|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,806||Benefits minus costs||$11,508|
|Participants||$7,887||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.88|
|Others||$3,289||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,115)||benefits greater than the costs||94 %|
|Net program cost||($2,359)|
|Benefits minus cost||$11,508|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$3,674||$8,090||$3,577||$0||$15,341|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$226||($62)||($245)||$113||$32|
|Costs of higher education||($94)||($142)||($42)||($47)||($325)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,181)||($1,181)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,291||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($2,359)|
|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||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|
Allor, J., & McCathren, R. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutoring program implemented by college students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(2), 116-129.
Fuchs, L.S., Geary, D.C., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Schatschneider, C., Hamlett, C. L., . . .Changas, P. (2013). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 58-77.
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112-126.
Jacob, R.T., Smith, T.J., Willard, J.A., and & Rifkin, R.E. (2014). Reading Partners: The implementation and effectiveness of a one-on-one tutoring program delivered by community volunteers (MDRC Policy Brief). New York: MDRC.
Mantzicopoulos, P., Morrison, D., Stone, E., & Setrakian, W. (1992). Use of the SEARCH/TEACH tutoring approach with middle-class students at risk for reading failure. Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 573-586.
Mayfield, L.G. (2000). The effects of structured one-on-one tutoring in sight word recognition of first-grade students at-risk for reading failure. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02), 481A.
McCarthy, P., Newby, R.F., & Recht, D.R. (1995). Results of an early intervention program for first grade children at risk for reading disability. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 273-294.
Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 133-150.
Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., . . . Tobin, B. (2003). Evaluation of an automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61-117.
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.
Pinnell, G.S., DeFord, D.E., & Lyons, C.A. (1988). Reading recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303790)
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 9-39.
Pullen, P.C., Lane, H.B., & Monaghan, M.C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(4), 21-40.
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.
Schwartz, R.M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the reading recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-267.
Smith, T.M., Cobb, P., Farran, D.C., Cordray, D.S., & Munter, C. (2013). Evaluating math recovery: Assessing the causal impact of a diagnostic tutoring program on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 397-428.
Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., Antil, L.R., Wayne, S.K., & O'Connor, R.E. (1997). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 126-139.
Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 579-590.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., & Tudor, S. (2007). Effectiveness of paraeducator-supplemented individual instruction: Beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 508-525.