|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,611||Benefits minus costs||$12,530|
|Participants||$8,482||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.66|
|Others||$4,474||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,346)||benefits greater than the costs||92 %|
|Net program cost||($2,691)|
|Benefits minus cost||$12,530|
|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|
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Test scores||Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$3,611||$8,482||$4,474||$0||$16,567|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,346)||($1,346)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,654||2018||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($2,691)|
|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.|
Allor, J., & McCathren, R. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutoring program implemented by college students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(2), 116-129.
Fives, A., Kearns, N., Devaney, C., Canavan, J., Russell, D., Lyons, R., . . . O'Brien, A. (2013). A one-to-one programme for at-risk readers delivered by older adult volunteers. Review of Education, 1(3), 254-280.
Fuchs, L.S., Geary, D.C., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Schatschneider, C., Hamlett, C. L., . . . Changas, P. (2013). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 58-77.
Jacob, R.T., Smith, T.J., Willard, J.A., & Rifkin, R.E. (2014). Reading Partners: The implementation and effectiveness of a one-on-one tutoring program delivered by community volunteers (MDRC Policy Brief). New York: MDRC.
Jenkins, J., Peyton, J., Sanders, E., & Vadasy, P. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1) 53-85.
Lee, Y.S., Morrow-Howell, N., Jonson-Reid, M., & McCrary, S. (2010). The effect of the Experience Corps® Program on student reading outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 44(1) 97-118.
May, H., Gray, A., Gillespie, J., Sirinides, P., Sam, C., Goldsworthy, H., . . . Tognatta, N. (2013). Evaluation of the i3 scale-up of reading recovery: Year one report, 2011-12. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
May, H., Goldsworthy, H., Armijo, M., Gray, A., Sirinides, P., & Blalock, T. (2014). Evaluation of the i3 scale-up of reading recovery. Year two report, 2012-13. UPenn. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Mayfield, L.G. (2000). The effects of structured one-on-one tutoring in sight word recognition of first-grade students at-risk for reading failure. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02), 481A.
Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 133-150.
Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., . . . Tobin, B. (2003). Evaluation of an automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61-117.
Nielson, B.B. (1992). Effects of parent and volunteer tutoring on reading achievement of third grade at-risk students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(10), 3570A.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 9-39.
Pullen, P.C., Lane, H.B., & Monaghan, M.C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(4), 21-40.
Rodick, J.D., & Henggeler, S.W. (1980). The short-term and long-term amelioration of academic and motivational deficiencies among low-achieving inner-city adolescents. Child Development, 51(4), 1126-1132.
Rutt, S., Easton, C., & Oliver, S. (2014). Catch up numeracy: Evaluation report and executive summary. National Foundation for Educational Research.
Schwartz, R.M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the reading recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-267.
Smith, T.M., Cobb, P., Farran, D.C., Cordray, D.S., & Munter, C. (2013). Evaluating math recovery: Assessing the causal impact of a diagnostic tutoring program on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 397-428.
Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2008). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: a replication and comparison of instructional groupings. Reading and Writing, 21(9) 929-963.
Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: How language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(6) 471-497.
Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., Antil, L.R., Wayne, S.K., & O'Connor, R.E. (1997). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 126-139.
Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 579-590.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., & Tudor, S. (2007). Effectiveness of paraeducator-supplemented individual instruction: Beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 508-525.
Vadasy, P.F. & Sanders, E.A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4) 786.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., & Peyton, J.A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508-528.