skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for youth in state institutions

Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated June 2019.
Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a cognitive behavioral treatment for individuals with complex mental disorders. DBT was originally developed by Marsha Linehan at the University of Washington to treat chronically suicidal individuals, but has been adapted for clients who have difficulty regulating their emotions.

DBT focuses on the following four objectives: 1) enhancing youth behavioral skills in dealing with difficult situations, 2) motivating youth to change dysfunctional behaviors, 3) ensuring the new skills are used in daily institutional life, and 4) training and consultation to improve the counselor’s skills. DBT was delivered to youth convicted of crimes and serving sentences at a state juvenile institution. Participants received DBT over a period of 1 to 12 months.

Key Terms

Court-involved youth: Youth who are processed through the juvenile justice system but who are not ordered to a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility. This includes populations of arrested youth, diverted youth, charged youth, adjudicated youth, and youth on probation or formal supervision.

Youth in state institutions: Youth who are confined in a residential or correctional facility when they participate in the program.

Youth post-release: Youth who are returning to the community following a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility and who participate in the program after release to the community.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $12,054 Benefits minus costs $55,469
Participants $1,600 Benefit to cost ratio $32.49
Others $38,826 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $4,751 benefits greater than the costs 93%
Total benefits $57,230
Net program cost ($1,761)
Benefits minus cost $55,469

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N 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
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 15 1 62 -0.347 0.225 16 -0.347 0.225 24 -0.347 0.122
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $11,437 $0 $37,876 $5,718 $55,031
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $791 $1,863 $1,029 $0 $3,682
Costs of higher education ($174) ($263) ($79) ($87) ($603)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($881) ($881)
Totals $12,054 $1,600 $38,826 $4,751 $57,230
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,493 2018 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($1,761)
Comparison costs $0 2018 Cost range (+ or -) 50%
The per-participant cost includes the wages of service providers (Corrections Mental Health Counselors) and supplies. We assume that each participant receives two and a half hours of group therapy and one hour of individual therapy per week over six months. We assume that there are eight participants in the average therapy group. We use hourly wages for Corrections Mental Health Counselors from the Office of Financial Management (https://ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job-classes/ClassifiedJobListing/SalaryRange/1208) and multiply this by 1.44 to account for benefits.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Drake, E., & Barnoski, R. (2006). Recidivism findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's dialectical behavior therapy program: Final report. Olympia, WA. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.