|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,204||Benefits minus costs||$9,256|
|Participants||$5,178||Benefit to cost ratio||$17.18|
|Others||$2,731||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($286)||benefits greater than the costs||78 %|
|Net program cost||($572)|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,256|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$2,204||$5,178||$2,731||$0||$10,113|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($286)||($286)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$536||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($572)|
|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|
Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., Silverman, R., Ritchey, K.D., Schatschneider, C., Cooper, D.H., . . . Jacobs, D. (2010). Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 5.
Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J.D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493-513.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K.N., Hamlett, C.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students' math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 491-509.
Gilbert, J.K., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L.A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(20, 135-154.
Gottshall, D.L. (2007). Gottshall early reading intervention: A phonics based approach to enhance the achievement of low performing, rural, first grade boys (Doctoral dissertation). Denton, TX: University of North Texas.
Jordan, N.C., Glutting, J., Dyson, N., Hassinger-Das, B., & Irwin, C. (2012). Building kindergartners' number sense: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 647-660.
Ritchey, K.D., Silverman, R.D., Montanaro, E.A., Speece, D.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 318-334.
Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2008). Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions with readers' skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272-290.