Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and related economic evaluation methods (cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) have increasingly been applied to prevention and intervention programs for youth and young adults to assess their costs as well as the gains that may be anticipated from investing in these programs. This work reflects in part the growing prominence of evidence-based programs, policies, and practices as well as evidence-informed decision making. The papers included in this special issue represent a range of topics and issues, including the need for accurate and comprehensive assessment of program costs, high-quality BCAs of prevention and intervention programs, increasing recognition of the importance of monetizing noncognitive outcomes, and the role of BCA in pay for success financing arrangements. This introduction (a) describes the evidence-based context in which this work plays a role, (b) summarizes the practical and theoretical contributions of the papers, and (c) identifies the common themes.

The prospect of improving “noncognitive” skills through intervention increases the need to understand how to represent them in evaluations. Economic assessment of such efforts rarely incorporates these factors, especially when a benefit-cost approach is employed. Programs targeting such skills are more likely to be assessed through approaches that do not monetize noncognitive ability (e.g., using cost-effectiveness analysis). This could lead to ineffective policy formulations in situations where policy is swayed toward programs that can show monetized effects. Benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) that are employed for programs that target noncognitive competencies currently may underestimate the true economic impact if such skills are left out of the equation. The limitations in valuing these skills impede thorough economic assessment for important and effective programs that target noncognitive competencies. This is especially the case for programs for younger children where readily monetized outcomes are few. The targeted outcomes in programs for children are often noncognitive skills, skills that are perceived as vital to healthy human development and valued by parents, teachers, and educators.

In this paper, we review the state of valuation of key noncognitive skills that are often targeted in social policy intervention directed toward children in youth. We examine the state of valuation of noncognitive skills through a summary of the frameworks in research for characterizing noncognitive ability and by considering the measurement approaches for noncognitive skills in terms of origin (interpersonal versus intrapersonal) and measurement type (observed versus assessed). We review examples of recent BCAs that have employed shadow prices for certain noncognitive skills. Finally, we consider what research is necessary to facilitate valuation in BCA in the future. Shadow price methodology should be carried out in a rigorous manner that recognizes uncertainty in cost projections. Improved methodologies in this area will increase the potential for more comprehensive BCA in evaluations of programs for children and youth.

There is a growing body of research emphasizing the advantages of teaching students social and emotional (SE) skills in school. Here we examine the economic value of these skills within a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) framework. Our examination has three parts. First, we describe how the current method of BCA must be expanded to adequately evaluate SE skills, and we identify important decisions analysts must make. Second, we review the evidence on the benefits of SE skills, again noting key methodological issues with respect to shadow pricing. Finally, we perform BCA of four selected social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions: 4Rs; Second Step, Life Skills Training; and Responsive Classroom. These analyses illustrate both methodological and empirical challenges in estimating net present values for these interventions. Even with these challenges, we find that the benefits of these interventions substantially outweigh the costs. We highlight promising areas of research for improving the application of BCA to SEL.

Purpose: There is limited research on the costs of social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions [Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg & Spoth (2012). Resource Consumption of a Diffusion Model for Prevention Programs: The PROSPER Delivery System. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50 (3), 256–263]. This paper describes a comprehensive methodology for determining the costs of a successful universal, school-based SEL intervention that was implemented in nine public schools over 3 years.

Methods: Resource costs were identified using the Cost–Procedure–Process–Outcome Analysis Model [Yates (1996). Analyzing Costs, Procedures, Processes, and Outcomes in Human Services. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.; Yates (1999). Measuring and Improving Cost, Cost-Effectiveness, and Cost-Benefit for Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. No. NIH 99-4518, 135] and the ingredients model [Levin (Ed.) (1983). Cost-Effectiveness A Primer (Vol. 4). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Levin & McEwan (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]. This involved careful identification of resource use, finding the cost per unit for each resource by intervention activity, and ultimately calculating the total resource cost (resource use $\times$ cost per unit).

Results: Our analysis estimated the overall cost of this 3-year SEL and literacy intervention to be $1,831,296 for nine schools. This averages to $67,825 yearly per school and $130 yearly for each student. The analysis estimated the first year of the intervention to be the costliest ($683,106) and then decreasing in Year 2 ($581,764) and Year 3 ($566,426).

Conclusion: This research emphasizes the need to study the costs of SEL interventions. By providing a detailed and standardized methodology, this cost analysis can provide added support for implementing an effective social and emotional learning intervention in a school setting. Furthermore, it provides groundwork for more advanced cost analyses, such as a cost–effectiveness analysis or a benefit-cost analysis (BCA).

Talent Search was created to improve high school completion and college enrollment for disadvantaged students. Since the program’s inception in 1967, there has not been a valid study on its economic value. In this paper, we perform a full economic evaluation, yielding direct information on the value of Talent Search and highlighting key methodological issues relating to economic evaluations of education programs. We provide rigorous estimates of social costs using the ingredients method. Using prior estimates of impacts from Constantine et al. [(2006). Study Of The Effect of The Talent Search Program On Secondary And Postsecondary Outcomes In Florida, Indiana And Texas: Final Report From Phase II of The National Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service], we perform a cost-benefit analysis based on new estimates of shadow prices. Finally, to examine site-specific differences in impacts and costs, we undertake cost-effectiveness analysis and derive confidence intervals that illustrate key sensitivity issues. Regarding costs, we find significant resource use beyond federal funding amounts; but we also find that the present value benefits of Talent Search almost certainly exceed the present value of costs by a substantial margin. With regard to cost-effectiveness, we find significant differences across sites and extremely wide confidence intervals. We conclude with an outline of key research issues that need to be addressed to enhance future economic evaluations in educational settings with wide site-specific variation.

This paper reports on a benefit-cost analysis of a targeted intervention program, the YouthBuild USA Offender Project (YBOP), aimed at low-income, criminal offenders who are 16–24 years old. Using data on 388 participants, we find: (1) evidence of reduced recidivism and improved educational outcomes that exceed our expectations based on similar cohorts and (2) evidence consistent with a positive benefit-cost ratio, indicating that every dollar spent on the YBOP is estimated to produce a return on investment between $7.20 and $21.60, with benefits to society ranging between $174,000 and $281,000 per participant at a cost to society between $13,000 and $24,000.

Increasing access to effective preschool programs is a high priority at local, state, and federal levels. Recently, two initiatives to expand preschool programming in Illinois and Utah have used funds from private investors to scale up existing programs. Private-sector social impact investors provide funding to nonprofit or public preschool providers to increase the number of children served. If the measured outcomes from preschool participation meet predetermined goals, then the estimated government cost savings arising from these preschool interventions are used to repay the investors. Social impact investing with a “Pay-for-Success” contract can help budget-constrained governments expand proven or promising preventive interventions without the need to increase taxes. Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) plays a crucial role in helping to identify which social, educational, or health interventions are suitable for this type of innovative financing. Benefit-cost analysts are needed to design the structure of the success payments that the government will make to the private investors. This paper describes social impact borrowing as a new method for financing public services, outlines the contribution of BCA, and discusses the innovative use of social impact financing to promote scaling evidence-based Child-Parent Centers and other early childhood programs.