|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$5,936||Benefits minus costs||$18,022|
|Participants||$1,394||Benefit to cost ratio||$6.53|
|Others||$12,648||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,305||benefits greater than the costs||87 %|
|Net program cost||($3,260)|
|Benefits minus cost||$18,022|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$707||$1,556||$716||$331||$3,310|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$168||($46)||($184)||$83||$21|
|Costs of higher education||($77)||($117)||($36)||($38)||($269)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,625)||($1,625)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,748||2005||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($3,260)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2005||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|
Blakely, C.H., Menon, R., & Jones, D.J. (1995). Project BELONG: Final report. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Public Policy Research Institute.
Bouffard, J., & Bergseth, K. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295-318.
Drake, E., & Barnoski, R. (2006). Recidivism findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's mentoring program: Final report. Olympia, WA. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Jarjoura, G.P. (2009). Mentoring as a critical tool for effective juvenile reentry. Written testimony submitted to the Congressional briefing on supporting youth reentry from out-of-home placement to the community.
Lane, J., Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2007). The effects of an experimental intensive juvenile probation program on self-reported delinquency and drug use. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(3), 201-219.
Moore, R.H. (1987). Effectiveness of citizen volunteers functioning as counselors for high-risk young male offenders. Psychological Reports, 61, 823-830.
O'Donnell, C.R., Lydgate, T. & Fo, W.S.O. (1979). The Buddy System: Review and follow-up. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 161-169.