|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,672||Benefits minus costs||$14,562|
|Participants||$805||Benefit to cost ratio||$37.87|
|Others||$9,044||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$1,436||benefits greater than the costs||94 %|
|Net program cost||($395)|
|Benefits minus cost||$14,562|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$408||$899||$414||$0||$1,721|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$97||($27)||($106)||$49||$13|
|Costs of higher education||($45)||($68)||($20)||($23)||($156)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($198)||($198)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$285||1998||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($395)|
|Comparison costs||$0||1998||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|
Bottcher, J. (1985). The Athena Program: An evaluation of a girl’s treatment program at the Fresno County Probation Department’s Juvenile Hall. Sacramento: California Youth Authority.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders (Research Findings No. 226). London: Home Office.
Deschamps, T. (1998). MRT: Is it effective in decreasing recidivism rates with young offenders? (Master's thesis). University of Windsor: Ontario, CA.
Gordon, J.S. (1996). An evaluation of Paint Creek Youth Center (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Cincinnati, OH.
Hubbard, D.J., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Evaluation of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A look at outcome and responsivity in five treatment programs (Final report). Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Leeman, L.W., Gibbs, J.C., & Fuller, D. (1993). Evaluation of a multi-component group treatment program for juvenile delinquents. Aggressive Behavior, 19(4), 281-292.
Pullen, S. (1996). Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation cognitive skills development program as implemented in juvenile ISP in Colorado. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice.
Robertson, A.A., Grimes, P.W., & Rogers, K.E. (2001). A short-run cost-benefit analysis of community-based interventions for juvenile offenders. Crime & Delinquency 47(2), 265-285.