
ALL |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
| Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benefits to: | ||||||
| Taxpayers | $4,340 | Benefits minus costs | $16,780 | |||
| Participants | $10,223 | Benefit to cost ratio | $8.94 | |||
| Others | $5,388 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
| Indirect | ($1,057) | benefits greater than the costs | 83% | |||
| Total benefits | $18,894 | |||||
| Net program cost | ($2,114) | |||||
| Benefits minus cost | $16,780 | |||||
| Meta-Analysis of Program Effects | ||||||||||||
| Outcomes measured | Treatment age | No. of effect sizes | Treatment N | 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 | |||||||||||
| ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | |||||
Test scores Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement. |
14 | 5 | 9319 | 0.084 | 0.060 | 16 | 0.081 | 0.066 | 17 | 0.084 | 0.160 | |
| Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | ||||||
| Affected outcome: | Resulting benefits:1 | Benefits accrue to: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
||
| Test scores | Labor market earnings associated with test scores | $4,340 | $10,223 | $5,388 | $0 | $19,951 |
| Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($1,057) | ($1,057) |
| Totals | $4,340 | $10,223 | $5,388 | ($1,057) | $18,894 | |
| Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
| Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program costs | $887 | 2013 | Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) | ($2,114) |
| Comparison costs | $0 | 2013 | Cost range (+ or -) | 10% |
Benefits Minus Costs |
Benefits by Perspective |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value |
| Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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. |
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2010). Project Lead the Way - Initial Program Evaluation. Portland, OR.
Rethwisch, D.G., Haynes, M.C., Starobin, S.S., Laanan, F.S., & Schenk, J.T. (2012). Proceedings from Asee Annual Conference and Exposition. A study of the impact of Project Lead the Way on achievement outcomes in Iowa. San Antonio, TX.
Tran, N.A., & Nathan, M.J. (2010). Pre-college engineering studies: An investigation of the relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in science and mathematics. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2): 143- 157.
Van Overschelde, J.P. (2013). Project lead the way students more prepared for higher education. San Marcos, TX: Texas State University.