Alaska Results First. Benefit-Cost Findings: Adult Criminal Justice Programs

Similar documents
Alaska Results First

Substance Abuse Treatment Services Alaska Department of Corrections. January, 2017

Presentation to the NCSL Fiscal Analysts Seminar, October 2014

Substance Abuse Treatment Services in the Alaska Department of Corrections

MINNESOTA DWI COURTS: A SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS IN NINE DWI COURT PROGRAMS

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY RESULTS FIRST PROGRAM INVENTORY Revised March 16, 2017

DWI Court Research and Best Practices:

Harnessing the Power of Evidence:

Eighth Judicial District Court. Specialty Courts. Elizabeth Gonzalez. Chief Judge. DeNeese Parker. Specialty Court Administrator

THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT: TACKLING MENTAL HEALTH FROM THE INSIDE OUT

Presentation by the Alaska Mental Health Board and Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority November

Nebraska LB605: This bill is designed to reduce prison overcrowding and allows for alternatives to incarceration like CAM.

our continuum of of MATRI was

Oriana House, Inc. Substance Abuse Treatment. Community Corrections. Reentry Services. Drug & Alcohol Testing. Committed to providing programming

Presentation Outline. Alaska Criminal Justice System Assessment 8/2/2015. System assessment. Prison growth and costs. Next steps

Windsor County DUI Treatment Docket Preliminary Outcome Evaluation. Final Report. September 2017 (Revised December 2017)

Second Judicial District Court Specialty Courts

The Cost of Imprisonment

probation, number of parole revocations, DVI Alcohol Scale scores, DVI Control Scale scores, and DVI Stress Coping Abilities Scale scores.

Moving Beyond Incarceration For Justice-involved Women : An Action Platform To Address Women s Needs In Massachusetts

Criminal Justice Reform: Treatment and Substance Use Disorder

Forensic Counselor Education Course

Improving Outcomes for Young Adults in the Justice System

GOVERNMENT OF BERMUDA Ministry of Culture and Social Rehabilitation THE BERMUDA DRUG TREATMENT COURT PROGRAMME

Corrections, Public Safety and Policing

West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety

Angie Boarman Forensic Treatment Program Manager FSSA Division of Mental Health and Addiction

2017 Social Service Funding Application - Special Alcohol Funds

OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION

Final Report*: Minimal Performance Indicators Summary Report

West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety

Judicially Managed Accountability and Recovery Court (JMARC) as a Community Collaborative. Same People. Different Outcomes.

Domestic Violence Inventory: Annual Summary Report

Agenda. **Discussion draft not for distribution** Sentencing Subgroup September 9 th, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center April Prepared by: Kristine Denman, Director, NMSAC

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COURT DIVERSION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES FISCAL YEAR 2019

Problem-Solving Courts : A Brief History. The earliest problem-solving court was a Drug Court started in Miami-Dade County, FL in 1989

The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation

Dauphin County MH/ID Mental Health and Forensic Initiatives PRESENTATION TO RCPA SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

California's incarceration rate increased 52 percent in the last 20 years.

CHAPTER 1 An Evidence-Based Approach to Corrections

Prison Population Reduction Strategies Through the Use of Offender Assessment: A Path Toward Enhanced Public Safety

THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF ACCOUNTABILITY COURT PROGRAMS IN GEORGIA EVIDENCE FROM A SURVEY OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

Contents Opioid Treatment Program Core Program Standards... 2

Allegheny County Justice Related Services for Individuals with Mental Illness:

Community-based sanctions

Criminal Justice in Arizona

24/7 sobriety program THE MONTANA STORY

Evidence-Based Policy Options To Reduce Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates

Transition from Jail to Community. Reentry in Washtenaw County

Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Report

FAQ: Alcohol and Drug Treatments

Spokane District/Municipal Mental Health Court

SAQ-Short Form Reliability and Validity Study in a Large Sample of Offenders

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DRUG COURT. An Overview

Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Grant to partially fund a Sober 24 program in Carson City from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.

DRUG POLICY TASK FORCE

Federal Resources for Research on Drugs and Crime. Meeting of Caribbean National Observatories on Drugs August 5, 2009

LUCAS COUNTY TASC, INC. OUTCOME ANALYSIS

Recommendation #1: Expand Drug Courts

Middlesex Sheriff s Office NCSL Atlantic States Fiscal Leaders Meeting Presentation

Problem Gambling and Crime: Impacts and Solutions

Alternatives to Incarceration and Pretrial Detention. NYSAC Legislative Conference January 2019

Closing the Loop in Treating Opioid Addiction:

NCADD :fts?new JERSEY

SOLICITATION FOR APPLICATIONS

From Mass Incarceration to Effective and Sustainable Decarceration

The Public Safety Coordinating Council s. Criminal Justice System Data Book January 2014

The 5 Obstacles to Alcohol Monitoring:

National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women Announcement

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

National Findings on Mental Illness and Drug Use by Prisoners and Jail Inmates. Thursday, August 17

State of Colorado Correctional Treatment Board

MORE TREATMENT, BETTER TREATMENT AND THE RIGHT TREATMENT

SAQ-Adult Probation III: Normative Study

Drug Sale and Manufacture Arrests Reported in Alaska,

2016 REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

Findings from the NIJ Tribal Wellness Court Study: 68 Key Component #8

SIGNATURE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

For Whom Does Jail Diversion Work?

Drug Possession Arrests Reported in Alaska,

Texas Commission on Jail Standards Mental Health Study

Evaluation of the First Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court: Quasi-Experimental Outcome Study Using Historical Information

Smart on Crime, Smart on Drugs

Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health

Peter Weir, Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety, Chair of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice

HEALTHIER LIVES, STRONGER FAMILIES, SAFER COMMUNITIES:


Phil Klassen Vice-President, Medical Affairs, Ontario Shores Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

COMPAS Core Norms for Community Corrections DRAFT

Statewide Substance Abuse Services

Policy and interventions for adults with serious mental illness and criminal justice involvement

Who is with us today? Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board New Directions in Offender Treatment 2016

Effective Approaches for Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders among Offenders

Tackling Alcohol Misuse Treatment and performance in Derby City

A Process and Impact Evaluation of the Sheridan Correctional Center Therapeutic Community Program During Fiscal Years 2004 through 2010

BJA Corrections Options Technical Assistance (COTA) Program

CHEROKEE TRIBAL DRUG COURT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING made and entered into on the 1 st day

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY E.G., COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION INSANITY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

Rockland County District Attorney s Office. Misdemeanor Intervention Program (MIP)

Transcription:

Alaska Results First Benefit-Cost Findings: Adult Criminal Justice Programs Presented to: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission June 15, 2017

A Brief Introduction ALASKA RESULTS FIRST 2

Alaska s Results First Initiative State of Alaska applied to join Results First Tri-branch agreement to pursue this work Alaska Legislature Office of the Governor Alaska Court System In 2015 Alaska became the 19th jurisdiction to partner with Pew-MacArthur Results First Alaska Justice Information Center (AJiC) Tasked with conducting data collection, analyses, and dissemination of findings 3

An Overview STEPS IN THE PROCESS 4

The Results First Process Program Inventory Comprehensive listing of all programs provided in a particular policy area (e.g., criminal justice) Match state programs to the evidence base Results First Clearinghouse Database; Results First Ratings Database How effective are programs that are provided? Pew-MacArthur Benefit-Cost Model Estimates benefit-cost ratios for programs that have been rigorously researched/evaluated 5

Step 1: Program Inventory 54 adult criminal justice programs identified Separated into 8 groupings: Chaplaincy services Domestic violence (DV) Vocational and general education (VGE) Re-entry services Sex offender Substance abuse Technology-assisted Therapeutic courts Distribution of State Investments in Adult Criminal Justice Programs Substance Abuse $10.1M Tech. Assisted $3.8M 36 adult criminal justice programs were funded wholly or in part by the State of Alaska $25.5 million annually 18 adult criminal justice programs in the inventory did not receive dedicated state funding allocations Sex Offender $1.7M Reentry $1.3M VGE $3.1M DV $0.5M Therapeutic Courts $4.5M Chaplaincy $0.6M 6

Step 2: Program Matching Compare Alaska adult criminal justice programs with programs that have been rigorously evaluated Program features Program content/curriculum Program structure/process Locus of Treatment Prison vs. community Inpatient vs. outpatient Target population/eligible participants Key Findings 32 of 54 (59.3%) adult criminal justice programs matched to evidence base Of the 32 programs matched, 26 funded wholly or in part by State of Alaska ($23 million) 90% of state investment in adult criminal justice programs directed to programs matched in evidence base Programs Matched to Evidence Base Matched to Evidence Base Not Matched State Investment in Adult Criminal Justice Programs Matched to Evidence Base Not Matched 7

Step 3: Populate Results First Benefit-Cost Model Prerequisite steps: Estimate per-participant program costs Estimate criminal justice resource use and cost parameters Probability of resource use for prison, community supervision Marginal costs of: police ($ per arrest), courts ($ per conviction), prison ($ per inmate), and community supervision ($ per offender) Estimate recidivism parameters for Alaska program-eligible populations 2007 cohorts 9 cohorts in total 8-year recidivism estimates THEN populate the Results First benefit-cost model to estimate benefit-cost ratios for programs 8

Step 3 {continued}: Populate Results First Benefit-Cost Model Not all of Alaska s evidence-based programs were put in the model Evidence not about recidivism For example: 12-step programs >>> relapse Evidence insufficient to determine a reliable recidivism reduction effect Too few studies Studies of substandard scientific rigor No dedicated, program-specific funding For example: Ignition interlock (self-pay) Total programs entered into the model: 19 9

Programs Included in Model ASAP: Alcohol Safety Action Program (DHSS) BIP: Batterer Intervention Program (DPS via CDVSA) EM: Electronic Monitoring (DOC) IOPSAT: Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment (DOC) Community-based Prison-based Dual diagnosis PACE: Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement (DOC) PsychEd: Psych-Educational Substance Abuse Program (DOC) RSAT: Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (DOC) SOTX: Sex Offender Treatment (DOC) Community-based outpatient Prison outpatient Residential (therapeutic community) TC: Therapeutic Courts (ACS) Anchorage Municipal DUI Wellness Court Felony DUI Wellness Courts Hybrid DUI/Drug Wellness Courts Anchorage Felony Drug Court Mental Health Courts VGE: Vocational/Adult General Education Vocational education Adult general education 10

Benefit-Cost Ratio A monetary metric for assessing return on investment Consists of two elements!"#"$%&' ()'&' = +,)%-"- (/ ()'&' 0 +,)%-"- 1%2&%3%45&%)# ()'&' 67)8753 ()'&' Note: Benefits are triggered by recidivism reduction achieved by each adult criminal justice program The ratio can be made larger by benefits costs 11

Interpretation How does one interpret a benefit-cost ratio?! Ratio greater than 1.0 Benefits exceed costs Example: 3.07 >>> $1 investment by state produces $3.07 of benefits Ratio of 1.0 Break even $1 invested by state produces a return of $1 of benefits Ratio greater than 0.0, but less than 1.0 Positive return with tangible monetary benefits, but not equal to amount invested Example: 0.80 >>> $1 investment by state produces $0.80 of benefits Ratio of 0.0 No return on investment Ratio less than 0.0 Negative return State investment lost, plus additional costs produced Example: -0.96 >>> $1 investment by state lost, and an additional $0.96 in costs incurred 12

Results First Model Results BENEFIT-COST RATIOS ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS 13

Benefit Cost Ratios Adult Criminal Justice Programs $25 PsychEd 1. PsychEd ($23.80) 2. Adult General Education ($10.58) 3. Vocational Education ($7.11) 4. Sex Offender: Community Outpatient 17 ($6.33) 5. IOPSAT: Dual Diagnosis ($4.89) 6. IOPSAT: Prison ($4.87) 7. Sex Offender: Community Outpatient 15 ($4.43) 8. PACE ($3.07) 9. EM: Post Prison ($3.03) 10. Sex Offender: Prison Outpatient ($2.38) 11. RSAT ($1.97) 12. ASAP ($1.51) 13. IOPSAT: Community 17 ($1.32) 14. Anchorage Fel Drug Court ($1.22) 15. Mental Health Courts ($1.16) 16. IOPSAT: Community 16 ($1.08) 17. Hybrid Courts [as Drug] ($0.80) 18. Sex Offender: Residential ($0.72) 19. Hybrid Courts [as DUI] ($0.69) 20. Fel DUI Wellness Courts ($0.60) 21. Anchorage Misd DUI Court ($0.34) 22. BIP: Community-Based (-$0.96) Benefit Cost Ratios $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 -$5 IOPSAT: DD & Prison PACE Break Even Line BIP Batterer Intervention Sex Offender Substance Abuse SOTX: Comm. Outpatient 17 SOTX: Comm. Outpatient 15 Electronic Monitoring SOTX: Prison Outpatient SOTX: Residential EM Program Type Adult General Education Therapeutic Courts Adult Education Vocational Education 14

Benefits vs. Costs (Alternate View) Per-Participant Program Benefits (via recidivism reduction) $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 $5 (Thousands) Adult General Ed. Vocational Ed. Psych Ed. IOPSAT (Prison) PACE RSAT Electronic Monitoring ASAP IOPSAT 16, 17 (Community) Batterer Intervention (Community) SOTX: Community Outpatient 17 SOTX: Community Outpatient 15 SOTX: Prison Outpatient Mental Health Court Anchorage Felony Drug Anchorage Misdemeanor DUI Hybrid Court: Drug SOTX: Residential Hybrid Court: DUI Felony DUI $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 Per-Participant Program Costs (Thousands) 15

Expected Recidivism Reduction Adult Criminal Justice Programs 1(t). Sex Offender: Community Outpatient 15 (32.44%) 1(t). Sex Offender: Community Outpatient 17 (32.44%) 3(t). Anchorage Fel Drug Court (26.31%) 3(t). Hybrid Courts [as Drug] (26.31%) 5. Adult General Education (23.41%) 6. Vocational Education (21.94%) 7. PACE (21.82%) 8. Mental Health Courts (20.63%) 9. Anchorage Misd DUI Court (20.24%) 10(t). Fel DUI Wellness Courts (19.97%) 10(t). Hybrid Courts [as DUI] (19.97%) 12(t). Sex Offender: Residential (17.72%) 12(t). Sex Offender: Prison Outpatient (17.72%) 14(t). IOPSAT: Prison (17.35%) 14(t). IOPSAT: Dual Diagnosis (17.35%) 16. PsychEd (15.20%) 17. RSAT (11.91%) 18. ASAP (8.89%) 19. EM: Post Prison (3.15%) 20(t). IOPSAT: Community 16 (2.45%) 20(t). IOPSAT: Community 17 (2.45%) 22. BIP: Community-Based (-5.13%) Expected Recidivism Reduction 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% PACE IOPSAT: Prison & DD PsychEd RSAT ASAP IOPSAT: Community 16 & 17 BIP Batterer Intervention Substance Abuse SOTX: Community Outpatient 15 & 17 Anchorage Felony Drug Court & Hybrid Courts as Drug Court Sex Offender SOTX: Prison Outpatient & Residential EM - Mental Health Courts - Anchorage Misd. DUI Court - Felony DUI Courts - Hybrid Courts as Drug Courts Electronic Monitoring Program Type Therapeutic Courts Adult Education General Ed Vocat. Ed Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism 16

SUMMARY 17

3 Things 1. 90% of state investment in adult criminal justice directed to programs matched in evidence base 2. Of the 19 adult criminal justice programs modeled, all but one produced positive returns 14 benefits exceeded costs 4 positive return with tangible monetary benefits, but not equal to amount invested 1 negative return 3. Benefit-cost ratios are not fixed! Return on investment that is, the monetary performance of a program can change Increase benefits (e.g., program elements, participants) Decrease costs (e.g., capacity, contracting/procurement) 18

3 More For The Road 1. Results First findings are intended to be used as a decision making TOOL, not a decision making rule 2. What are our expectations, RE: return on investment when it comes to the delivery of public services? 3. Model estimates could be improved Program level Programmatic data collection and compilation Collect/compile data with research/evaluation in mind Policy level Establish a program (and culture) of rigorous program evaluation and assessment, and institutionalize a paradigm of continual process improvement 19

Contact Information Brad A. Myrstol, Ph.D. Phone: 907-786-1837 Email: bamyrstol@alaska.edu Araceli Valle, Ph.D. Phone: 907-786-4881 Email: avalle@alaska.edu 20