Back Button

Parent communication for attendance

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated December 2025.
Programs in this analysis use communication with parents to try to improve attendance among K-12 students. Communication may consist of general information about the benefits of attendance or specific information about a student’s number of absences and missed class content. Some studies directed communication to all parents, while others targeted parents of students who were chronically absent. Interventions in this analysis communicated through texts or emails, or through letters or mailers. Communication with parents may occur once, on a regular schedule (e.g., monthly), or each time a student is absent.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $68 Benefits minus costs $301
Participants $160 Benefit to cost ratio $41.19
Others $84 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($4) benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $308
Net program cost ($7)
Benefits minus cost $301

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N 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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Suspensions/expulsions^
In-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, or expulsions from school.
 9 1 484 -0.032 0.094 9 n/a n/a n/a -0.032 0.736
Test scores^^
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
9 1 2407 -0.030 0.028 9 -0.018 0.031 17 -0.030 0.281
School attendance
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
 9 6 32378 0.053 0.010 9 0.053 0.010 9 0.053 0.001
Chronic absenteeism^
Missing 10% or more of school days in a typical 180-day academic year.
 9 2 12876 -0.116 0.026 9 n/a n/a n/a -0.116 0.001
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
School attendance Labor market earnings associated with test scores $68 $160 $84 $0 $312
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($4) ($4)
Totals $68 $160 $84 ($4) $308
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $6 2017 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($7)
Comparison costs $0 2017 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
We used per-student costs reported by five studies that evaluated parent communication interventions. For three studies evaluating text-based communication, costs consisted of a messaging platform and time spent setting up the messaging system. For the two studies evaluating mail-based communication, costs consisted of staff time and mail production. Per-student costs were very similar across the two intervention approaches ($6.30 and $6.14, respectively) and averaged for overall costs. Bergman, P., & Chan, E.W. (2021). Leveraging parents through low-cost technology: The impact of high-frequency information on student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 125–158. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.1.1118-9837R1 Heppen, J.B., Kurki, A., & Brown, S. (2020). Can texting parents improve attendance in elementary school? A test of an adaptive messaging strategy. Evaluation report. NCEE 2020-006 (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance). (ED607613). https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9c532a50-b32b-3bce-86f8-841684330b03 Robinson, C.D., Lee, M.G., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1163–1192. (EJ1196789). https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274 Rogers, T., & Feller, A. (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents’ misbeliefs. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0328-1 Swanson, E., Thompson, S., Ash, J., Didriksen, H., Kane, T. J., Staiger, D.O., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2025). Lifting up attendance in rural districts: A multi-site trial of a personalized messaging campaign. EdWorkingPaper No. 25-1189 (Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University). (ED673996). https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=ea671093-4d9a-34bd-a2a4-77826bc9d6fc
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
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.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Bergman, P., & Chan, E.W. (2019). Leveraging parents through low-cost technology: The impact of high-frequency information on student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 125–158.

Heppen, J.B., Kurki, A., & Brown, S. (2020). Can texting parents improve attendance in elementary school? A test of an adaptive messaging strategy (NCEE 2020-006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Himmelsbach, Z., Weisenfeld, D., Lee, J.R., Hersh, D., Sanbonmatsu, L., Staiger, D. O., & Kane, T.J. (2022). Your child missed learning the alphabet today: A randomized trial of sending teacher-written postcards home to reduce absences. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15(2), 263–278.

Mac Iver, M.A., Wills, K., Cruz, A., & Mac Iver, D.J. (2020). The impact of nudge letters on improving attendance in an urban district.

Musaddiq, T., Prettyman, A., & Smith, J. (2024). Using existing school messaging platforms to inform parents about their child’s attendance. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 17(4), 770–805.

Robinson, C.D., Lee, M.G., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1163–1192.

Rogers, T., & Feller, A. (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents’ misbeliefs. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 335–342.