|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,672||Benefits minus costs||$9,775|
|Participants||$96||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$5,131||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,804||benefits greater than the costs||64 %|
|Net program cost||$71|
|Benefits minus cost||$9,775|
|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.
Illicit drug use^
Adult use of illicit drugs that does not rise to the level of “disordered.” When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use from this outcome.
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||$2,530||$0||$5,019||$1,265||$8,814|
|Illicit drug use disorder||Labor market earnings associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$27||$62||$0||$0||$89|
|Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence||$108||$17||$111||$54||$291|
|Mortality associated with illicit drugs||$7||$17||$0||$449||$473|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$36||$36|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$4,286||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||$71|
|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.|
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.
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.
Harrell, A., Mitchell, O., Hirst, A., Marlow, D., & Merrill, J. (2002). Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: Findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 189-216.
Harrell, A., Roman, J., Bhati, A., & Parthasarathy, B. (2003). The impact evaluation of the Maryland Break the Cycle initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
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.
Mitchell, O., & Harrell, A. (2006). Evaluation of the breaking the cycle demonstration project: Jacksonville, FL and Tacoma, WA. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(1), 97.
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.