|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$885||Benefits minus costs||$3,388|
|Participants||$1,865||Benefit to cost ratio||$14.01|
|Others||$984||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($85)||benefits greater than the costs||56 %|
|Net program cost||($261)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,388|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$794||$1,865||$984||$0||$3,643|
|K-12 grade repetition||$91||$0||$0||$45||$136|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($130)||($130)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$88||2017||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($261)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2017||Cost range (+ or -)||25 %|
|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|
|Grade point average^||9||3||259||0.075||0.155||10||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.075||0.629|
|High school graduation^^||9||1||41||0.014||0.091||18||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.044||0.629|
|K-12 grade repetition||9||1||155||-0.089||0.472||10||-0.089||0.472||10||-0.089||0.850|
|Office discipline referrals^||9||3||244||0.200||0.155||10||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.200||0.197|
Figlio, D. (2015). Experimental evidence of the effects of the Communities In Schools of Chicago Partnership Program on student achievement. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
ICF International. (2011). Communities in Schools national evaluation: Randomized controlled trial in Wichita, Kansas. 2011 follow-on report.
ICF International. (2010). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 4: Randomized controlled trial study, Jacksonville, Florida.
ICF International. (2010). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 5: Randomized controlled trial study, Austin,Texas.
ICF International (2008). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 1: School-level report. Parise, L.M., Corrin, W., Granito, K., Haider, Z., Somers, M.-A., Cerna, O., & MDRC. (2017). Two years of case management: Final findings from the Communities in Schools random assignment evaluation. MDRC.