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

Summer outreach counseling (for high school graduates)

Higher Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2019.  Literature review updated December 2016.
Open PDF
Throughout the summer, counselors provide support and outreach on financial aid tasks, informational barriers, and social or emotional challenges related to the college transition. Counselors may reach out via email, in-person consultations, phone, text, or instant messages. Summer outreach counseling occurs during the three months between high school graduation and the first year of college.
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 (2018). 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 $3,206 Benefits minus costs $15,526
Participants $7,989 Benefit to cost ratio $154.33
Others $4,963 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($531) benefits greater than the costs 89 %
Total benefits $15,628
Net program cost ($101)
Benefits minus cost $15,526

^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
18 2 1015 -0.026 0.072 18 -0.026 0.072 18 -0.026 0.721
18 2 1015 0.118 0.053 18 0.118 0.053 18 0.118 0.025
18 5 4697 0.102 0.033 18 n/a n/a n/a 0.137 0.030
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
Enroll in 2-year college Labor market earnings associated with higher education $4,167 $9,789 $5,528 $0 $19,485
Costs of higher education ($961) ($1,800) ($565) ($481) ($3,807)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($51) ($51)
Totals $3,206 $7,989 $4,963 ($531) $15,628
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $87 2009 Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars) ($101)
Comparison costs $0 2009 Cost range (+ or -) 20 %
Costs come from studies included in the meta-analysis. We calculate a weighted average of costs across the studies included in the meta-analysis. Costs include counselor time, peer mentor time, and material and postage occurring during the summer months after high school graduation.
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

Castleman, B.L., & Page, L.C. (2015). Summer nudging: Can personalized text messages and peer mentor outreach increase college going among low-income high school graduates? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115(3), 144-160.

Castleman, B.L., Arnold, K., & Wartman, K.L. (2012). Stemming the tide of summer melt: An experimental study of the effects of post-high school summer intervention on low-income students’ college enrollment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(1), 1-17.

Castleman, B.L., Page, L.C., & Schooley, K. (2014). The forgotten summer: Does the offer of college counseling after high school mitigate summer melt among college-intending, low-income high school graduates? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 320-344.

Castleman, B.L., Owen, L., & Page, L.C. (2015). Stay late or start early? Experimental evidence on the benefits of college matriculation support from high schools versus colleges. Economics of Education Review, 47, 168-179.

Daugherty, L. (2012). Summer Link: A counseling intervention to address the transition from high school to college in a large urban district. Paper presented at the 2012 Fall Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Baltimore, MD.