|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,651||Benefits minus costs||$16,587|
|Participants||$8,905||Benefit to cost ratio||$34.10|
|Others||$3,512||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$21||benefits greater than the costs||98 %|
|Net program cost||($501)|
|Benefits minus cost||$16,587|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$4,108||$9,046||$4,016||$0||$17,171|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$518||($142)||($565)||$260||$71|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($251)||($251)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$479||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($501)|
|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|
|High school graduation||13||2||10463||0.045||0.022||18||0.045||0.022||18||0.045||0.040|
Bartik, T.J., & Lachowska, M. (2014). The effects of doubling instruction efforts on middle school students' achievement: Evidence from a mutiyear regression-discontinuity design (Working Paper 14-205). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Cortes, K., Goodman, J., & Nomi, T. (2014). Intensive math instruction and educational attainment: Long-run impacts of double-dose algebra (Working Paper 20211). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dougherty, S.M. (2015). Bridging the discontinuity in adolescent literacy?: Mixed evidence from a middle grades intervention. Education, Finance, and Policy, 10(2), 157-192.
Fryer, R.G. (2011). Injecting successful charter school strategies into traditional public schools: Early results from an experiment in Houston (NBER Working Paper 17494). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Taylor, E. (2014). Spending more of the school day in math class: Evidence from a regression discontinuity in middle school. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 162-181.