Somehow that doesn't seem like a lot. I would have expected the original number to be much smaller.
It will be interesting to see how this works out in the long term, as well as a way to focus on the 17% who benefitted from the program.
32% return on investment sounds like a lot to me.
(This is complicated by the high attrition in the control group: they lost track of a third to a half of the control group and so couldn't do an intent-to-treat analysis; they argue that the bias from this heavy attrition is probably in the direction of understating the benefits since it was mostly the ones who were worst-off at baseline who disappeared, but of course there's no way to be sure and one could easily argue the opposite.)