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||$721||Benefits minus costs||$2,723|
|Participants||$161||Benefit to cost ratio||$53.66|
|Others||$1,598||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$294||benefits greater than the costs||67 %|
|Net program cost||($52)|
|Benefits minus cost||$2,723|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$80||$188||$104||$0||$372|
|Costs of higher education||($18)||($27)||($8)||($9)||($62)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($26)||($26)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$6,611||2004||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($52)|
|Comparison costs||$6,571||2004||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|
|Alcohol use disorder^^||16||1||31||-0.079||0.250||16||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.079||0.751|
|Cannabis use disorder^^||16||1||31||-0.144||0.250||16||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.144||0.564|
|Problem alcohol use^^||16||1||31||-0.015||0.250||16||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.015||0.951|
Byrnes, E.C., & Hickert, A.O. (2004). Process and outcome evaluation of the third district juvenile drug court in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting.
Carey, S.M. (2004). Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court outcome evaluation: Final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Cook, M.D., Watson, L., & Stageberg, P. (2009). Statewide process and comparative outcomes study of 2003 Iowa adult and juvenile drug courts. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
Crumpton, D., Carey, S.m., Mackin, J.R., Finigan, M.W., Pukstas, K., Weller, J.M., Linhares, R., & Brekhus, J. (2006). Harford County juvenile drug court performance evaluation: Program, process, outcome and cost analysis. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Henggeler, S.W., Halliday-Boykins, C.A., Cunningham, P.B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S.B, & Chapman, J.E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 42-54.
Hickert, A.O., Becker, E., Próspero, M., & Moleni, K. (2011). Impact of juvenile drug courts on drug use and criminal behavior. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 60-77.
Kralstein, D. (2008) Evaluation of the Suffolk County Juvenile Treatment Court: Process and impact findings. New York NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Latessa, E.J., Shaffer, D.K., & Lowenkamp C. (2002). Outcome evaluation of Ohio’s drug court efforts: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice.
LeGrice, L.N. (2004). Effectiveness of juvenile drug court on reducing delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4626A.
O'Connell, J.P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M.L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware juvenile drug court diversion program. Dover: State of Delaware Executive Department, Statistical Analysis Center.
Organizational Research Services (ORS). (2007). King County Juvenile Drug Court Program: Program evaluation. Seattle, WA: Organizational Research Services.
Parsons, B.V., Byrnes, E.C. (n.d.). Byrne evaluation partnership program: Final report. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Social Research Institute.
Picard-Fritsche, S., & Kralstein, D. (2012). The Nassau juvenile treatment court: Program outcomes and impact evaluation. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Sullivan, C.J., Blair, L., Latessa, E., & Sullivan, C.C. (2014). Juvenile drug courts and recidivism: Results from a multisite outcome study. Justice Quarterly, online publication doi: 10.1080/07418825.2014.908937.