|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($992)||Benefits minus costs||($8,015)|
|Participants||($1,701)||Benefit to cost ratio||($1.41)|
|Others||($186)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,811)||benefits greater than the costs||0 %|
|Net program cost||($3,325)|
|Benefits minus cost||($8,015)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Child abuse and neglect||($96)||($38)||$0||($48)||($182)|
|K-12 grade repetition||($9)||$0||$0||($4)||($13)|
|K-12 special education||($82)||$0||$0||($41)||($123)|
|Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||$0||$0||$0||$0||$0|
|Health care associated with PTSD||($40)||($11)||($41)||($20)||($113)|
|Labor market earnings associated with child abuse & neglect||($703)||($1,651)||$0||$0||($2,354)|
|Mortality associated with child abuse and neglect||$0||($1)||$0||($4)||($5)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,662)||($1,662)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,846||2003||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($3,325)|
|Comparison costs||$314||2003||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|
|Child abuse and neglect||10||7||2031||0.085||0.053||11||0.085||0.053||17||0.085||0.107|
Halper, G., & Jones, M. A. (1981). Serving families at risk of dissolution: Public preventive services in New York City. New York: Human Resources Administration, Special Services for Children.
Jones, M.A. (1985). A second chance for families: 5 years later follow-up of a program to prevent foster care. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Lewandowski, C.A., & Pierce, L. (2002). Assessing the effect of family-centered out-of-home care on reunification outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(2), 205-221.
Meezan, W., & McCroskey, J. (1996). Improving family functioning through family preservation services: Results of the Los Angeles experiment. Family Preservation Journal, Winter, 9-29.
Schuerman, J.R., Rzepnicki, T.L., & Littell, J.H. (1994). Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Szykula, S.A., & Fleischman, M.J. (1985). Reducing out-of-home placements of abuse children: Two controlled field studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9(2), 277-283.
Walker, J.L. (2009). An evaluation of the Family Well-Being program at the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(02), A.
Westat, Chapin Hall Center for Children, & James Bell Associates. (2001). Evaluation of family preservation and reunification programs: Interim report. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fampres94/index.htm
Yuan, Y.-Y., McDonald, W. R., Wheeler, C.E., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Rivest, M. (1990). Evaluation of AB 1562 in-home care demonstration projects: Final report. Sacramento, CA: Walter R. McDonald & Associates.