|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,478||Benefits minus costs||$12,800|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$8.69|
|Others||$10,077||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$910||benefits greater than the costs||93 %|
|Net program cost||($1,664)|
|Benefits minus cost||$12,800|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$1||($831)||($830)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,613||2012||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($1,664)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2012||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-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 non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. 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.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||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|
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Decomo, B., & Aleman, T. (1994). Evaluation of the effectiveness of supervision and community rehabilitation programs in Oregon. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Hanson, R.K., I. Broom, and M. Stephenson. (2004). Evaluating Community Sex Offender Treatment Programs: A 12-Year Follow- Up of 724 Offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(2), 87-96.
Marshall, W.L., Eccles, A., and Barbaree, H.E. (1991). The treatment of exhibitionists: A focus on sexual deviance versus cognitive and relationship features. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29(2), 129-135.
McGrath, R.J., Hoke, S.E., & Vojtisek, J.E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of sex offenders: A treatment comparison and long-term follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(2), 203-225.
Procter, E. (1996). A five-year outcome evaluation of a community-based treatment programme for convicted sexual offenders run by the probations service. (England) The Journal of Sexual Aggression 2(1), 3-16.
Romero, Joseph J. and Linda M. Williams. (1983). Group Psychotherapy and Intensive Probation Supervision with Sex Offenders: A Comparative Study. Federal Probation 47: 36-42.