|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,128||Benefits minus costs||$9,725|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$13.43|
|Others||$6,206||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,173||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||($782)|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,725|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($391)||($391)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$769||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($782)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||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|
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Decomo, B., & Aleman, T. (1994). Evaluation of the effectiveness of supervision and community rehabilitation programs in Oregon. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Krebs, C.P., Strom, K.J., Koetse, W.H., & Lattimore, P.K. (2009). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers: A survival analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 55(3), 442-471.
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A.F. (2012). Alternative sentencing policies for drug offenders: Evaluating the effectiveness of Kansas Senate Bill 123, Final Report. United States of America.