|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$4,113||Benefits minus costs||$13,045|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$16.25|
|Others||$8,158||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,629||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||($856)|
|Benefits minus cost||$13,045|
|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.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||$4,113||$0||$8,158||$2,057||$14,328|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($428)||($428)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$5,157||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($856)|
|Comparison costs||$4,353||2015||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.|
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.
Deschenes, E.P., Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1995). Intensive community supervision in Minnesota: A dual experiment in prison diversion and enhanced supervised release. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Erwin, B.S., Bennett, L.A. (1987). New dimensions in probation: Georgia's experience with intensive probation supervision (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP: Iowa Correctional Services Second Judicial District (Final Report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.
Hanley, D. (2002). Risk differentiation and intensive supervision: A meaningful union? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Lichtman, C.M., & Smock, S.M. (1981). The effects of social services on probationer recidivism: A field experiment. Journal of Research in Crime & Deliquency, 18(1), 81-100.
O'Kearney, R., Kang, K., Christensen, H., & Griffiths, K. (2009). A controlled trial of a school-based Internet program for reducing depressive symptoms in adolescent girls. Depression and Anxiety, 26(1), 65-72.
Paparozzi, M.A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466.
Pearson, F.S., & Harper, A.G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 75-86.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., & Deschenes, E.P. (1992). Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 18-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stichman, A., Fulton, B., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP: Hartford Intensive Supervision Unit Connecticut Office of Adult Probation Administrative Office of the Courts (Final Report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.