|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$193||Benefits minus costs||$1,264|
|Participants||$268||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.40|
|Others||$90||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$999||benefits greater than the costs||70 %|
|Net program cost||($287)|
|Benefits minus cost||$1,264|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$116||$255||$0||$1,103||$1,474|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$68||$13||$67||$35||$183|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($144)||($144)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$287||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($287)|
|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||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 disorder||3||253||-0.094||0.131||38||0.000||0.187||41||-0.274||0.027|
Jason, L.A., & Ferrari, J.R. (2010). Oxford House recovery homes: Characteristics and effectiveness. Psychological Services, 7(2), 92-102.
Jason, L.A., Olson, B.D., Ferrari, J.R., & Lo Sasso, A.T. (2006). Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 96(10), 1727.
Jason, L.A., Olson, B.D., & Harvey, R. (2015). Evaluating alternative aftercare models for ex-offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 45(1), 53-68.
Lo Sasso. A.T., Byro, E., Jason, L.A., Ferrari, J.R., & Olson, B. (2012). Benefits and costs associated with mutual-help community-based recovery homes: The Oxford House model. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(1), 47-53.
Tuten, M., Defulio, A., Jones, H.E., & Stitzer, M. (2012). Abstinence-contingent recovery housing and reinforcement-based treatment following opioid detoxification. Addiction, 107(5), 973-982.