Presumably, schools desiring larger effects from an empirically based program might be willing to allocate greater resources for the purchase and implementation of the intervention. However, while it may seem intuitive that more expensive programs generate greater change in student outcomes, there is currently a lack of evidence supporting such a relationship. In this study the authors address this gap in the literature by examining the critical relationship between resource requirements and effect sizes of 51 evidence-based programs that would influence school practitioners’ choice of interventions. Through simple calculations of the range and mean resources for programs, analyses surprisingly found higher resource requirements for programs with the smallest effect sizes. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.