Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Therapeutic communities for chemically dependent offenders (incarceration)
Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost estimates updated December 2016.  Literature review updated November 2014.
Therapeutic communities are the most intensive form of substance abuse treatment. These residential living units are highly structured using a hierarchical model among peers within the community. Offenders gain responsibility as they progress through the stages of treatment. Depending on the level of dependency and the program, therapeutic communities can range from 6 to 18 months.
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2015). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $3,590 Benefits minus costs $4,888
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $1.98
Others $7,008 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($706) benefits greater than the costs 94 %
Total benefits $9,892
Net program cost ($5,004)
Benefits minus cost $4,888
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime $3,589 $0 $7,008 $1,788 $12,385
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $1 ($2,494) ($2,493)
Totals $3,590 $0 $7,008 ($706) $9,892
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $4,990 2014 Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars) ($5,004)
Comparison costs $0 2014 Cost range (+ or -) 10 %
Per-participant cost estimate provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
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 is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Primary or secondary participant 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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime 18 7596 -0.119 0.029 32 -0.119 0.029 42 -0.119 0.001
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Eisenberg, M., Riechers, L., & Arrigona, N. (2001). Evaluation of the performance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.

Fabelo, T. (1999). Three year recidivism tracking of offenders participating in substance abuse treatment programs. Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council.

Gransky, L.A., & Jones, R.J. (1995). Evaluation of the post-release status of substance abuse program participants. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Hall, E.A., Prendergast, M.L., Wellisch, J., Patten, M., & Cao, Y. (2004). Treating drug-abusing women prisoners: An outcomes evaluation of the Forever Free program. The Prison Journal, 84(1), 81-105.

Hanson, G. (2000). Pine Lodge intensive inpatient treatment program. Tumwater: Washington State Department of Corrections, Planning and Research Section.

Klebe, K.J., & O'Keefe, M. (2004). Outcome evaluation of the Crossroads to Freedom House and Peer I therapeutic communities (Document No. 208126). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Knight, K., Simpson, D.D., & Hiller, M.L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 337-351.

Messina, N., Burdon, W., & Prendergast, M. (2006). Prison-based treatment for drug-dependent women offenders: Treatment versus no treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 38(sup3), 333-343.

Miller, J.M., & Miller, H.V. (2011). Considering the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars: Findings from the South Carolina RSAT evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 70-86.

Pealer, J.A. (2004). A community of peers—promoting behavior change: The effectiveness of a therapeutic community for juvenile male offenders in reducing recidivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pelissier, B., Rhodes, W., Saylor, W., Gaes, G., Camp, S.D., Vanyur, S.D., & Wallace, S. (2000). TRIAD drug treatment evaluation project final report of three-year outcomes: Part 1. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research.

Prendergast, M.L., Hall, E.A., Wexler, H.K., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2004). Amity prison-based therapeutic community: 5-year outcomes. The Prison Journal, 84(1), 36-60.

Taxman, F.S. & Spinner, D.L. (1997). Jail addiction services (JAS) demonstration project in Montgomery County, Maryland: Jail and community based substance abuse treatment program model. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Tunis, S., Austin, J., Morris, M., Hardyman, P., & Bolyard, M. (1996). Evaluation of drug treatment in local corrections(Document No. NCJ 159313). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Van Stelle, K.R., & Moberg, D.P. (2004). Outcome data for MICA clients after participation in an institutional therapeutic community. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(1), 37-62.

Wexler, H.K., Falkin, G.P., & Lipton, D.S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 71-92.

Zhang, S.X., Roberts, R.E.L., & McCollister, K.E. (2011). Therapeutic community in a California prison: Treatment outcomes after 5 years. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 82-101.

For more information on the methods
used please see our Technical Documentation.