|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$676||Benefits minus costs||($749)|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$0.64|
|Others||$1,341||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($697)||benefits greater than the costs||41 %|
|Net program cost||($2,069)|
|Benefits minus cost||($749)|
|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|
Adult use of cannabis that does not rise to the level of “disordered.”
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
Any employment, including part-time work.
Successful attainment of a General Educational Development (GED) credential.
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.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||$676||$0||$1,341||$338||$2,355|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,035)||($1,035)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,964||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($2,069)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||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.|
Anderson, D.B., & Schumacker, R.E. (1986). Assessment of job training programs. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 10(4), 41-49.
Beck, J.L. (1979). An evaluation of federal community treatment centers. Federal Probation, 43, 36-40.
Beck, J.L. (1981). Employment, community treatment center placement, and recidivism : A study of released federal offenders. Federal Probation, 45(4), 3-8.
Cave, G., Bos, H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993). JOBSTART: Final report on a program for school dropouts. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Farabee, D., Zhang, S.X., & Wright, B. (2014). An experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-focused offender reentry program. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 309-322.
Milkman, R.H. (1985). Employment services for ex-offenders field test: Detailed research results (Document No. NCJ 099807). McLean, VA: The Lazar Institute.
Wiegand, A., Sussell, J., Valentine, E., & Henderson, B. (2015). Evaluation of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Program: Two-year impact report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.