Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Adolescent Diversion Project
Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost estimates updated May 2017. Literature review updated July 2015.

Diversion is an alternative to formal sanctions or processing in the juvenile justice system. The Adolescent Diversion Project is a "name brand" program developed by researchers at Michigan State University. A primary goal of diversion is to alleviate the negative consequences associated with the juvenile justice system such as stigmatizing youth as deviant or providing youth opportunities to learn deviant behavior through further exposure to more serious offenders. By diverting youth out of the juvenile justice system, youth can maintain ties to pro-social behaviors in the community. Youth are provided with community-based services.

Diversion programs included in this meta-analysis vary in structure and processing as well as the type of youth who are diverted. While some programs divert youth at the initial stages of the juvenile justice system (e.g., law enforcement), others divert youth once they reach the juvenile courts. We used multiple regression to explore whether some program characteristics—such as diversion at the police level (as opposed to the juvenile court level) or diversion coupled with treatment—were more effective at reducing recidivism. We found no statistically significant effects associated with these two program characteristics.

BENEFIT-COST	META-ANALYSIS	CITATIONS

The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2016). 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	$2,226	Benefits minus costs	$9,926
	Participants	$832	Benefit to cost ratio	n/a
	Others	$4,523	Chance the program will produce
	Indirect	$1,381	benefits greater than the costs	97 %
	Total benefits	$8,961
	Net program cost	$965
	Benefits minus cost	$9,926

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	$1,750	$0	$4,229	$872	$6,851
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation	$421	$927	$423	$0	$1,771
Health care associated with educational attainment	$100	($27)	($109)	$49	$13
Costs of higher education	($45)	($68)	($20)	($22)	($156)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program	$0	$0	$0	$482	$482

Totals	$2,226	$832	$4,523	$1,381	$8,961

Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost		Year dollars	Summary
Program costs	$1,021	2006	Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)	$965
Comparison costs	$1,950	2008	Cost range (+ or -)	10 %

The per-participant cost for the Adolescent Diversion Project was estimated from www.crimesolutions.org based on an 18-week program delivery. The cost of the comparison group was estimated for 18 weeks of probation using probation cost data from WSIPP's benefit-cost model.

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.

**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	Primary or secondary participant	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	Primary	8	628	-0.129	0.083	16	-0.129	0.083	26	-0.365	0.001

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Blakely, C.H. (1981). The diversion of juvenile delinquents: a first step toward the dissemination of a successful innovation. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Davidson, W.S., & Basta, J. (1989). Diversion from the juvenile justice system: research evidence and a discussion of issues. Advances in clinical child psychology, 12, 85-111.

Davidson, W.S., II, Redner, R., Blakely, C.H., Mitchell, C.M., & Emshoff, J.G. (1987). Diversion of juvenile offenders: an experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 68-75.

Emshoff, J. G., & Blakely, C. H. (1983). The diversion of delinquent youth: Family-focused intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 5(4), 343-356.

Seidman, E., Rappaport, J., & Davidson, W. S., II. (1980). Adolescents in legal jeopardy: Initial success and replication of an alternative to the criminal justice system. In R.R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 103-123). Toronto: Butterworth.

Smith, E.P., Wolf, A.M., Cantillon, D.M., Thomas, O., & Davidson, W.S. (2004). The adolescent diversion project: 25 years of research on an ecological model of intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 27(2), 29-47.