skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Dual enrollment (for high school students)

Higher Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated December 2017.
Open PDF
Dual enrollment allows high school juniors and seniors to enroll in courses at a community, technical, and (some) four-year colleges. Students participating in dual enrollment simultaneously earn transferrable college and high school credits while still enrolled in high school. Students elect to participate in dual enrollment programs; the tuition costs are generally paid by the school district and the college. Washington State’s dual enrollment program is Running Start. We report on college in the high school and early college high school programs separately.
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 (2022). 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 $8,044 Benefits minus costs $32,412
Participants $17,385 Benefit to cost ratio $19.22
Others $9,723 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($960) benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $34,191
Net program cost ($1,779)
Benefits minus cost $32,412

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

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, 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.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease 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. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. 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 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
17 4 22848 0.177 0.114 18 0.177 0.114 18 0.193 0.210
17 2 20206 0.053 0.205 18 0.053 0.205 18 -0.014 0.959
17 2 275 0.106 0.061 17 n/a n/a n/a 0.228 0.023
17 1 1700 -0.270 0.035 21 -0.270 0.035 21 -0.270 0.001
17 1 9723 0.196 0.013 23 0.196 0.013 23 0.196 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
High school graduation Criminal justice system $44 $0 $109 $22 $175
Enroll in 2-year college Labor market earnings associated with higher education $8,185 $19,281 $10,300 $0 $37,766
Costs of higher education ($186) ($1,897) ($686) ($93) ($2,861)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($889) ($889)
Totals $8,044 $17,385 $9,723 ($960) $34,191
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $10,188 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($1,779)
Comparison costs $8,695 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
WSIPP estimates the total cost of one year of dual enrollment by taking the difference between WSIPP's per-student estimate of the total expenditures per community and technical college (CTC) student and WSIPP's per-student estimate of the total cost of regular K-12 education. The average Running Start student in Washington enrolls in 11 credits per quarter (Cowan & Goldhaber, 2015). This equates to a 0.73 of a student FTE (based on a full-time load of 15 credits). WSIPP's estimates are based on this average credit load.
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

Cowan, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2015). How much of A ``Running Start'' do dual enrollment programs provide students? Review of Higher Education, 38(3), 425-460.

Karp, M.M., Calcagno, J.C., Hughes, K.L., Jeong, D.W., & Bailey, T.R. (2007). The postsecondary achievement of participants in dual enrollment: An analysis of student outcomes in two states. St. Paul, MN : National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

Rodriguez, O., Belfield, C., Hughes, K.L., & National Center for Postsecondary Research (Ed). (2012). Bridging college and careers: Using dual enrollment to enhance careerand technical education pathways. Ncpr Brief.

Speroni, C. (2012). High school dual enrollment programs: Are we fast-tracking students too fast? Ncpr Brief. New York: National Center for Postsecondary Education.