|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,162||Benefits minus costs||$3,446|
|Participants||$2,558||Benefit to cost ratio||$19.90|
|Others||$0||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($91)||benefits greater than the costs||68 %|
|Net program cost||($182)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,446|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with employment||$1,162||$2,558||$0||$0||$3,719|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($91)||($91)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$180||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($182)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||Cost range (+ or -)||75 %|
|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|
Benus, J.M., Poe-Yamagata, E., Wang, Y., & Blass, E. (2008). Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment REA) study: FY 2005 Initiative. Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International.
Black, D.A., Smith, J.A., Berger, M.C., & Noel, B.J. (2003). Is the threat of reemployment services more effective than the services themselves? Evidence from random assignment in the UI System. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1313-1327.
Decker, P.T., Olsen, R.B., Freeman, L., & Klepinger, D.H. (2000). Assisting unemployment insurance claimants: The long-term impacts of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service
Dickinson, K.P., Kreutzer, S.D., & Decker, P.T. (1997). Evaluation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Systems: Report to Congress. Menlo Park, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.
Dickinson, K.P., Decker, P.T., Kreutzer, S.D., Heinberg, J.D., & Nicholson, W. (2002). Evaluation of WPRS systems. In R.W. Eberts, C.J. O'Leary, & S.A. Wandner (Eds.), Targeting Employment Services (pp. 69-90). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.
Johnson, T.R., & Klepinger, D.H. (1991). Evaluation of the impacts of the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.
Michaelides, M., Poe-Yamagata, E., Benus, J., & Tirumalasetti, D. (2012). Impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Initiative in Nevada. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Poe-Yamagata, E., Benus, J., Bill, N., Carrington, H., Michaelides, M., & Shen, T. (2011). Impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.