RECENT YEARS have witnessed the proliferation of applications of cost‐benefit analysis to public sector expenditure. Cost‐benefit analysis is a method of decision‐making which seeks to quantify the benefits that are obtainable from a given course of action, to express them in financial terms (or in terms of financial equivalents) and then to deduct the estimated social and financial costs so that the results of the course of action may be assessed, valued and expressed in monetary terms. Quantification of actual financial costs and benefits poses no difficulties, but it has been shown elsewhere that the quantification of social costs and benefits often poses considerable problems. Some social benefits, such as the value of time‐saving, can be quantified reasonably successfully (using, for example, financial equivalents of time saved in terms of average wages or average salaries of the individuals concerned), but others, such as the measurement of alleviation of suffering or the assessment of degrees of incapability in nursing care, have no adequate financial equivalents.
Two studies in the context of English‐French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual‐level costs and benefits…
Two studies in the context of English‐French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual‐level costs and benefits that drive expectancy‐value processes (rational decision‐making) from group‐level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group‐ and individual‐level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group‐level expectancy‐value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity‐driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self‐stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost‐benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy‐value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes.
The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an…
The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an untreated control group (n=1,030) matched on risk factors.
The study time frame was October 1, 2007-June 30, 2010 with reconvictions measured to December 31, 2010. Follow up averaged 19 months. Controls received standard community supervision, but no domestic violence group interventions. Follow up measures included court costs for violent and non-violent reconvictions; re-incarcerations and community-based orders costs measured in days.
Adjusting for time at risk, DAP enrollees had 29 percent fewer reconvictions, 46 percent fewer violent reconvictions, 34 percent fewer custodial days, but 23 percent more days on community orders. Costs: DAP enrollment avoided $2.52 M in custodial costs, but higher community correction costs (+$773 K) and court costs (+$5.8 K), reducing the DAP’s criminal justice system cost savings to $1.754 M ($8.92 M for the DAP group compared to $10.67M for controls). Cost benefits: when the 64 DAP program costs were deducted ($602 K), the net benefit to the New South Wales criminal justice system was $1,141 M, or $1,108 per enrollee, providing a net benefit/cost ratio of 2.89. If the DAP was completed, the net benefit was $1,820 per offender. These results compares favorably to economic evaluations of other community-based interventions.
Group interventions for domestically violent (DV) offenders can provide good investment returns to tax payers and government by reducing demand on scarce criminal justice system resources. The study provides insights into justice costs for DV offenders; a methodological template to determine cost benefits for offender programs and a contribution to cost-effective evidence-based crime reduction interventions.
Using a rigorous methodology, official court, custodial and community correction services costing data, this is the first Australian cost benefit analysis of a domestic violence group intervention, and the first to justify program expenditure by demonstrating substantial savings to the criminal justice system.