|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,440||Benefits minus costs||$3,278|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.40|
|Others||$8,951||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,882)||benefits greater than the costs||73 %|
|Net program cost||($8,231)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,278|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($4,086)||($4,086)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$7,124||2006||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($8,231)|
|Comparison costs||$0||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|
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(3), 312-329.
Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1995). Intensive community supervision in Minnesota: A dual experiment in prison diversion and enhanced supervised release. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Erwin, B. S., Bennett, L. A. (1987). New dimensions in probation: Georgia's experience with intensive probation supervision (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP: Iowa Correctional Services Second Judicial District (Final Report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.
Hanley, D. (2002). Risk differentiation and intensive supervision: A meaningful union? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Lichtman, C. M., & Smock, S. M. (1981). The effects of social services on probationer recidivism: A field experiment. Journal of Research in Crime & Deliquency, 18(1), 81-100.
Stichman, A., Fulton, B., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP: Hartford Intensive Supervision Unit Connecticut Office of Adult Probation Administrative Office of the Courts (Final Report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.
Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466.
Pearson, F. S., & Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 75-86.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 18-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.