|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,478||Benefits minus costs||$5,726|
|Participants||$3,056||Benefit to cost ratio||$74.67|
|Others||$1,267||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$2||benefits greater than the costs||64 %|
|Net program cost||($78)|
|Benefits minus cost||$5,726|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$1,398||$3,078||$1,354||$0||$5,830|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$81||($22)||($88)||$41||$12|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($39)||($39)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$106||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($78)|
|Comparison costs||$29||2009||Cost range (+ or -)||20 %|
|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|
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., . . . Ali, M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Rockoff, J.E. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees? Evidence from teachers in New York City (Working Paper No. 13868). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Wechsler, M.E., Caspary, K., Humphrey, D.C., & Matsko, K.K. (2010). Examining the effects of new teacher induction. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.