|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$983||Benefits minus costs||$3,042|
|Participants||$2,138||Benefit to cost ratio||$13.49|
|Others||$186||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($22)||benefits greater than the costs||89 %|
|Net program cost||($244)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,042|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Child abuse and neglect||$43||$438||$0||$21||$502|
|K-12 grade repetition||$8||$0||$0||$4||$12|
|K-12 special education||$49||$0||$0||$25||$74|
|Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||$0||$0||$0||$0||$0|
|Health care associated with PTSD||$46||$15||$57||$23||$142|
|Labor market earnings associated with child abuse & neglect||$787||$1,732||$0||$1||$2,520|
|Costs of higher education||($31)||($47)||($14)||($16)||($109)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($122)||($122)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$229||2011||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($244)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2011||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|
|Child abuse and neglect||7||12997||-0.065||0.045||8||-0.065||0.045||17||-0.065||0.145|
Fuller, T., Nieto, M., Zhang, S. (2013) Differential Response in Illinois: Final Evaluation Report. Urbana-Champaign: Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois.
Loman, L.A. & Siegel, G.L. (2004). Differential response in Missouri after five years. St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research.
Loman, L.A., & Siegel G.L. (2014). Ohio alternative response evaluation extension: Final report to the Ohio Supreme Court. St. Louis MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Ruppel, J., Huang, Y., Haulenbeek, G. (2011). Differential Response in Child Protective Services in New York State: Implementation, Inial Outcomes and Impacts of Pilot Project. Albany: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.
Siegel, G.L., & Loman, T. (2006). Extended follow-up study of Minnesota's family assessment response: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Winokur, M., Ellis, R., Orsi, R., Rogers, J., Gabel, G., Brenwald, S., Holmquist-Johnson, H., & Evans, M. (2014). Program evaluation of the Colorado Consortium on Differential Response: Final report. Fort Collins, CO: Social Work Research Center, School of Social Work, Colorado State University.