|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,041||Benefits minus costs||$9,398|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$4,626||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,593||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||$1,139|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,398|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$571||$571|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$377||2009||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||$1,139|
|Comparison costs||$1,405||2009||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|
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010). A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. Tallahassee: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research.
Dodgson, K., Goodwin, P., Howard, P., Llewellyn-Thomas, S., Mortimer, E., Russell, N., & Weiner, M. (2001). Electronic monitoring of released prisoners: An evaluation of the Home Detention curfew Scheme (Home Office Research Study 222). London: Home Office; Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Finn, M.A., & Muirhead-Steves, S. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19 (2), 293-312.
Gies, S.V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M.I., Healy, E., Duplantier, D., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., ... (2012). Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program, Final Report. United States.
Gies, S.V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M.I., Healy, E., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., & Bobnis, A. (2013). Monitoring High-Risk Gang Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program Final Report. United States of America.
Marklund, F., & Holmberg, S. (2009). Effects of early release from prison using electronic tagging in Sweden. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5 (1), 41-61.
Turner, S., & Jannetta, J. (with Hess, J., Myers, R., Shah, R., Werth, R. & Whitby, A.). (2007). Implementation and early outcomes for the San Diego High Risk Sex Offender (HRSO) GPS pilot program (Working Paper). Irvine: University of California, Irvine; Center for Evidence-Based Corrections.