|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,932||Benefits minus costs||$8,161|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$6.95|
|Others||$5,819||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$783||benefits greater than the costs||98 %|
|Net program cost||($1,372)|
|Benefits minus cost||$8,161|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($688)||($688)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$5,710||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($1,372)|
|Comparison costs||$4,353||2015||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|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||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|
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11).
Braithwaite, H., Turner, S., & Hess, J. (2013). California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) outcome evaluation. Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, UC Irvine. Irvine, CA.
Jalbert, S.K., Rhodes, W., Kane, M., Clawson, E., Bogue, B., Flygare, C., Kling, R., & Guevara, M. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload sizes in an evidence-based practice setting (NCJ No. NCJ 234596). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Latessa, E., Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., & Labrecque, R. (2013). Evaluation of the effective practices in community supervision model (EPICS) in Ohio. Center for Criminal Justice Research: University of Cincinnati.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C.R., & Alexander, M. (2014). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), 275-283.
Pearson, D.A.S., McDougall, C., Kanaan, M., Bowles, R.A., & Torgerson, D.J. (2011). Reducing criminal recidivism: evaluation of Citizenship, an evidence-based probation supervision process. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 73-102.
Pearson, D.A.S., McDougall, C., Kanaan, M., Torgerson, D.J., & Bowles, R.A. (2016). Evaluation of the citizenship evidence-based probation supervision program using a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Crime & Delinquency.
Robinson, C., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. (2011). A random (almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR):Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2).
Taxman, F.S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland's proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275-302.
Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: Cause for optimism. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29(1), 1-19.