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||($643)||Benefits minus costs||($3,227)|
|Participants||($581)||Benefit to cost ratio||($5.17)|
|Others||($1,015)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($465)||benefits greater than the costs||29 %|
|Net program cost||($523)|
|Benefits minus cost||($3,227)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||($246)||($578)||$0||$0||($824)|
|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)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($261)||($261)|
|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)||($523)|
|Comparison costs||$1,647||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|
|Alcohol use before end of high school||16||1||226||0.037||0.114||16||0.037||0.114||18||0.037||0.746|
|Illicit drug use^||16||1||226||0.143||0.113||16||n/a||n/a||n/a||0.143||0.205|
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.