|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$6,499||Benefits minus costs||$15,022|
|Participants||$11,986||Benefit to cost ratio||$3.15|
|Others||$6,323||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($2,797)||benefits greater than the costs||78 %|
|Net program cost||($6,990)|
|Benefits minus cost||$15,022|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$5,103||$11,986||$6,323||$0||$23,412|
|K-12 grade repetition||$152||$0||$0||$76||$228|
|K-12 special education||$1,244||$0||$0||$622||$1,866|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($3,495)||($3,495)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$9,330||2018||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($6,990)|
|Comparison costs||$2,340||2018||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^||4||1||991||0.056||0.045||12||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.056||0.212|
|K-12 grade repetition||4||3||513943||-0.156||0.117||9||-0.156||0.117||9||-0.156||0.181|
|K-12 special education||4||1||991||-0.079||0.060||12||-0.079||0.060||12||-0.079||0.186|
|Office discipline referrals^||4||1||29709||-0.010||0.011||7||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.010||0.348|
Bartik, T.J., Gormley, W.T., Belford, J.A., Anderson, S. (2016). A benefit-cost analysis of the Tulsa universal pre-k program (Upjohn Institute Working Paper 16-261). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Figlio, D., & Roth, J. (2009). The behavioral consequences of pre-kindergarten participation for disadvantaged youth. In Gruber, J. (Ed.), The Problems of disadvantaged youth: An economic perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gormley, W.T., Jr., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872-884.
Gormley, W.T., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science, 320(5884), 1723-4.
Gormley, W.T., Phillips, D., & Anderson, S. (2018). The effects of Tulsa's pre-k program on middle school student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(1), 63-87.
Hill, C.J., Gormley, W.T., & Adelstein, S. (2015). Do the short-term effects of a high-quality preschool program persist? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32(3), 60-79.
Miller, L.C., & Bassok, D. (2019). The effects of universal preschool on grade retention. Education Finance and Policy, 14(2), 149-177.
Weiland, C., Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children' mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112-2130.
Wong, V.C., Cook, B., & Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 122-154.