scholarly journals Considering Valuation of Noncognitive Skills in Benefit-Cost Analysis of Programs for Children

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damon E. Jones ◽  
Lynn A. Karoly ◽  
D. Max Crowley ◽  
Mark T. Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Shadow Price ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
The State ◽  
Noncognitive Skills ◽  
Healthy Human ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Noncognitive Ability ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Ineffective Policy

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.

Case Study of Benefit–Cost Analysis of an Intercity Passenger Rail Service

2017 ◽  
Vol 2608 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-85
Author(s):  
Francis E. Loetterle ◽  
Melanie Johnson ◽  
Charles Quandel ◽  
Carey Barr ◽  
Andrew Komendantov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Project Assessment ◽  
Passenger Rail ◽  
Target Field ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Rail Service

The economic assessment of transportation projects is evolving from a reliance on user benefits (travel time, cost, or safety) to encompass a wider spectrum of potential benefits, fostered by advances in economics and recognition that different project modes deliver different portfolios of benefits. Sponsors develop projects to address specific problems in their communities. This progression in how investments are evaluated opens the door for projects whose outcomes span a variety of benefit categories rather than concentrating on traditional user benefits and permits an improved intermodal comparison of candidate investments. Transit and intercity rail projects are particular beneficiaries of the broader project assessment approach. This paper presents a case study of how a comprehensive approach to project assessment was applied to the Northern Lights Express project that would reintroduce passenger rail service between the cities of Minneapolis and Duluth, Minnesota, the state's largest economies. Owned and operated by BNSF Railway, Amtrak's service in the corridor ended in 1985. Six stations are planned: Target Field in Minneapolis; stations in Coon Rapids, Cambridge, and Hinckley, Minnesota; a station in Superior, Wisconsin; and Union Depot in Duluth. The goal for the analysis was threefold: ( a) to confirm that the investment would yield a positive return; ( b) to communicate with partners, stakeholders, and the public about the project's expected outcomes; and ( c) to contribute to the selection of an alternative. The benefit–cost ratio was estimated for eight alternatives that varied by physical alignment and service plan.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in the State of Washington

2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 609-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. French ◽  
Helena J. Salomé ◽  
Antoinette Krupski ◽  
James R. Mckay ◽  
Dennis M. Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Addiction Treatment ◽  
The State ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

scholarly journals More appropriate discounting: the rate of social time preference and the value of the social discount rate

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Moore ◽  
Anthony E. Boardman ◽  
Aidan R. Vining
Keyword(s):  
Discount Rate ◽  
Time Preference ◽  
Shadow Price ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
Social Discount Rate ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Public Projects ◽  
Social Time ◽  
The Social ◽  
Benefit Cost

Recently, a number of authors, including Burgess and Zerbe, have recommended the use of a real social discount rate (SDR) in the range of 6–8% in benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of public projects. They derive this rate based on the social opportunity cost of capital (SOC) method. In contrast, this article argues that the correct method is to discount future impacts based on the rate of social time preference (STP). Flows in or out of private investment should be multiplied by the shadow price of capital (SPC). Using this method and employing recent United States data, we obtain an estimate of the rate of STP of 3.5% and an SPC of 2.2. We also re-estimate the SDR using the SOC method and conclude that, even if analysts continue to use this method, they should use a considerably lower rate of about 5%.

scholarly journals An experts’ opinion-based comparison and benefit cost analysis of post-mortem versus tuberculin skin test surveillance systems, Mpumalanga, South Africa

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudo Marange ◽  
Folorunso Fasina ◽  
Bjorn Reininghaus ◽  
Darshana Morar-Leather
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Tuberculin Skin Test ◽  
Skin Test ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Personnel Cost ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is a global health concern caused mostly by Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) in animals and humans respectively. As part of TB control strategies, most governments instituted test and slaughter policies for bovine TB (bTB) eradication with varied level of success.MethodsUsing the SurvCost® (http://www.cdc.gov/idsr/survcost.htm), we evaluated the postmortem surveillance (PMS) system as an alternative to the tuberculin skin test (TST). Experts’opinions survey was used to collect information on the perceived level of acceptability of PMS and TST, successes and challenges of both surveillance systems, economic and budget data. Benefit cost analysis of both systems were evaluated and the comparative economic benefit of PMS over TST was determined.ResultsTST implementation was challenging due to poor logistics, procurement challenge, poor feedback, inconsistency in testing and poor return rate for retesting. Experts agreed that PMS was cheaper but almost impracticable due to late detection and probable poor compliance rate but farmers were more open to PMS than TST. Personnel cost remains the largest part of the surveillance cost (47.8% of total costs). TST and PMS systems can be up to 4.40 and 5.96 times more beneficial that not tackling bTB respectively and PMS is 1.35 more cost beneficial that TST.ConclusionWhile TST is empirical, compliance by farmers was poor due to the associated inconveniences. In the alternative, PMS was convenient for farmers but experts believed that adherence will be poor unless increased manpower is available. We advocated for a blended approach between the two systems. Improved field surveillance and detailed economic data should benefit future economic assessment.Trial registrationNot applicable.

How Systems Analysis, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, or Benefit-Cost Analysis First Became Influential in Federal Government Program Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Enthoven
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Systems Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Rand Corporation ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

AbstractIn 1948, the RAND Corporation, formed to connect military planning with research and development decisions, became an independent nonprofit organization. Before then, cost-effectiveness analysis, benefit-cost analysis, and systems analysis had no established home in the federal government. In the 1950s, under the leadership of Charles Hitch, Chief, RAND Economics, undertook a program of activities they called “systems analysis,” including evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of weapon systems. In 1961, Robert McNamara appointed Hitch to be the Comptroller of the Department of Defense and invited Hitch to carry out his vision he described as “Programming and Systems Analysis.” Programming became the Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS) and the Five-Year Defense Program that linked strategies to forces to budgets. Systems Analysis assisted the Secretary to make choices of weapon systems and strategies. In 1965, Hitch returned to California and ultimately became President of the university. McNamara wanted Systems Analysis to report directly to him, and on his recommendation, President Lyndon Johnson appointed me Assistant Secretary for Systems Analysis. In 1966, the President directed that all departments in the executive branch establish offices based on the Systems Analysis model. In 1967, Henry S. Rowen became President of the RAND Corporation. He broadened RAND’s scope beyond the military to include Health Services, education, urban problems including homelessness, ethics in scientific research, and climate research. In 1970, Rowen led the establishment of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, offering a doctoral degree in Public Policy Analysis to extend widely the application of the RAND Systems Analysis approach to many fields.

Making the Case for NextGen Concepts—Using the FAA Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Lagu ◽  
Suzanne Akkoush ◽  
Annie Cheng ◽  
Bill Dunlay
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Benefit Cost
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document