|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,194||Benefits minus costs||$2,480|
|Participants||$2,465||Benefit to cost ratio||$2.66|
|Others||$1,027||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($715)||benefits greater than the costs||72 %|
|Net program cost||($1,492)|
|Benefits minus cost||$2,480|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$1,128||$2,483||$1,100||$0||$4,711|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$67||($18)||($73)||$34||$10|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($748)||($748)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,425||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($1,492)|
|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|
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.
Cobb, J.B. (2000). The effects of an early intervention program with preservice teachers as tutors on the reading achievement of primary grade at risk children. Reading Horizons, 41(3), 155-173.
Cook, J.A. (2001). Every moment counts: Pairing struggling young readers with minimally trained tutors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08), 2714A.
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.
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Kagan, J., & Byers, H. (1999). The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among 'at risk' first grade children. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(2), 143-152.
Ritter, G.W. (2000). The academic impact of volunteer tutoring in urban public elementary schools: Results of an experimental design evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03), 890A.
Weiss, J.A., Thurlow, M.L., Christenson, S.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1989). Paired reading with adult volunteer tutors as a reading intervention for students with reading difficulties. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED305606)
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.