
Education and Employment Training (EET, King County) for court-involved youth
Juvenile JusticeBenefit-cost methods last updated December 2024. Literature review updated February 2019.
In the included study, participants were court-involved youth at moderate or high risk of recidivism. On average, participants received EET services for 6.3 months. In the included study, 74% of participants were youth of color and 20% were female. Both the program and comparison group youth had access to usual services, which included evidence-based programs (e.g., Functional Family Therapy and Washington State Aggression Replacement Training).
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 |
META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
| Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benefits to: | ||||||
| Taxpayers | $8,165 | Benefits minus costs | $26,160 | |||
| Participants | $1,380 | Benefit to cost ratio | $8.40 | |||
| Others | $18,176 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
| Indirect | $1,973 | benefits greater than the costs | 99% | |||
| Total benefits | $29,695 | |||||
| Net program cost | ($3,535) | |||||
| Benefits minus cost | $26,160 | |||||
| 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. |
17 | 1 | 266 | -0.292 | 0.106 | 18 | -0.292 | 0.106 | 26 | -0.292 | 0.006 | |
| Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | ||||||
| Affected outcome: | Resulting benefits:1 | Benefits accrue to: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
||
| Crime | Criminal justice system | $7,635 | $0 | $17,356 | $3,817 | $28,807 |
| Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation | $684 | $1,612 | $891 | $0 | $3,187 | |
| Costs of higher education | ($153) | ($232) | ($70) | ($77) | ($532) | |
| Program cost | Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($1,767) | ($1,767) |
| Totals | $8,165 | $1,380 | $18,176 | $1,973 | $29,695 | |
| Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
| Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program costs | $2,776 | 2012 | Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) | ($3,535) |
| Comparison costs | $0 | 2012 | Cost range (+ or -) | 20% |
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
Miller, M., Fumia, D., & He, L. (2015). The King County Education and Employment Training (EET) Program: Outcome evaluation and benefit-cost analysis. (Doc. No. 15-12-3901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.