|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,531||Benefits minus costs||($3,507)|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$0.55|
|Others||$4,464||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($2,671)||benefits greater than the costs||18 %|
|Net program cost||($7,831)|
|Benefits minus cost||($3,507)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($3,950)||($3,950)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$7,076||2009||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($7,831)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2009||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|
Breckenridge, J.F., Winfree, L.T., Jr., Maupin, J.R., & Clason, D.L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI 'drug court' treatment , and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research and Policy, 2(1), 87.
Carey, S.M. Herrera Allen, T. & Einspruch, E. (2012). San Joaquin DUI monitoring court process and outcome evaluation, final report. NPC Research. Portland, OR.
Cissner, A.B. (2009). The drug court model and persistent DWI: An evaluation of the Erie and Niagara DWI/Drug Courts. Center for Court Innovation. New York, NY.
Fell, J.C., Tippetts, AS., Langston, E.A, United States., & Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (2011). An evaluation of the three Georgia DUI courts. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Hiller, M., Saum, C., Taylor, L., Watson , C., Hayes, W, & Samuelson, B. (2009). Waukesha alcohol treatment court: Process and outcomes. Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice. Philadelphia, PA
Jones, R.K., United States., United States., & Mid-America Research Institute. (2011). Evaluation of the dui court program in Maricopa County, Arizona. Washington , D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
MacDonald, J.M., Morral, A.R., Raymond, B., & Eibner, C. (2007). The efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review, 31(1), 4-23.
Ronan, S.M., Collins, P.A., & Rosky, J.W. (2009). Effectiveness of Idaho DUI and misdemeanor/DUI courts: Outcome evaluation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 154-165.
Taylor, E., Zold- Kilbourn, P., Carey, S.M., Fuller, B., & Kissick, K. (2008). Michigan DUI courts outcome evaluation. NPC Research. Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office.