|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,499||Benefits minus costs||$9,941|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$7.37|
|Others||$7,041||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$963||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||($1,562)|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,941|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$1||($778)||($777)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,557||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($1,562)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||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|
Belenko, S., Foltz, C., Lang, M.A., & Sung, H.-E. (2004). Recidivism among high-risk drug felons: A longitudinal analysis following residential treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 105-132.
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.
Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D.D. (2006). Recidivism following mandated residential substance abuse treatment for felony probationers. The Prison Journal, 86(2), 230-241.
Inciardi, J.A., Martin S.S., & Butzin, C.A. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 88-107.
Robbins, C.A., Martin, S.S., & Surratt, H.L. (2009). Substance abuse treatment, anticipated maternal roles, and reentry success of drug-involved women prisoners. Crime and Delinquency, 55(3), 388-411.
Sacks, S., Chaple, M., Sacks, J.Y., McKendrick, K., & Cleland, C.M. (2012). Randomized trial of a reentry modified therapeutic community for offenders with co-occurring disorders: Crime outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42(3), 247-259.
Sacks, S., McKendrick, K., Sacks, J.A.Y., Banks, S., & Harle, M. (2008). Enhanced outpatient treatment for co-occurring disorders: Main outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(1), 48-60.
Sacks, S., Sacks, J.Y., McKendrick, K., Banks, S., & Stommel, J. (2004). Modified TC for MICA offenders: Crime outcomes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22(4), 477-501.