META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $12,989 | Benefits minus costs | $26,802 | |||
Participants | $14,311 | Benefit to cost ratio | $4.63 | |||
Others | $7,730 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | ($850) | benefits greater than the costs | 83 % | |||
Total benefits | $34,180 | |||||
Net program cost | ($7,377) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $26,802 | |||||
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | |||||
Benefits from changes to:1 | Benefits to: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
|
Crime | $1,809 | $0 | $3,983 | $908 | $6,700 |
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation | $6,377 | $14,043 | $6,444 | $0 | $26,864 |
K-12 grade repetition | $403 | $0 | $0 | $203 | $606 |
K-12 special education | $2,676 | $0 | $0 | $1,335 | $4,011 |
Health care associated with educational attainment | $2,148 | ($585) | ($2,330) | $1,082 | $315 |
Costs of higher education | ($1,317) | ($1,118) | ($367) | ($662) | ($3,463) |
Subtotals | $12,096 | $12,340 | $7,730 | $2,866 | $35,032 |
From secondary participant | |||||
Labor market earnings associated with employment | $895 | $1,970 | $0 | $0 | $2,865 |
Public assistance | ($2) | $1 | $0 | ($3) | ($4) |
Subtotals | $893 | $1,971 | $0 | ($3) | $2,861 |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($3,713) | ($3,713) |
Totals | $12,989 | $14,311 | $7,730 | ($850) | $34,180 |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $6,934 | 2012 | Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars) | ($7,377) |
Comparison costs | $961 | 2012 | 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 | Primary or secondary participant | 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 | |||||||||||
ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | |||||
Crime | 4 | Primary | 1 | 902 | -0.251 | 0.174 | 26 | -0.251 | 0.174 | 36 | -0.251 | 0.149 |
High school graduation | 4 | Primary | 2 | 1184 | 0.231 | 0.091 | 21 | 0.231 | 0.091 | 21 | 0.231 | 0.011 |
K-12 grade repetition | 4 | Primary | 4 | 2023 | -0.351 | 0.068 | 12 | -0.351 | 0.068 | 12 | -0.351 | 0.001 |
K-12 special education | 4 | Primary | 3 | 1670 | -0.118 | 0.193 | 14 | -0.118 | 0.193 | 14 | -0.118 | 0.544 |
Test scores | 4 | Primary | 17 | 10799 | 0.303 | 0.029 | 4 | 0.064 | 0.031 | 17 | 0.303 | 0.001 |
Earnings* | 32 | Secondary | 1 | 5253 | 0.024 | 0.042 | 33 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 34 | 0.024 | 0.566 |
Employment | 32 | Secondary | 1 | 5253 | -0.003 | 0.017 | 33 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 34 | -0.003 | 0.851 |
Public assistance | 32 | Secondary | 1 | 5253 | 0.000 | 0.040 | 33 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 34 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Barnett, W.S., Frede, E.C., Mobasher, H., & Mohr, P. (1988). The efficacy of public preschool programs and the relationship of program quality to efficacy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(1), 37–49.
Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Youn, M., & Frede, E.C. (2013). Abbott preschool program longitudinal effects study: Fifth grade follow- up. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Frede, E., Jung, K., Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C.E., & Figueras, A. (2007). The Abbott Preschool Program longitudinal effects study (APPLES): Interim report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.
Gormley Jr, W. T., & Gayer, T. (2005). Promoting school readiness in Oklahoma: An evaluation of Tulsa's pre-k program. The Journal of Human Resources. 40(3), 533-558.
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., Jr., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness [Supplemental material]. Science, 320, 1723-1724. doi: 10.1126/science.1156019.
Hustedt, J.T., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K. & Thomas, J. (2007). The effects of the Arkansas Better Chance program on young children's school readiness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.
Hustedt, J.T., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., & Figueras-Daniel, A. (2009). Continued impacts of New Mexico pre-k on children's readiness for kindergarten: Results from the third year of implementation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.
Lipsey, M.W., Hofer, K.G., Dong, N., Farran, D.C., & Bilbrey, C. (2013). Evaluation of the Tennessee voluntary prekindergarten program: End of pre-K results from the randomized control trial. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute.
Malofeeva, E., Daniel-Echols, M., & Xiang, Z. (2007). Findings from the Michigan School Readiness Program 6 to 8 follow up study. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., & Schaaf, J.M. (2011). Evaluation of the North Carolina More at Four Pre-Kindergarten Program. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
Quay, L.C., McMurrain, M.K., Minore, D.A., Cook, L., & Steele, D.C. (1996). The longitudinal evaluation of Georgia's prekindergarten program: Results from the third year. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., White, B.A., Ou, S.R., & Robertson, D.L. (2011). Age-26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program. Child Development, 82(1), 379-404.
Reynolds, A.J. &Temple, J.A. (1995). Quasi-experimental estimates of the effects of a preschool intervention. Evaluation Review, 19(4): 347-373.
Schweinhart, L., Xiang, Z., Daniel-Echols, M., Browning, K., & Wakabayashi, T. (2012). Michigan Great Start Readiness Program evaluation 2012: High school graduation and retention findings. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Vance, B.J. (1967). The effect of preschool group experience on various language and social skills in disadvantaged children: Final Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
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, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 122-154.