|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$481||Benefits minus costs||($2,303)|
|Participants||$996||Benefit to cost ratio||$0.18|
|Others||$418||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,390)||benefits greater than the costs||39 %|
|Net program cost||($2,808)|
|Benefits minus cost||($2,303)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$455||$1,003||$446||$0||$1,904|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$26||($7)||($28)||$12||$3|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,403)||($1,403)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$3,151||2012||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($2,808)|
|Comparison costs||$505||2012||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|
Cannon, S.J., Jacknowitz, A., & Painter, G., (2006). Is full better than half? Examining the longitudinal effects of full-day kindergarten attendance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 299-321.
Cannon, J.S., Jacknowitz, A., & Painter, G. (2011). The effect of attending full-day kindergarten on English learner students. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(2), 287-309.
Chang, M., & Singh, K. (2008). Is all-day kindergarten better for children's academic performance? Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(4), 35-42.
DeCicca, P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter? Evidence from the first two years of schooling. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 67-82.
Holmes, C.T., & McConnell, B.M. (1990). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: An experimental study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Boston, MA.
Le, V.-N., Kirby, S.N., Barney, H., Setodji, C. M., & Gershwin, D. (2006). School readiness, full-day kindergarten, and student achievement: An empirical investigation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Lee, V. E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more? American Journal of Education, 112(2), 163-208.
Votruba-Drzal, E., Li-Grining, C.P., & Maldonado-Carre o, C. (2008). A developmental perspective on full- versus part-day kindergarten and children's academic trajectories through fifth grade. Child Development, 79(4), 957-978.
Warburton, W.P., Warburton, R.N., & Hertzman, C. (2012). Does full day kindergarten help kids? Canadian Public Policy, 38(4), 591-603.
Zvoch, K., Reynolds, R.E., & Parker, R.P. (2008). Full-day kindergarten and student literacy growth: Does a lengthened school day make a difference? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 94-107.