Key Terms
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.
ALL |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $5,350 | Benefits minus costs | $16,844 | |||
Participants | $639 | Benefit to cost ratio | $4.50 | |||
Others | $15,559 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | $110 | benefits greater than the costs | 74% | |||
Total benefits | $21,658 | |||||
Net program cost | ($4,814) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $16,844 | |||||
Meta-Analysis of Program Effects | ||||||||||||
Outcomes measured | Treatment age | No. of effect sizes | Treatment N | 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 Involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration) measured through administrative records (e.g. court records, arrests) or self-report. |
17 | 2 | 577 | -0.144 | 0.156 | 18 | -0.144 | 0.156 | 26 | -0.144 | 0.355 | |
Out-of-home placement^^ The removal of a child from parental care, most often to foster care. |
17 | 1 | 161 | 0.072 | 0.099 | 20 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.072 | 0.465 | |
Employment^^ Any employment, including part-time work. |
17 | 1 | 139 | 0.482 | 0.180 | 18 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.482 | 0.008 | |
Earnings*^^ Percent change in labor market earnings, typically weekly or monthly wages. |
17 | 1 | 139 | 0.283 | 0.121 | 18 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.283 | 0.019 |
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | ||||||
Affected outcome: | Resulting benefits:1 | Benefits accrue to: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
||
Crime | Criminal justice system | $5,105 | $0 | $15,179 | $2,552 | $22,836 |
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation | $317 | $746 | $412 | $0 | $1,476 | |
Costs of higher education | ($71) | ($108) | ($32) | ($36) | ($246) | |
Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($2,407) | ($2,407) |
Totals | $5,350 | $639 | $15,559 | $110 | $21,658 | |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $5,654 | 2015 | Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) | ($4,814) |
Comparison costs | $1,763 | 2015 | Cost range (+ or -) | 20% |
Benefits Minus Costs |
Benefits by Perspective |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value |
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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. |
Darnell, A.J., & Schuler, M.S. (2015). Quasi-experimental study of Functional Family Therapy effectiveness for juvenile justice aftercare in a racially and ethnically diverse community sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 50(3), 75-82.
Lucenko, L. He, Mancuso, D., & Felver, B. (2011). Effects of Functional Family Parole on re-arrest and employment for youth in Washington State. Research Data Analysis Division: Olympia, Washington.
Sexton, T., Rowland, M., & McEnery, A., (2009). Interim outcome evaluation of the Washington State Functional Family Parole Project. Center for Adolescent and Family Studies. Bloomington, Indiana.