Back Button

Teaching-Family Model group homes (vs. other group homes) for court-involved youth

Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated March 2019.
Teaching-Family Model is a mentoring model that is delivered in many types of environments. This analysis focuses on the Teaching-Family Model operating within a group home setting. Group homes are community-based, residential facilities for youth post-adjudication. Teaching-Family is typically administered by a team, often a married couple, who demonstrate pro-social behaviors in a family-style environment. The team creates daily opportunities for youth to engage in emotional-, relational-, and social-skill learning, all of which aim to curb future delinquent behavior.

In this analysis, the administration of the components of Teaching-Family occurs daily, and placement in group homes lasts an average of 9.8 months. We compare youth placed in group homes using the Teaching-Family Model to youth placed in non-Teaching-Family Model homes. Of the studies in our analysis that reported demographic information, approximately 23% of participants were youth of color and 26% were female.

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
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $7,999 Benefits minus costs $24,725
Participants $1,633 Benefit to cost ratio $5.27
Others $20,188 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $699 benefits greater than the costs 88%
Total benefits $30,519
Net program cost ($5,794)
Benefits minus cost $24,725

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

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.
 14 3 148 -0.324 0.201 15 -0.324 0.201 23 -0.324 0.108
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $7,368 $0 $19,220 $3,684 $30,273
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $806 $1,898 $1,048 $0 $3,752
Costs of higher education ($175) ($266) ($80) ($88) ($608)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,897) ($2,897)
Totals $7,999 $1,633 $20,188 $699 $30,519
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $27,863 2017 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($5,794)
Comparison costs $22,427 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 50%
We estimate the per-participant cost for youth in the Teaching-Family Model using the per-client expenditures for community placement by Juvenile Rehabilitation (JR) as reported by Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Client Services for State Fiscal Year 2017(2019, http://clientdata.rda.dshs.wa.gov/Home/ShowReport?reportMode=0). We estimate the per-participant cost for youth in the comparison group using the average daily costs for group home care reported in McKay, P., Hollist, D., & Mayrer, J. (2016). Foster or group home care for youth on probation. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Missoula. We apply this daily cost ($96.48) to the average time spent in group care by participants in the studies (231 days).
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
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.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Kirigin, K.A., Braukmann, C.J., Atwater, J.D., & Wolf, M.M. (1982). An evaluation of teaching-family (Achievement Place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.

Wolf, M.M., Phillips, E.L., & Fixsen, D.L. (1974). Achievement Place: Phase II. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency.