Cost Analysis: Local Examples

Transcription

1 Cost Analysis: Local Examples D a r l a n n e H o c t o r M u l m a t D a r l a n n e. M u l m a s a n d a g. o r g C y n t h i a B u r k e, P h. D. K r i s t e n R o h a n n a

2 What is SANDAG? San Diego Association of Governments Governed by a Board of Directors representing the region s 19 local governments Regional planning and implementation agency for quality of life issues Five advisory policy committees Only council of governments involved in criminal justice research 2

3 Our Work Established in 1977 Conduct independent process and impact evaluations to determine what works in improving public health and safety Clearinghouse for regional crime and arrest data Research Areas Substance Abuse Monitoring Law Enforcement Strategies Community Supervision Needs Assessments Juvenile Justice Reentry Advisory Member of local Community Corrections Partnership 3

4 Example #1- Study Overview Project Goal Compare the cost-effectiveness of committing youth to State facilities and Camp Barrett Evaluate costs of each program against short-term benefits Short-term: One year following release from custody Benefits: Reduced recidivism (future felony convictions) Crimes prevented Historical Data (2000) Local youth in the California Youth Authority (CYA) Camp Barrett youth 4

5 Example #1-The Challenge Goal: Control for differences between groups Matching not possible Potential to confound results 5

6 Example #1-The Solution Two hypothetical groups of 1,000 juveniles 1. CYA Group: Juveniles with characteristics of the 47 local CYA commits in Camp Barrett Group: Juveniles with characteristics of the 59 Camp Barrett commits in 2000 Comparisons Within each hypothetical group Facility changed while youth characteristics remain constant 6

7 Example #1-Local Crime Costs 7

8 Example #1-Victim Costs 8

9 Example #1-The Process Applied to both hypothetical groups Individual-level data from the samples for each facility Length of stay (days) multiplied by daily program costs Sliding scale costs charged to the County for CYA commits Parole and aftercare costs 9

10 Example #1-Benefits Future felonies prevented within one year of release Steps Percent not convicted of a felony Average number of felony convictions per recidivist Assumption: same rate for non-recidivists Savings to criminal justice system 10

11 Example #1-Benefit-Cost Ratios Short-term benefits may underestimate actual longterm benefits Comparison of relative cost-effectiveness Benefit-cost ratio: Total benefits Calculated within each hypothetical group CYA group: in CYA versus in Camp Barrett Camp Barrett group: in Camp Barrett versus in CYA total costs 11

12 Example #1-Results Group CYA Camp Barrett Facility CYA Camp Barrett CYA Camp Barrett Percent not Recidivated Average number of Felony Convictions per Recidivist Total Program Costs 77% 68% $488,697,692 $175,105,745 $37,021,607 $23,938,326 Total Benefits $230,874,997 $196,034,966 Average Cost per Non-recidivating Youth $632,209 $226,527 $54,604 $35,307 Benefit-Cost Ratio

13 Example #1-Sensitivity Analysis Vary assumptions to test if conclusions hold Potential rehabilitative effectiveness How much more effective would CYA need to be? 1 ½ to 3 times more effective 13

14 Example #2-Study Overview Evaluation of Senate Bill (SB) 618 San Diego Prisoner Reentry program Treatment group: SB 618 participants Comparison group: matched group of non-violent offenders not offered program participation 14

15 Example #2-Methodology Options Cost Benefit Analysis Comparison of two different programs with different costs and potentially different monetary benefits Total Net Benefits Total Benefits Total Costs Which program has a higher return on investment Cost Effectiveness Analysis Cost savings of benefit (when incarceration is avoided) would be the same for both groups Total program costs total number of successful cases To determine if program is a worthy investment, compare program costs against outcomes (% not returned to prison) 15

16 Example #2-Additional Analysis Vary assumptions to test if conclusions hold Cost Avoidance Projection of future expenses avoided due to successful treatment Number of offenders completing SB 618 % recidivism reduction (incarceration costs parole costs) 16

17 Example #2-Costs Included Average Cost/Person Treatment Comparison SB 618 Program Staff X Assessments X In Custody Case Management X Prison Incarceration X X Parole X X Community Case Management X Vocational Specialist X Program Database X 17

18 Example #2-Results Comparative measure not total costs versus total net benefits Is the return on investment the same or better for SB 618 relative to the comparison group (treatment as usual)? Cost Effective Significant Costs Avoided 18

19 Cost Analysis: Local Examples D a r l a n n e H o c t o r M u l m a t D a r l a n n e. M u l m a s a n d a g. o r g C y n t h i a B u r k e, P h. D. K r i s t e n R o h a n n a