ALL |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $5,223 | Benefits minus costs | $20,790 | |||
Participants | $12,303 | Benefit to cost ratio | $10.68 | |||
Others | $6,485 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | ($1,074) | benefits greater than the costs | 98% | |||
Total benefits | $22,937 | |||||
Net program cost | ($2,147) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $20,790 | |||||
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 | |||||||||||
ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | |||||
Test scores Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement. |
7 | 12 | 1572 | 0.239 | 0.041 | 7 | 0.112 | 0.045 | 17 | 0.258 | 0.001 |
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | ||||||
Affected outcome: | Resulting benefits:1 | Benefits accrue to: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
||
Test scores | Labor market earnings associated with test scores | $5,223 | $12,303 | $6,485 | $0 | $24,011 |
Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($1,074) | ($1,074) |
Totals | $5,223 | $12,303 | $6,485 | ($1,074) | $22,937 | |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $1,893 | 2018 | Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) | ($2,147) |
Comparison costs | $0 | 2018 | Cost range (+ or -) | 20% |
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. |
Kerins, M.R., Trotter, D., & Schoenbrodt, L. (2010). Effects of a tier 2 intervention on literacy measures: Lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 287-302.
Lennon, J.E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a screening and intervention program for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 353-364.
Mathes, P.G., Denton, C., Anthony, J., Francis, D., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.
Ransford-Kaldon, C.R., Flynt, E.S., Ross, C.L., Franceschini, L., Zoblotsky, T., Huang, Y., & Gallagher, B. (2010). Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) 2009-2010. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.
Rashotte, C.A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119-134.
Rolfhus, E., Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Decker, L.E., Wilkins, C., & Dimino, J. (2012). An Evaluation of Number Rockets: A tier-2 intervention for grade 1 students at risk for difficulties in mathematics Final Report (NCEE 2012-4007). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56.
Torgeson, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D. . . . Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I final report: Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.