|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($369)||Benefits minus costs||($2,157)|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||($5.16)|
|Others||($1,079)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($359)||benefits greater than the costs||33 %|
|Net program cost||($350)|
|Benefits minus cost||($2,157)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($175)||($175)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$350||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($350)|
|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|
Agan, A. (np). Sex offender registries: Fear without function?
Barnoski, R. (2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State. Has community notification reduced recidivism? Document No. 05-12-1202. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan's Law on sex offender recidivism: the Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46(2), 411-446
Freeman, N.J. (2009). The public safety impact of community notification laws: Rearrest of convicted sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency.
Maddan, S., Miller, J. M., Walker, J. T., & Marshall, I. H. (2011). Utilizing criminal history information to explore the effect of community notification on sex offender recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 303-324.
Schram, D.D., Milloy, C.D. 1995. Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Shao, L. & Li, J. (not published). The effect of sex offender registration laws on rape victimization.
Tewksbury, R., & Jennings, W.G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 570-582.
Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W.G., & Zgoba, K.M. (2011). A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN. Behavioral Sciences & The Law.
Zgoba, I., Veysey, B.M., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 667-691.