|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$838||Benefits minus costs||$744|
|Participants||$1,726||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.44|
|Others||$702||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($830)||benefits greater than the costs||58 %|
|Net program cost||($1,692)|
|Benefits minus cost||$744|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$809||$1,782||$793||$0||$3,385|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$72||($20)||($79)||$36||$10|
|Costs of higher education||($44)||($37)||($12)||($22)||($115)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($844)||($844)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,550||2010||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($1,692)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2010||Cost range (+ or -)||30 %|
|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|
Deke, J., Gill, B., Dragoset, L., & Bogen, K. (2014). Effectiveness of Supplemental Educational Services. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(2), 137-165.
Heinrich, C.J., Burch, P., Good, A., Acosta, R., Cheng, H., Dillender, M., . . . Stewart, M. (2014). Improving the implementation and effectiveness of out of-school time tutoring. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1-34.
Munoz, M.A., Potter, A.P., & Ross, S.M. (2008). Supplemental Educational Services as a consequence of the NCLB legislation: Evaluating its impact on student achievement in a large urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13(1), 1-25.
Munoz, M.A., Chang, F., & Ross, S.M. (2012). No Child Left Behind and tutoring in reading and mathematics: Impact of Supplemental Educational Services on large scale assessment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(3), 186-200.
Springer, M.G., Pepper, M.J., & Ghosh-Dastidar, B. (2014). Supplemental Educational Services and student test score gains: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Working Paper. Journal of Education Finance, 39(4), 370-403.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., & Lockwood, J.R. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I - Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
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.