skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Circles of Support and Accountability

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated November 2016.
Open PDF
The Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) model, originally developed in Canada, helps sex offenders reenter the community by providing them with social support. Each reentering participant is provided an “inner circle” and an “outer circle” of volunteers. An inner circle consists of four to six volunteers from the community. One inner circle volunteer serves as a primary volunteer and meets with the participant every day for the first two to three months, while other volunteers meet with the participant weekly. An outer circle is composed of community-based professionals (e.g. social workers, police) who volunteer their time to support the inner circle. Program duration is about 12 months.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $8,172 Benefits minus costs $29,065
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $7.30
Others $23,722 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $1,781 benefits greater than the costs 93%
Total benefits $33,675
Net program cost ($4,610)
Benefits minus cost $29,065

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 44 3 110 -0.321 0.180 46 -0.321 0.180 56 -0.738 0.032
Sex offense^
Arrests, charges, convictions, or incarcerations for a sex offense.
 44 3 135 -0.251 0.163 46 n/a n/a n/a -0.370 0.024
Technical violations^^
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
 44 1 31 -0.753 0.465 44 n/a n/a n/a -0.753 0.105
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $8,172 $0 $23,722 $4,086 $35,981
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,305) ($2,305)
Totals $8,172 $0 $23,722 $1,781 $33,675
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $3,908 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($4,610)
Comparison costs $0 2016 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
The annual per-participant cost to deliver the program was drawn from Duwe, G. (2013). Can Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) work in the United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 143-65.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
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.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Duwe, G. (2013). Can circles of support and accountability (COSA) work in the United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 143-65.

Wilson, R.J., Cortoni, F., & McWhinnie, A.J. (2009). Circles of support & accountability: a Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4), 412-30.

Wilson, R.J., Picheca, J.E., & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of cupport & accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in South-Central Ontario (Report No. R-168). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service Canada.