|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($878)||Benefits minus costs||($10,208)|
|Participants||($236)||Benefit to cost ratio||($1.32)|
|Others||($2,118)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($2,568)||benefits greater than the costs||0 %|
|Net program cost||($4,408)|
|Benefits minus cost||($10,208)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||($120)||($263)||($121)||$0||($504)|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||($28)||$8||$31||($14)||($4)|
|Costs of higher education||$13||$20||$6||$7||$45|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($2,190)||($2,190)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$3,985||2008||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($4,408)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2008||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||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. (2003). Evaluation of Washington's 1996 Juvenile Court Program (Early Intervention Program) for high-risk, first-time offenders: Final report. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Barton, W.H., & Butts, J.A. (1990). Viable options: intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 238-256.
Bouffard, J., & Bergseth, K. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295-318.
Fagan, J., & Reinarman, C. (1991). The social context of intensive supervision: Organizational and ecological influences on community treatment. In T. L. Armstrong (Ed.), Intensive interventions with high risk youth (pp. 341-394). New York: Willow Tree Press.
Gray, E., Taylor, E., Roberts, C., Merrington, S., Fernandez, R., Moore, ., Great Britain., . . . University of Oxford. (2005). Intensive supervision and surveillance programme: The final report. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
Hennigan, K., Kolnick, K., Siva Tian, T., Maxson, C., & Poplawski, J. (2010). Five year outcomes in a randomized trial of a community-based multi-agency intensive supervision juvenile probation program. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention US Department of Justice.
Land, K.C., McCall, P.L., & Parker, K.F. (1994). Logistic versus hazards regression analysis in evaluation research: An exposition and application to the North Carolina Court counselors’ intensive protective supervision project. Evaluation Review, 18(4), 411–37.
Lane, J. Turner, S., Fain, F., & Sehgal, A. (2005). Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: Supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 51(1), 26-52.
Lane, J., Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2007). The effects of an experimental intensive juvenile probation program on self-reported delinquency and drug use. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(3), 201-219.
Lerman, P. (1975). Community treatment and social control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1987). The impact of juvenile court intervention. San Francisco: Author.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, & United States of America. (2001). Evaluation of the RYSE Program: Alameda County Probation Department.
Robertson, A.A., Grimes, P.W, & Rogers, K.E. (2001). A short-run cost-benefit analysis of community-based interventions for juvenile offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 265-285.
Rodriguez-Labarca, J., & O'Connell, J.P., (2004). Delaware's serious juvenile offender program: an evaluation of the first two years of operation, State of Delaware, Statisical Analysis Center, Doc Num: 100208-040204.
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.