|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$3,675||Benefits minus costs||$13,333|
|Participants||$926||Benefit to cost ratio||$8.36|
|Others||$9,844||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$701||benefits greater than the costs||96 %|
|Net program cost||($1,812)|
|Benefits minus cost||$13,333|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation||$468||$1,031||$476||$0||$1,975|
|Health care associated with educational attainment||$111||($30)||($121)||$56||$15|
|Costs of higher education||($50)||($75)||($22)||($25)||($172)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($905)||($905)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$1,788||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||($1,812)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||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.
Byles, J. A., & Maurice, A. (1979). The juvenile services project: An experiment in delinquency control. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 21, 257-262.
Davidson, W.S., II, Redner, R., Blakely, C.H., Mitchell, C.M., & Emshoff, J.G. (1987). Diversion of juvenile offenders: an experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 68-75.
Dembo, R., Ramirez-Garnica, G., Rollie, M., Schmeidler, J., Livingston, S., & Hartsfield, A. (2000). Youth recidivism twelve months after a family empowerment intervention: Final report. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 29-65.
Hinton, W.J. (2004). Examining the impact of a family systems counseling approach for reducing the recidivism rates of first offender junveniles. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.
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.
McPherson, S. J., McDonald, L. E., and Ryer, C. W. (1983). Intensive counseling with families of juvenile offenders. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 34, 27-33.
Minor, K.I. (1988). An evaluation of an intervention program for juvenile probationers. Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University. UMI No. 8827331.
Quinn, W.H., & Van Dyke, D.J. (2004) A multiple family group intervention for first-time juvenile offenders: Comparisons with probation and dropouts on recidivism. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(2), 177-200.
Stratton, J.G. (1975). Effects of crisis intervention counseling on predelinquent and misdemeanor juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice, 26(4), 7-18.