|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,066||Benefits minus costs||$15,910|
|Participants||$8,397||Benefit to cost ratio||$137.88|
|Others||$3,509||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$54||benefits greater than the costs||83 %|
|Net program cost||($116)|
|Benefits minus cost||$15,910|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$3,841||$8,458||$3,754||$0||$16,054|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$225||($61)||($245)||$113||$31|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($58)||($58)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$111||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($116)|
|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|
Dion, E., Roux, C., Landry, D., Fuchs, D., Wehby, J., & Dupere, V. (2011). Improving attention and preventing reading difficulties among low-income first-graders: A randomized study. Prevention Science, 12(1), 70-79.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309-318.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 201-219.
Greenwood, C.R., & Terry, B. (1993). Achievement, placement, and services: Middle school benefits of classwide peer tutoring used at the elementary school. School Psychology Review, 22(3), 497-516.
Lamport, K.C. (1983). The effects of inverse tutoring on reading disabled students in a public school setting. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(03), 729A.
Mathes, P.G., & Fuchs, L.S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(4), 233-243.
Trovato, J., & Bucher, B. (1980). Peer tutoring with or without home-based reinforcement, for reading remediation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(1), 129-41.