|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$815||Benefits minus costs||($2,019)|
|Participants||$334||Benefit to cost ratio||$0.38|
|Others||$1,394||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($1,296)||benefits greater than the costs||43 %|
|Net program cost||($3,266)|
|Benefits minus cost||($2,019)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with problem alcohol use||$158||$349||$0||$5||$512|
|Property loss associated with problem alcohol use||$0||$1||$1||$0||$2|
|Health care associated with problem alcohol use||$22||$4||$21||$10||$57|
|Costs of higher education||($13)||($19)||($6)||($6)||($44)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,626)||($1,626)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,645||2004||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($3,266)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2004||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|
|Illicit drug use disorder||2||145||0.274||0.280||18||0.000||0.187||21||0.509||0.341|
|Problem alcohol use||1||31||-0.015||0.250||18||-0.015||0.250||18||-0.015||0.951|
Anspach, D.F., & Ferguson, A.S., (2005). Part II: Outcome Evaluation of Maine’s Statewide Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Program. Main State Office of Substance Abuse, Augusta, Maine.
Byrnes, E.C., & Hickert, A.O. (2004). Process and outcome evaluation of the third district juvenile drug court in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting.
Carey, S.M. (2004). Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court outcome evaluation: Final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Gilmore, A.S., Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V.J. (2005). Substance abuse and drug courts: The role of social bonds in juvenile drug courts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(4), 287-315.
Henggeler, S.W., Halliday-Boykins, C.A., Cunningham, P.B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S.B, & Chapman, J.E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 42-54.
Kralstein, D. (2008) Evaluation of the Suffolk County Juvenile Treatment Court: Process and impact findings. New York NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Latessa, E.J., & University of Cincinnati. (2013). Outcome and process evaluation of juvenile drug courts. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice.
Latessa, E.J., Shaffer, D.K., & Lowenkamp C. (2002). Outcome evaluation of Ohio’s drug court efforts: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice.
LeGrice, L.N. (2004). Effectiveness of juvenile drug court on reducing delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4626A.
O'Connell, J.P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M.L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware juvenile drug court diversion program. Dover: State of Delaware Executive Department, Statistical Analysis Center.
Parsons, B.V., Byrnes, E.C. (n.d.). Byrne evaluation partnership program: Final report. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Social Research Institute.
Sullivan, C.J., Blair, L., Latessa, E., & Sullivan, C.C. (2014). Juvenile drug courts and recidivism: Results from a multisite outcome study. Justice Quarterly, online publication doi: 10.1080/07418825.2014.908937.