ALL |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $7,376 | Benefits minus costs | $19,469 | |||
Participants | $0 | Benefit to cost ratio | $7.39 | |||
Others | $12,973 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | $2,165 | benefits greater than the costs | 100% | |||
Total benefits | $22,514 | |||||
Net program cost | ($3,045) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $19,469 | |||||
Meta-Analysis of Program Effects | ||||||||||||
Outcomes measured | Treatment age | No. of effect sizes | Treatment N | 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 | |||||||||||
ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | |||||
Crime Involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration) measured through administrative records (e.g. court records, arrests) or self-report. |
39 | 6 | 908 | -0.421 | 0.118 | 40 | -0.421 | 0.118 | 48 | -0.421 | 0.001 |
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | ||||||
Affected outcome: | Resulting benefits:1 | Benefits accrue to: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
||
Crime | Criminal justice system | $7,376 | $0 | $12,973 | $3,688 | $24,037 |
Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($1,523) | ($1,523) |
Totals | $7,376 | $0 | $12,973 | $2,165 | $22,514 | |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $3,124 | 2024 | Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) | ($3,045) |
Comparison costs | $0 | 2024 | Cost range (+ or -) | 30% |
Benefits Minus Costs |
Benefits by Perspective |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value |
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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. |
Nyland, J.E., Zhang, A., Balles, J.A., Nguyen, T.H., White, V., Albert, L.A., Henningfield, M. F., & Zgierska, A.E. (2024). Law enforcement-led, pre-arrest diversion-to-treatment may reduce crime recidivism, incarceration, and overdose deaths: Program evaluation outcomes. Journal of Substance Use & Addiction Treatment, 165.
Arora, A., & Bencsik, P. (2023). Policing substance use: Chicago’s treatment program for narcotics arrests (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4599291). Social Science Research Network.
Malm, A., Perrone, D., & Magana, E. (2020). Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) external evaluation report to the California State Legislature. California State University Long Beach.
Gilbert, A.R., Siegel, R., Easter, M.M., Sivaraman, J.C., Hofer, M., Ariturk, D., Swartz, M.S., & Swanson, J. W. (2023). Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): A multi-site evaluation of North Carolina LEAD programs. Duke University School of Medicine.
Dole, J., & Freeman, L. (2018). Evaluation of Santa Fe’s LEAD Program: Criminal justice outcomes. New Mexico Sentencing Commission.
Collins, S.E., Lonczak, H.S., Clifasefi, S.L. (2019). Seattle's law enforcement assisted diversion (LEAD): Program effects on criminal justice and legal system utilization and costs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1-11.