|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$5,975||Benefits minus costs||$12,181|
|Participants||$1,861||Benefit to cost ratio||$2.89|
|Others||$11,510||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($708)||benefits greater than the costs||96 %|
|Net program cost||($6,457)|
|Benefits minus cost||$12,181|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$943||$2,077||$953||$0||$3,973|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$224||($61)||($245)||$112||$29|
|Costs of higher education||($103)||($155)||($46)||($51)||($355)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($3,218)||($3,218)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$6,389||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($6,457)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2015||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|
Castellano, T.C., & Soderstrom, I.R. (1992). Therapeutic wilderness programs and juvenile recidivism: a program evaluation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17(3/4), 19-46.
Cytrynbaum, S., & Ken, K. (1975). The Connecticut Wilderness program: A Preliminary Evaluation Report. Hartford, CT: The Council on Human Services.
Elrod, P.H., & Minor, K. (1992). Second wave evaluation of a mulit-faceted intervention for juvenile court probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36(3), 247-262.
Gillis, H.L., & Gass, M.A. (2010). Treating juveniles in a sex offender program using adventure-based programming: a matched group design. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(1), 20-34.
Hileman, M.A. (1979). An evaluation of an environmental stress-challenge program on the social attitudes and recidvism behavior of male delinquent youth. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Kelly, F.J. & Baer, D.J. (1971). Physical challenge as a treatment for delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 17(4), 437-445.
Metametrics, Inc. (1984). Evaluation of the Breakthrough Foundation Youth at Risk Program: The 10-day Course and Follow-up Program.
Willman, H.C., & Chun, R.Y.F. (1973). Homeward bound: an alternative to the institutionalization of adjudicated juvenile offenders. Federal Probation, 37, 52-58.
Winterdyk, J., & Roesch, R. (1982). A wilderness experiential program as an alternative for probationers: An evaluation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24, 39-49.