|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,544||Benefits minus costs||$9,229|
|Participants||$167||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$4,864||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,587||benefits greater than the costs||87 %|
|Net program cost||$68|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,229|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$70||$154||$0||$316||$540|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$62||$12||$61||$32||$168|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$34||$34|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$4,286||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||$68|
|Comparison costs||$4,353||2015||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|
|Illicit drug use^||31||2||316||-0.445||0.156||31||-0.445||0.156||31||-0.445||0.004|
|Illicit drug use disorder||31||3||777||-0.050||0.249||31||0.000||0.187||34||-0.050||0.842|
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.
Hamilton, Z., van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., Campbell, C., & Posey. B. (2015). Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections swift and certain policy process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluation. Washington State University.
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., & Kleiman, M. (2011). Washington intensive supervision program: Evaluation report. Seattle: Seattle City Council.
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.
Lattimore, P. K., MacKenzie, D. L., Zajac, G., Dawes, D., Arsenault, E., & Tueller, S. (2016). Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy? Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1103-1141.
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.
Snell, C. (2007). Fort Bend County Community Supervision and Corrections Special Sanctions Court Program. Department of Criminal Justice. Fort Bend County, TX.