|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,136||Benefits minus costs||$3,102|
|Participants||$280||Benefit to cost ratio||$6.04|
|Others||$2,113||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$187||benefits greater than the costs||77 %|
|Net program cost||($615)|
|Benefits minus cost||$3,102|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$142||$313||$144||$0||$599|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$34||($9)||($37)||$17||$4|
|Costs of higher education||($16)||($24)||($7)||($8)||($54)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($306)||($306)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$565||2010||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($615)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2010||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|
Luke, G., & Lind, B. (2002). Reducing juvenile crime: Conferencing versus court (Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 69). Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.
McGarrell, E.F., & Hipple, N.K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders: The Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 221-246.
Schneider, A.L. (1986). Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders: Results from four experimental studies. Criminology, 24(3), 533-552.
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., . . . Sorsby, A. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction?: The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes (Ministry of Justice Research Series). Sheffield, United Kingdom: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research.
Strang, H., Sherman, L., Slothower, M., Woods, D.J., Barnes, G. (2015). Race and restorative justice: Preliminary report on 15-year followup of 3 RCTs, subject to further correction. A presentation to the Stockholm Criminology Symposium.