|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,389||Benefits minus costs||$15,451|
|Participants||$9||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$8,275||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$2,398||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||$381|
|Benefits minus cost||$15,451|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$4||$8||$0||$0||$12|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$5||$1||$5||$2||$13|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$191||$191|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$3,972||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||$381|
|Comparison costs||$4,353||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||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|
|Illicit drug use^||4||962||-0.287||0.115||31||0.000||0.187||34||-0.287||0.013|
|Illicit drug use disorder||3||777||-0.050||0.249||31||0.000||0.187||34||-0.050||0.842|
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.
Grommon, E., Cox, S.M., Davidson, W.S., & Bynum, T.S. (2012). Alternative models of instant drug testing: evidence from an experimental trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 145-168.
Grommon, E., Davidson, I.I. W.S., & Bynum, T.S. (2013). A randomized trial of a multimodal community-based prisoner reentry program emphasizing substance abuse treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(4), 287-309.
Harrell, A., Mitchell, O., Hirst, A., Marlow, D., & Merrill, J. (2002). Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: Findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 189-216.
Harrell, A., Roman, J., Bhati, A., & Parthasarathy, B. (2003). The impact evaluation of the Maryland Break the Cycle initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University, School of Public Policy.
Hawken, A., Kulick, J., Smith, K., Mei, J., Zhang, Y., Jarman, S., Yu, T., Carson, C., Vial, T. (2016). HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaiʻi’s HOPE Evaluation.
Mitchell, O., & Harrell, A. (2006). Evaluation of the breaking the cycle demonstration project: Jacksonville, FL and Tacoma, WA. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(1), 97-118.
O'Connell, D.J., Brent, J.J., & Visher, C.A. (2016). Decide your time: A randomized trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for probationers. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1073-1102.