|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,574||Benefits minus costs||$1,757|
|Participants||$1,559||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.84|
|Others||$0||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($295)||benefits greater than the costs||80 %|
|Net program cost||($2,081)|
|Benefits minus cost||$1,757|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with employment||$1,084||$2,386||$0||$0||$3,470|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,044)||($1,044)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,052||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($2,081)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||Cost range (+ or -)||62 %|
|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|
Duncan, G., Miller, C., Classens, A., Engel, M., Hill, H., & Lindsay, C. (2008). New Hope's eight-year impacts on employment and family income. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Freedman, S., Bryant, J., Cave, G., Bangser, M., Friedlander, D., Goldman, B., & Long, D. (1988). Final report on the Grant Diversion Project. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Friedlander, D., Hoerz, G., Quint, J., & Riccio, J. (1985). Final report on the WORK Program in two counties. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Friedlander, D., Erickson, M., Hamilton, G., & Knox V. (1986). Final report on the Community Work Experience Demonstrations. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
Friedlander, D., Freedman, S., Hamilton, G., & Quint, J. (1987). Final report on job search and work experience in Cook County. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Goldman, B., Friedlander, D., & Long, D. (1986). The San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration: Final report. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Gordon, A., & James-Burdumy, S. (2002). Impacts of the Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare: Final report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Hamilton, G., & Friedlander, D. (1989). Saturation Work Initiative Model in San Diego: Final report. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Jacobs, E. (2012). Returning to work after prison: Final results from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Masters, S.H., & Maynard, R.A. (1981). Volume 3 of the final report on the Supported Work Evaluation: The impact of supported work on long-term recipients of AFDC benefits. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Redcross, C., Millenky, M., Rudd, T., & Levshin, V. (2012). More than a job: Final results from the Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Transitional Jobs Program (OPRE Report 2011-18). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.