|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$688||Benefits minus costs||$1,451|
|Participants||$1,064||Benefit to cost ratio||$6.66|
|Others||$100||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($144)||benefits greater than the costs||85 %|
|Net program cost||($256)|
|Benefits minus cost||$1,451|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||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|
Child abuse and neglect
Substantiated or founded reports to child protective services.
The removal of a child from parental care, most often to foster care.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Child abuse and neglect||Criminal justice system||$33||$0||$71||$16||$120|
|Child abuse and neglect||$21||$210||$0||$11||$242|
|K-12 grade repetition||$5||$0||$0||$2||$7|
|K-12 special education||$53||$0||$0||$26||$79|
|Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||$0||$0||$0||$0||$0|
|Health care associated with PTSD||$28||$8||$29||$14||$78|
|Labor market earnings associated with child abuse & neglect||$360||$846||$0||($180)||$1,026|
|Mortality associated with child abuse and neglect||$0||$0||$0||$1||$1|
|Out-of-home placement||Out-of-home placement||$188||$0||$0||$94||$283|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($128)||($128)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$229||2011||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($256)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2011||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
|Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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.|
Fuller, T., Nieto, M., Zhang, S. (2013) Differential Response in Illinois: Final Evaluation Report. Urbana-Champaign: Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois.
Loman, L.A. & Siegel, G.L. (2004). Differential response in Missouri after five years. St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research.
Loman, L.A., & Siegel G.L. (2014). Ohio alternative response evaluation extension: Final report to the Ohio Supreme Court. St. Louis MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Ruppel, J., Huang, Y., Haulenbeek, G. (2011). Differential Response in Child Protective Services in New York State: Implementation, Inial Outcomes and Impacts of Pilot Project. Albany: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.
Siegel, G.L., & Loman, T. (2006). Extended follow-up study of Minnesota's family assessment response: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Winokur, M., Ellis, R., Orsi, R., Rogers, J., Gabel, G., Brenwald, S., Holmquist-Johnson, H., & Evans, M. (2014). Program evaluation of the Colorado Consortium on Differential Response: Final report. Fort Collins, CO: Social Work Research Center, School of Social Work, Colorado State University.