Court-involved youth: Youth who are processed through the juvenile justice system but who are not ordered to a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility. This includes populations of arrested youth, diverted youth, charged youth, adjudicated youth, and youth on probation or formal supervision.
Youth in state institutions: Youth who are confined in a residential or correctional facility when they participate in the program.
Youth post-release: Youth who are returning to the community following a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility and who participate in the program after release to the community.
|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($4,531)||Benefits minus costs||($17,681)|
|Participants||($1,031)||Benefit to cost ratio||($630.45)|
|Others||($10,067)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($2,023)||benefits greater than the costs||3 %|
|Net program cost||($28)|
|Benefits minus cost||($17,681)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||($513)||($1,205)||($667)||$0||($2,384)|
|Costs of higher education||$115||$173||$52||$57||$397|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($14)||($14)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$28||2018||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($28)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2018||Cost range (+ or -)||20 %|
|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|
Lewis, R.V. (1983). Scared straight--California style: Evaluation of the San Quentin Squires program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(2), 209-226.
Michigan Department of Corrections. (1967). A six month follow-up of juvenile delinquents visiting the Ionia Reformatory (Research Report No. 4). Lansing: Michigan Department of Corrections.
Orchowsky, S., & Taylor, K. (1981). The Insiders juvenile crime prevention program: An assessment of a juvenile awareness program (Document No. NCJ 79768). Richmond: Virginia Department of Corrections, Division of Program Development and Evaluation, Research and Reporting Unit.
Vreeland, A.D. (1982). Evaluation of Face-to-Face: A juvenile aversion program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(10), 4597A.
Yarborough, J.C. (1979). Evaluation of JOLT (Juvenile Offenders Learn Truth) as a deterrence program (Document No. NCJ 060290). Lansing: Michigan Department of Corrections.