|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,058||Benefits minus costs||$15,538|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$7,679||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$2,620||benefits greater than the costs||93 %|
|Net program cost||$1,181|
|Benefits minus cost||$15,538|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$591||$591|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$377||2009||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||$1,181|
|Comparison costs||$1,405||2009||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|
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Decomo, B., & Aleman, T. (1994). Evaluation of the effectiveness of supervision and community rehabilitation programs in Oregon. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(3), 312-329.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime and Delinquency, 46(1), 61-75.
Di Tella, R., & Schargrodsky, E. (2009). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic monitoring (Working Paper No. 15602). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jolin, A., & Stipak, B. (1992). Drug treatment and electronically monitored home confinement: An evaluation of a community-based sentencing option. Crime & Delinquency, 38(2), 158-170.
Jones, M., & Ross, D.L. (1997). Electronic house arrest and boot camp in North Carolina: Comparing recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8 (4), 383-404.
Padgett, K.G., Bales, W.D., & Blomberg, T.G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61-91.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sugg, D., Moore, L., & Howard, P. (2001). Electronic monitoring and offending behaviour - reconviction results for the second year of trials of curfew orders (Findings 141). London: Home Office; Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.