|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$2,116||Benefits minus costs||$6,716|
|Participants||$192||Benefit to cost ratio||$4.06|
|Others||$6,693||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($90)||benefits greater than the costs||76 %|
|Net program cost||($2,195)|
|Benefits minus cost||$6,716|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$109||$240||$112||$0||$461|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$49||($13)||($53)||$24||$7|
|Costs of higher education||($23)||($35)||($11)||($12)||($81)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,100)||($1,100)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,947||2009||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($2,195)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2009||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|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 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|
Barnoski, R. (2002). Evaluating how Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's Intensive Parole Program affects recidivism. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Cillo, G.C. (2001). Evaluation of a theory-based transitional aftercare program for court-adjudicated adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham Unversity, New York, NY.
Greenwood, P.W., Deschenes, E.P., & Adams, J. (1993.) Chronic juvenile offenders: Final results from The Skillman Aftercare Experiment. RAND: Santa Monica.
Sontheimer, H., & Goodstein, L. (1993). Evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly 10, 197-227.
Weibush, R.G. (1993). Juvenile intensive supervision: the impact on felony offenders diverted from institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 68-89.
Weibush, R.G., Wagner, D., McNultly, B., Wang, Y., & Le, T. (2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program, final report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.