|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$170||Benefits minus costs||($4,241)|
|Participants||$46||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.30)|
|Others||$338||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,540)||benefits greater than the costs||19 %|
|Net program cost||($3,255)|
|Benefits minus cost||($4,241)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$23||$51||$24||$11||$109|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$5||($1)||($6)||$3||$1|
|Costs of higher education||($3)||($4)||($1)||($1)||($9)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,627)||($1,627)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$3,157||2012||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($3,255)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2012||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|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||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|
Anglin, M.D., Longshore, D., Turner, S. (1999). Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 168-195.
Chassin, L., Knight, G., Vargas-Chanes, D., Losoya, S. H., & Naranjo, D. (2009). Substance use treatment outcomes in a sample of male serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(2), 183-194.
Friedman, A.S., Terras, A., & Glassman, K. (2002). Multimodal substance use intervention program for male deliquents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11(4), 43-65.
Kelly, W.R. (2001). An outcome evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's chemical dependency treatment program, final report. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Liddle, H.A., Rowe, C.L., Dakof, G.A., Henderson, C.E., & Greenbaum, P.E. (2009). Multidimensional family therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 12-25.
Sealock, M.D., Gottfredson, D.C., & Gallagher, C.A. (1997). Drug treatment for juvenile offenders: Some good and bad news. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(2), 210-236.