|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$912||Benefits minus costs||$4,068|
|Participants||$343||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||$1,513||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$733||benefits greater than the costs||98 %|
|Net program cost||$566|
|Benefits minus cost||$4,068|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$174||$382||$176||$79||$811|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$41||($11)||($45)||$21||$5|
|Costs of higher education||($19)||($28)||($9)||($9)||($65)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||$284||$284|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$853||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||$566|
|Comparison costs||$1,300||2008||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|
Baron, R., Feeney, F., Thornton, W. (1973). Preventing delinquency through diversion: The Sacramento County 601 diversion project. Federal Probation, 37(1), 13-18.
Cannon, A., & Stanford, R.M. (1981). Evaluation of the juvenile alternative services project. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Children, Youth and Families.
Crofoot, J.A. (1987). A juvenile diversion program's effectiveness with varying levels of offender severity. Doctoral dissertation, United State International University. Dissertation Abstracts International No. 8713047.
Davidson, W.S., & Basta, J. (1989). Diversion from the juvenile justice system: research evidence and a discussion of issues. Advances in clinical child psychology, 12, 85-111.
Dunford, F.W., Osgood, D.W, & Weichselbaum, H.F. (1982). National evaluation of diversion projects, Final Report. U.S. Department of Justice.
Howard, W.L. (1997). The effects of tutoring, counseling and mentoring on altering the behavior of African American males in a juvenile diversion program. Dissertation: UMI 9717719.
Kelley, T.M., Schulman, J.L., Lynch, K. (1976). Decentralized intake and diversion: the juvenile court's link to the youth service bureau. Juvenile Justice, 27(1), 3-11.
Koch, J.R. (1986). Community service and outright release as alternatives to juvenile court: An experimental evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(07), 2081A. (University Microfilms No. 85-20537).
Lipsey, M.W., Cordray, D.S., & Berger, D.E. (1981). Evaluation of a juvenile diversion program using multiple lines of evidence. Evaluation Review, 5(3), 283-306.
Palmer, T., & Lewis, R.V. (1980). An evaluation of juvenile diversion. Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Quay, H.C., & Love, C.T. (1977). The effect of a juvenile diversion program on rearrests. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 377-396.
Severy, L.J., & Whitaker, J.M. (1982). Juvenile diversion: An experimental analysis of effectiveness. Evaluation Review, 6(6), 753-774.