|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($124)||Benefits minus costs||($2,233)|
|Participants||($347)||Benefit to cost ratio||($1.51)|
|Others||$188||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,061)||benefits greater than the costs||34 %|
|Net program cost||($889)|
|Benefits minus cost||($2,233)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||($145)||($319)||$0||($629)||($1,093)|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||($143)||($28)||($140)||($70)||($380)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($446)||($446)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$889||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($889)|
|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||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|
|Illicit drug use disorder||2||319||0.102||0.107||32||0.000||0.187||35||0.112||0.296|
California Department of Corrections. (1997). Los Angeles Prison Parole Network: An evaluation report. CA: Author.
Grommon, E., Davidson, I.I. W.S., & Bynum, T.S. (2013). A randomized trial of a multimodal community-based prisoner reentry program emphasizing substance abuse treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(4), 287-309.
Krebs, C.P., Strom, K.J., Koetse, W.H., & Lattimore, P.K. (2009). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers: A survival analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 55(3), 442-471.
Martin, S.S., & Scarpitti, F.R. (1993). An intensive case management approach for paroled iv drug users. Journal of Drug Issues, 23(1), 43-59.
Zanis, D., Mulvaney, F., Coviello, D., Alterman, A., Savitz, B., & Thompson, W. (2003). The effectiveness of early parole to substance abuse treatment facilities on 24-month criminal recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 33(1), 223-235.