Short-Run Cost-Benefits Analysis of Community-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders

• NCJ Number: 188049
• Journal: Crime and Delinquency Volume: 47 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2001 Pages: 265-284
• Author(s): Angela A. Robertson; Paul W. Grimes; Kevin E. Rogers
• Editor(s): Ronald E. Vogel
• Date Published: April 2001
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): R01-DA09015
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article presents a cost benefit evaluation of two juvenile offender community-based intervention techniques: intensive supervision and monitoring (ISM) and intensive outpatient counseling with cognitive behavioral therapy (CB).

Abstract

Recent empirical research indicates that for juvenile offenders various community-based intervention techniques result in significantly greater positive effects when compared to more traditional approaches. This study analyses data on whether experimental treatments are cost beneficial for the local juvenile justice systems in the short run. A classical quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the effects of community-based intensive supervision and monitoring (ISM) and intensive outpatient counseling with cognitive-behavioral (CB) techniques on justice system expenditures for court referrals and court-ordered detention for a sample of youth offenders, ages 11 to 17 on probation or parole in Mississippi. A control group consisted of participants experiencing standard probation or parole oversight. Data was gathered over an 18-month period. Results show that local intensive intervention programs based on a cognitive-behavioral treatment approach can more effectively reduce juvenile justice system expenditures relative to traditional probation and parole procedures and programs that provide only strict monitoring and supervision. Results also indicate that cognitive-behavioral programs can be cost beneficial in the short run for local justice systems. The study suggests caution when reviewing the results. The study was conducted in Mississippi and to what extent the results are driven by local institutional and community forces is unknown. Also, the analysis employs a very narrow definition of economic costs and benefits. And, lastly, short-run cost -to-benefit ratio is not a sufficient condition to make a treatment program cost-beneficial in the long run. References