|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$898||Benefits minus costs||$2,269|
|Participants||$2,110||Benefit to cost ratio||$2.84|
|Others||$1,113||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($618)||benefits greater than the costs||69 %|
|Net program cost||($1,235)|
|Benefits minus cost||$2,269|
|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|
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
Grade point average
Non-standardized measure of student performance calculated across subjects.
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|null||Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$898||$2,110||$1,113||$0||$4,122|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($618)||($618)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,218||2018||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($1,235)|
|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.|
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494-519.
Cobb, J.B. (2000). The effects of an early intervention program with preservice teachers as tutors on the reading achievement of primary grade at risk children. Reading Horizons, 41(3), 155-173.
Cook, J.A. (2001). Every moment counts: Pairing struggling young readers with minimally trained tutors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08), 2714A.
McKinney, A.D. (1995). The effects of an after-school tutorial and enrichment program on the academic achievement and self-concept of below grade level first and second grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(06), 2176A.
Ritter, G.W. (2000). The academic impact of volunteer tutoring in urban public elementary schools: Results of an experimental design evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03), 890A.
Zimmer, R., Hamilton, L., & Christina, R. (2010). After-school tutoring in the context of No Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), 18-28.