|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($509)||Benefits minus costs||($15,150)|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.72)|
|Others||($1,152)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($4,666)||benefits greater than the costs||0 %|
|Net program cost||($8,823)|
|Benefits minus cost||($15,150)|
|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.
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||($509)||$0||($1,152)||($255)||($1,915)|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($4,411)||($4,411)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$8,375||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($8,823)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||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.|
Latessa, E.J., Lovins, L. & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facility and halfway house programs--outcome study.
Hamilton, Z.K., & Campbell, C.M. (2014). Uncommonly observed: The impact of New Jersey's halfway house system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(11), 1354-1375.
Routh, D., & Hamilton, Z. (2015). Work release as a transition: Positioning success via the halfway house. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(4), 239-255.
Seiter, R.P. (1975). Evaluation research as a feedback mechanism for criminal justice policy making: A critical analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36(06), 4057A. (UMI No. 7526660)