|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,644||Benefits minus costs||$5,101|
|Participants||$3,410||Benefit to cost ratio||$6.40|
|Others||$1,434||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($442)||benefits greater than the costs||93 %|
|Net program cost||($945)|
|Benefits minus cost||$5,101|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$1,588||$3,498||$1,557||$0||$6,643|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$96||($26)||($105)||$48||$13|
|Costs of higher education||($41)||($62)||($18)||($20)||($141)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($470)||($470)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$917||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($945)|
|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.
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.
Meier, J.D., & Invernizzi, M. (2001). Book Buddies in the Bronx: Testing a model for America Reads. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(4), 319-33.
Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 133-150.
Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., Antil, L.R., Wayne, S.K., & O'Connor, R.E. (1997). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 126-139.
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.