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||$7||Benefits minus costs||($1,486)|
|Participants||$2||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.48)|
|Others||$14||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($501)||benefits greater than the costs||34 %|
|Net program cost||($1,008)|
|Benefits minus cost||($1,486)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$1||$2||$1||$0||$5|
|Costs of higher education||$0||$0||$0||$0||($1)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($504)||($504)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$970||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($1,008)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||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|
Dunford, F.W., Osgood, D.W, & Weichselbaum, H.F. (1982). National evaluation of diversion projects, final report. U.S. Department of Justice.
Lipsey, M.W., Cordray, D.S., & Berger, D.E. (1981). Evaluation of a juvenile diversion program using multiple lines of evidence. Evaluation Review, 5 (3), 283-306.
Smith, P., Bohnstedt, M., & Tompkins, T. (1979). Juvenile diversion evaluation - Report of an experimental study (from Pretrial Services Annual Journal, P 118-140, 1979, by D Alan Henry - See NCJ-69868). United States.
Wiebush, R.G. (1985). Recidivism in the juvenile diversion project of the Young Volunteers in Action Program (final report).