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||($2,036)||Benefits minus costs||($16,463)|
|Participants||($250)||Benefit to cost ratio||($2.37)|
|Others||($5,898)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($3,397)||benefits greater than the costs||5 %|
|Net program cost||($4,881)|
|Benefits minus cost||($16,463)|
|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|
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
Adult use of alcohol that does not rise to the level of “problem” or “disordered.”
Adult use of cannabis that does not rise to the level of “disordered.”
Any employment, including part-time work.
A lack of stable housing, often measured through self-report of conditions like living on streets or in shelters in a given time period.
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.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||($1,940)||$0||($5,749)||($970)||($8,659)|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||($124)||($292)||($162)||$0||($579)|
|Costs of higher education||$28||$43||$13||$14||$97|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($2,441)||($2,441)|
|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)||($4,881)|
|Comparison costs||$5,515||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.|
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.