|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,461||Benefits minus costs||$3,858|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.52|
|Others||$2,947||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$304||benefits greater than the costs||91 %|
|Net program cost||($854)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,858|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$2||$0||$4||($426)||($420)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$848||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($854)|
|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|
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.
Friedmann, P.D., Green, T.C., Taxman, F.S., Harrington, M., Rhodes, A.G., Katz, E., O'Connell, D., ... Step'n Out Research Group of CJ-DATS. (2012). Collaborative behavioral management among parolees: Drug use, crime and re-arrest in the Step'n Out randomized trial. Addiction, 107(6), 1099-108.
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.
Lattimore, P.K., Krebs, C.P., Koetse, W., Lindquist, C., & Cowell, A.J. (2004). Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 159-189
Rengifo, A.F., & Stemen, D. (2013). The impact of drug treatment on recidivism: Do mandatory programs make a difference? Evidence from Kansas's Senate Bill 123. Crime and Delinquency, 59(6), 930-950.
Scott, C.K., & Dennis, M.L. (2012). The first 90 days following release from jail: Findings from the Recovery Management Checkups for Women Offenders (RMCWO) experiment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 125, 110-118.