skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Therapeutic communities for juveniles with substance use disorder

Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2018.  Literature review updated August 2017.
Open PDF
Therapeutic communities (TCs) are a common form of intensive substance use disorder treatment. TCs usually exist within the community at large and involve juveniles that are ordered to chemical dependency diversion and/or following adjudication. These residential living units are highly structured and utilize a hierarchical model among peers to promote both personal and group accountability in regards to achieving and maintaining substance abstinence. Youths earn responsibility as they progress through the stages of long-term treatment. Depending on the level of chemical dependency by those involved in the TC and the program itself, therapeutic communities can range in treatment length from 5 to 15 months.
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2017). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1,830 Benefits minus costs $2,399
Participants ($2,071) Benefit to cost ratio $1.50
Others $9,483 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($2,049) benefits greater than the costs 56 %
Total benefits $7,193
Net program cost ($4,794)
Benefits minus cost $2,399
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime $2,844 $0 $9,569 $1,428 $13,842
Labor market earnings associated with smoking ($913) ($2,010) $0 $0 ($2,922)
Health care associated with smoking ($84) ($24) ($87) ($41) ($236)
Mortality associated with smoking ($17) ($38) $0 ($1,037) ($1,092)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,399) ($2,399)
Totals $1,830 ($2,071) $9,483 ($2,049) $7,193
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $4,522 2012 Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars) ($4,794)
Comparison costs $0 2012 Cost range (+ or -) 10 %
The per-participant cost estimate, based on the average length of treatment, approximately 12 months, was provided by the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
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.

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime 16 4 1306 -0.091 0.071 18 -0.091 0.071 28 -0.106 0.106
Regular smoking 16 1 160 0.102 0.101 18 0.102 0.101 28 0.200 0.049
Substance use^ 16 2 572 0.224 0.365 18 n/a n/a n/a 0.158 0.713

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Gordon, J.A. (2002). Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it effective?: A comparison of youth released from a residential substance abuse treatment center to youth at a traditional juvenile correctional center. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Morral, A.R., McCaffrey, D.F., & Ridgeway, G. (2004). Effectiveness of community-based treatment for substance-abusing adolescents: 12-month outcomes of youths entering Phoenix Academy or alternative probation dispositions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 257-68.

Pealer, J.A. (2004). A community of peers—promoting behavior change: The effectiveness of a therapeutic community for juvenile male offenders in reducing recidivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sealock, M.D., Gottfredson, D.C., & Gallagher, C.A. (1997). Drug treatment for juvenile offenders: Some good and bad news. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(2), 210-236.