|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($413)||Benefits minus costs||($3,623)|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||($1.50)|
|Others||($823)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($938)||benefits greater than the costs||23 %|
|Net program cost||($1,448)|
|Benefits minus cost||($3,623)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($728)||($728)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,365||2011||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($1,448)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2011||Cost range (+ or -)||50 %|
|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|
Davis, R.C., Taylor, B.G., & Maxwell, C.D. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn (Document No. NCJ 180772). New York: Victim Services Research.
Feder, L., & Forde, D.R. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment (Final report, Document No. NCJ 184752). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Gordon, J.A., & Moriarty, L.J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer treatment on domestic violence recidivism: The Chesterfield County experience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 118-134.
Haggard, U., Freij, I., Danielsson, M., Wenander, D., & Langstrom, N. (2015). Effectiveness of the IDAP treatment program for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A controlled study of criminal recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Harrell, A.V. (1991). Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence offenders (Final report). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Labriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R.C. (2008). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 252-282.