994). Parent tutoring, reading instruction and curricular assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11), 4035A.
Fantuzzo, J.W., Davis, G.Y. & Ginsburg, M.D. (1995). Effects of parent involvement in isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on student self-concept and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 272-281.
Heller, L R., & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1993). Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a difference? School Psychology Review, 22(3), 517-534.
Mehran, M., & White, K.R. (1988). Parent tutoring as a supplement to compensatory education for first-grade children. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 35-41.
Miller, B.V., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1996). An evaluation of the Paired Reading Program using competency-based training. School Psychology International, 17(3), 269-291.
Nielson, B.B. (1992). Effects of parent and volunteer tutoring on reading achievement of third grade at-risk students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(10), 3570A.
Powell-Smith, K.A., Shinn, M R., Stoner, G., & Good, R.H., III. (2000). Parent tutoring in reading using literature and curriculum materials: Impact on student reading achievement. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 5-27.
Rodick, J.D., & Henggeler, S.W. (1980). The short-term and long-term amelioration of academic and motivational deficiencies among low-achieving inner-city adolescents. Child Development, 51(4), 1126-1132.