ALL |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $1,978 | Benefits minus costs | $7,427 | |||
Participants | $4,660 | Benefit to cost ratio | $7.68 | |||
Others | $2,456 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | ($556) | benefits greater than the costs | 94% | |||
Total benefits | $8,539 | |||||
Net program cost | ($1,112) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $7,427 | |||||
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 | |||||||||||
ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | |||||
Test scores Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement. |
9 | 6 | 6082 | 0.068 | 0.018 | 9 | 0.041 | 0.020 | 17 | 0.259 | 0.033 |
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 | $1,978 | $4,660 | $2,456 | $0 | $9,095 |
Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($556) | ($556) |
Totals | $1,978 | $4,660 | $2,456 | ($556) | $8,539 | |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $917 | 2013 | Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) | ($1,112) |
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. |
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494-519.
McKinney, A.D. (1995). The effects of an after-school tutorial and enrichment program on the academic achievement and self-concept of below grade level first and second grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(06), 2176A.
Meier, J.D., & Invernizzi, M. (2001). Book Buddies in the Bronx: Testing a model for America Reads. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(4), 319-33.
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.
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.
Zimmer, R., Hamilton, L., & Christina, R. (2010). After-school tutoring in the context of No Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), 18-28.