|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$286||Benefits minus costs||($3,885)|
|Participants||$217||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.30)|
|Others||$0||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,406)||benefits greater than the costs||17 %|
|Net program cost||($2,982)|
|Benefits minus cost||($3,885)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with employment||$119||$261||$0||$0||$380|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,489)||($1,489)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,911||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($2,982)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||Cost range (+ or -)||99 %|
|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|
Anderson, J., Freedman, S., & Hamilton, G. (2009). Results from the Los Angeles Reach for Success Program. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Bloom, D., Hendra, R., & Page, J. (2006). Results from the Chicago ERA site. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Hamilton, W.L., Burstein, N.R., Baker, A.J., Earle, A., Gluckman, S., Peck, L., & White, A. (1996). The New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-year impacts, costs, and benefits. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Kemple, J.J., Friedlander, D., & Fellerath, V. (1995). Project Independence: Benefits, costs, and two-year impacts of Florida's JOBS program. New York, NY: Manpower Demostration Research Corporation.
Kornfeld, R., & Rupp, K. (2000). The net effects of the Project NetWork return-to-work case management experiment on participant earnings, benefit receipt, and other outcomes. Social Security Bulletin, 63(1), 12-33.
Martinson, K., & Hendra, R. (2006). Results from the Texas ERA Site. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Miller, C., Martin, V., Hamilton, G., Cates, L., & Deitch, V. (2008). Findings for the Cleveland Achieve Model: Implementation and early impacts of an employer-based approach to encourage employment retention among low-wage workers. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Miller, C., van Dok, M., Tessler, B.L., & Pennington, A. (2012). Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Navarro, D., Freedman, S., & Hamilton, G. (2007). Results from two education and training models for employed welfare recipients in Riverside, California. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Navarro, D., Azurdia, G.L., & Hamilton, G. (2008). A comparison of two job club strategies: The effects of enhanced versus traditional job clubs in Los Angeles. New York, NY: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation.
Roder, A., & Scrivner, S. (2005). Seeking a sustainable journey to work: Findings from the National Bridges to Work Demonstration. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.