|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($1,685)||Benefits minus costs||($11,402)|
|Participants||($3,959)||Benefit to cost ratio||($3.66)|
|Others||($2,088)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,223)||benefits greater than the costs||13 %|
|Net program cost||($2,446)|
|Benefits minus cost||($11,402)|
|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|
Grade point average^
Non-standardized measure of student performance calculated across subjects.
Office discipline referrals^
Referrals of a student to an administrative office for disciplinary reasons.
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Test scores||Labor market earnings associated with test scores||($1,685)||($3,959)||($2,088)||$0||($7,733)|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,223)||($1,223)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,322||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($2,446)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||Cost range (+ or -)||70 %|
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
|Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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.|
Akos, P. (2000). Mentoring in the middle: The effectiveness of a school based peer mentoring program. (Dissertation). University of Virginia, VA.
Bernstein, L., Rappaport, C.D., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009). Impact evaluation of the US Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program. Final report. NCEE 2009-4047. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
McQuillin, S., Smith, B., & Strait, G. (2011). Randomized evaluation of a single semester transitional mentoring program for first year middle school students: a cautionary result for brief, school-based mentoring programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(7), 844-859.
McQuillin, S., Strait, G., Smith, B., & Ingram, A. (2015). Brief instrumental school-based mentoring for first-and second-year middle school students: A randomized evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(7), 885-899.