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||($652)||Benefits minus costs||($3,272)|
|Participants||($589)||Benefit to cost ratio||($5.17)|
|Others||($1,029)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($472)||benefits greater than the costs||28 %|
|Net program cost||($530)|
|Benefits minus cost||($3,272)|
|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 before end of high school
Any use of alcohol by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
Illicit drug use^
Adult use of illicit drugs that does not rise to the level of “disordered.” When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use from this outcome.
A non-criminal act that is considered a law violation because the person committing the act is a juvenile.
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||($393)||$0||($1,017)||($197)||($1,606)|
|Alcohol use before end of high school||Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||($249)||($586)||$0||$0||($835)|
|Health care associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||($9)||($2)||($10)||($5)||($26)|
|Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||$0||($1)||($2)||$0||($3)|
|Mortality associated with alcohol||$0||($1)||$0||($6)||($7)|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($265)||($265)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,145||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($530)|
|Comparison costs||$1,647||2015||Cost range (+ or -)||50 %|
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.|
Alarid, L.F., & Rangel, L.M. (2018). Completion and recidivism rates of high-risk youth on probation: Do home visits make a difference? The Prison Journal, 98 (2),143-162.
Ashford, J.B., & Gallagher, J.M. (2019). Preventing juvenile transitions to adult crime: A pilot study of probation interventions for older, high-risk juvenile delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46 (8), 1148-1164.
Barnoski, R. (2003). Evaluation of Washington's 1996 Juvenile Court Program (Early Intervention Program) for High-risk, First-time Offenders: Final Report. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Fagan, J., & Reinarman, C. (1991). The social context of intensive supervision: Organizational and ecological influences on community treatment. In T. L. Armstrong (Ed.), Intensive interventions with high risk youth (pp. 341-394). New York: Willow Tree Press.
Frederique, N.P. (2011). The effectiveness of school based intensive probation for reducing recidivism: An evaluation of Maryland's Spotlight on Schools program. University of Maryland: College Park.
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.
Hennigan, K., Kolnick, K., Siva Tian, T., Maxson, C., & Poplawski, J. (2010). Five year outcomes in a randomized trial of a community-based multi-agency intensive supervision juvenile probation program. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: US Department of Justice.
Howard, L., Misch, G., Burke, C., & Pennell, S. (2002). San Diego County Probation Department’s Repeat Offender Prevention Program Final Evaluation Report. San Diego, CA: SANDAG, San Diego's Regional Planning Agency.
Lane, J. Turner, S., Fain, F., Sehgal, A. (2005). Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: Supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 51 (1), 26-52.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1987). The impact of juvenile court intervention. San Francisco: Author.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, & United States of America. (2001). Evaluation of the RYSE Program: Alameda County Probation Department.