|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,199||Benefits minus costs||$1,659|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.69|
|Others||$3,482||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($606)||benefits greater than the costs||60 %|
|Net program cost||($2,416)|
|Benefits minus cost||$1,659|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,212)||($1,212)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,417||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($2,416)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||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||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|
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.
Lambie, I.D., & Stewart, M.W. (2003). Community solutions for the community’s problem: An outcome evaluation of three New Zealand community child sex offender treatment programmes. Available from the Authors at Dept of Psychology, Auckland University.
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.
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.
Smid, W.J., Kamphuis, J.H., Wever, E.C., & Van Beek, D.J. (2014). A quasi-experimental evaluation of high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment in the Netherlands. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.