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||($2,008)||Benefits minus costs||($16,235)|
|Participants||($246)||Benefit to cost ratio||($2.37)|
|Others||($5,817)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($3,350)||benefits greater than the costs||5 %|
|Net program cost||($4,814)|
|Benefits minus cost||($16,235)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||($123)||($288)||($160)||$0||($571)|
|Costs of higher education||$28||$42||$13||$14||$96|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($2,407)||($2,407)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$10,102||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($4,814)|
|Comparison costs||$5,515||2015||Cost range (+ or -)||50 %|
|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|
|Illicit drug use^||17||2||190||0.243||0.212||17||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.243||0.253|
Barnoski, R. (2002). Evaluating how Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's intensive parole program affects recidivism. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Barton, W.H., Jarjoura, G.R., & Rosay, A.B. (2008). Evaluation of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America Targeted Re-Entry Initiative: Final Report. Department of Justice: Washington D.C.
Bouffard, J., & Bergseth, K. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6 (3), 295-318.
Cillo, G.C. (2001). Evaluation of a theory-based transitional aftercare program for court-adjudicated adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, New York, NY.
Gray, E., Taylor, E., Roberts, C., Merrington, S., Fernandez, R., & Moore, R. (2005). Intensive supervision and surveillance programme: The final report. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
Greenwood, P.W., Deschenes, E.P., & Adams, J. (1993). Chronic juvenile offenders: Final results from The Skillman Aftercare Experiment. RAND: Santa Monica.
Hawkins, S.R., Lattimore, P.K., Dawes, D., & Visher, C.A. (2009). Reentry experiences of confined juvenile offenders: Characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes of juvenile male participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI.
Iutcovich, J. M., & Pratt, D.J. (1998). A final report for assessment of aftercare services provided to delinquent youth. Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
Rodriguez-Labarca, J., & O'Connell, J.P., (2004). Delaware's serious juvenile offender program: An evaluation of the first two years of operation. State of Delaware, Statistical Analysis Center, Doc Num: 100208-040204.
Sontheimer, H., & Goodstein, L. (1993). Evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: Aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly, 10, 197-227.
Weibush, R.G., Wagner, D., McNultly, B., Wang, Y., Le, T. (2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program, final report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.