|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,131||Benefits minus costs||$9,481|
|Participants||$261||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.09|
|Others||$6,545||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,858||benefits greater than the costs||65 %|
|Net program cost||($2,315)|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,481|
|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|
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
Any employment, including part-time work.
Illicit drug use disorder
Clinical diagnosis of illicit drug use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||$2,777||$0||$6,277||$1,388||$10,443|
|Illicit drug use disorder||Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$71||$167||$0||$0||$238|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$261||$40||$268||$130||$699|
|Mortality associated with illicit drugs||$23||$54||$0||$1,497||$1,574|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,158)||($1,158)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,198||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($2,315)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
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.|
Gransky, L.A., & Jones, R.J. (1995). Evaluation of the post-release status of substance abuse program participants. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Hall, E.A., Prendergast, M.L., Wellisch, J., Patten, M., & Cao, Y. (2004). Treating drug-abusing women prisoners: An outcomes evaluation of the Forever Free program. The Prison Journal, 84(1), 81-105.
Halstead, I., & Poynton, S. (2016). The NSW Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program (IDATP) and recidivism: An early look at outcomes for referrals. Crime and Justice Bulletin, (192), 1-20.
Hanson, G. (2000). Pine Lodge intensive inpatient treatment program. Tumwater: Washington State Department of Corrections, Planning and Research Section.
Holmberg, S., & Öberg, J. (2012). Effects of drug treatment inits in Swedish prisons. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 13(1), 44-63.
Jensen, E., & Kane, S. (2012). The effects of therapeutic community on recidivism up to four years after release from prison: A multisite study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(8).
Klebe, K.J., & O'Keefe, M. (2004). Outcome evaluation of the Crossroads to Freedom House and Peer I therapeutic communities (Document No. 208126). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Pelissier, B., Rhodes, W., Saylor, W., Gaes, G., Camp, S.D., Vanyur, S.D., & Wallace, S. (2000). TRIAD drug treatment evaluation project final report of three-year outcomes: Part 1. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research.
Prendergast, M.L., Hall, E.A., Wexler, H.K., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2004). Amity prison-based therapeutic community: 5-year outcomes. The Prison Journal, 84(1), 36-60.
Taxman, F.S. & Spinner, D.L. (1997). Jail addiction services (JAS) demonstration project in Montgomery County, Maryland: Jail and community based substance abuse treatment program model. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Tunis, S., Austin, J., Morris, M., Hardyman, P., & Bolyard, M. (1996). Evaluation of drug treatment in local corrections(Document No. NCJ 159313). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Welsh, W.N., Zajac, G., & Bucklen, K.B. (2014). For whom does prison-based drug treatment work? Results from a randomized experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(2), 151-177.
Welsh, W.N., & Zajac, G. (2013). A multisite evaluation of prison-based drug treatment: Four-year follow-up results. The Prison Journal, 93(3), 251-271.
Wexler, H.K., Falkin, G.P., & Lipton, D.S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 71-92.
Zhang, S.X., Roberts, R.E.L., & McCollister, K.E. (2011). Therapeutic community in a California prison: Treatment outcomes after 5 years. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 82-101.