Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency October 25, 2013 The...
-
Upload
adam-copeland -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency October 25, 2013 The...
Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency
October 25, 2013
The Pew-MacArthurThe Pew-MacArthurResults First Initiative:Results First Initiative:
Investing in Programs that WorkInvesting in Programs that Work
2
The Policy Challenge
• While we talk about making strategic choices, the budget process relies on inertia and anecdote
• Very limited data on:– What programs are funded
– What each costs
– What programs accomplish
– How they compare
3
The Solution: Bring Evidence Into the Process
• Target funds using rigorous evidence
• Stop funding ineffective programs
• Ensure programs are implemented effectively
• Achieve dramatic improvements without increased spending
4
The cost-benefit analysis approach
•Long-standing approach to policy analysis
•Widely used in the private sector
•Increasingly used by states
Goal: Assess whether a program generates enough benefits to justify funding
5
States are increasing use of CBA
Report found number of studies done by states is growing significantly each year
States are increasingly mandating that studies be done
States are using results in policy and budget processes
6
Predict program impacts in your state
Calculate and compare long-term costs and benefits
Use the best national research to identify what works
7
Step 1: Conduct a Program Inventory
• Identify the programs currently provided in New Hampshire and the population that is served by those programs
• Identify the current funding for programs
• Assess whether the programs are evidence-based
• Determine if programs are being implemented according to design
8
Step 1: Inventory Programs
*Washington State 2012 dollars
POLICY/PROGRAMPOLICY/PROGRAM COSTCOST LONG-TERM LONG-TERM BENEFITSBENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT COST/BENEFIT RATIORATIO
Intensive supervision (only) $4,140 -$578 -$0.14
Mental health court $2,935 $20,424 $6.96
Community drug treatment $1,602 $17,711 $11.05
Correctional education in prison $1,128 $21,426 $19.00
Work release $661 $7,117 $10.77
Cognitive behavioral therapy $412 $9,695 $23.55
Community job training & aid $135 $5,501 $40.76
JUVENILE PROGRAMSJUVENILE PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy $3,262 $70,370 $21.57
Aggression replacement training $1,508 $62,947 $41.75
Coordination of services $395 $5,501 $13.94
Scared Straight $65 -$4,949 -$76.35
9
Step 2: Identify Program Costs
• Identify the costs of serving persons in each program
• Include direct and indirect costs
• Calculate marginal costs for each program
10
Step 2: Identify Costs
*Washington State 2012 dollars
POLICY/PROGRAMPOLICY/PROGRAM COSTCOST LONG-TERM LONG-TERM BENEFITSBENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT COST/BENEFIT RATIORATIO
Intensive supervision (only) $4,140 -$578 -$0.14
Mental health court $2,935 $20,424 $6.96
Community drug treatment $1,602 $17,711 $11.05
Correctional education in prison $1,128 $21,426 $19.00
Work release $661 $7,117 $10.77
Cognitive behavioral therapy $412 $9,695 $23.55
Community job training & aid $135 $5,501 $40.76
JUVENILE PROGRAMSJUVENILE PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy $3,262 $70,370 $21.57
Aggression replacement training $1,508 $62,947 $41.75
Coordination of services $395 $5,501 $13.94
Scared Straight $65 -$4,949 -$76.35
11
Step 3: Predict and Monetize Outcomes
– Costs per felony conviction
– Convictions avoided per participant
– Other benefits throughout system
– Victimizations avoided per participant
Taxpayer benefits Taxpayer benefits (avoided costs)(avoided costs)
Victimization benefits Victimization benefits (avoided costs)(avoided costs)
12
• Taxpayer outcomes
– Avoided cost of delivery of services and programs
• Societal outcomes
– Avoided costs incurred of crime victims
– Tangible costs (e.g., lost wages, health care)
– Intangible costs (e.g., pain and suffering)
– Estimates based on medical records, insurance claims, and court judgments
Assess full program outcomes
13
Meta-analysis of Functional Family Therapy
Follow-up Years Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Recidivism Rate
Without FFT (actual baseline)
RECIDIVISM RATES REDUCED BY RECIDIVISM RATES REDUCED BY 22%22%
With FFT
14
Cost-Benefit of Functional Family Therapy
BENEFITS PER FAMILY BENEFITS PER FAMILY WA STATE WA STATE 2010 DOLLARS2010 DOLLARS MAIN SOURCE OF BENEFITSMAIN SOURCE OF BENEFITS
Reduced crime $31,745 Lower state & victim costs
Increased high school graduation $5,686 Increased earnings
Reduced health care costs $307 Lower public costs
Total Benefits Per Family $37,739
Cost Per Family $3,190
Net Present Value $34,549
Benefits Per Dollar of Cost $11.86
15
Cost-benefit of Nurse Family Partnership
BENEFITS PER FAMILY BENEFITS PER FAMILY WA STATE WA STATE 2010 DOLLARS2010 DOLLARS MAIN SOURCE OF BENEFITSMAIN SOURCE OF BENEFITS
Reduced crime & abuse $6,611 Lower state & victim costs
Educational gains $17,770 Increased earnings
Reduced public assistance costs $5,944 Lower public costs
Total Benefits Per Family $30,325
Cost Per Family $9,421
Net Present Value $20,904
Benefits Per Dollar of Cost $3.23
16
Step 4: Compare Costs and BenefitsAcross Program Portfolio
*Washington State 2012 dollars
POLICY/PROGRAMPOLICY/PROGRAM COSTCOST LONG-TERM LONG-TERM BENEFITSBENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT COST/BENEFIT RATIORATIO
Intensive supervision (only) $4,140 -$578 -$0.14
Mental health court $2,935 $20,424 $6.96
Community drug treatment $1,602 $17,711 $11.05
Correctional education in prison $1,128 $21,426 $19.00
Work release $661 $7,117 $10.77
Cognitive behavioral therapy $412 $9,695 $23.55
Community job training & aid $135 $5,501 $40.76
JUVENILE PROGRAMSJUVENILE PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy $3,262 $70,370 $21.57
Aggression replacement training $1,508 $62,947 $41.75
Coordination of services $395 $5,501 $13.94
Scared Straight $65 -$4,949 -$76.35
18
Washington State’s Long-term Success
• 15+ years of using approach to help steer budget decisions
• Have achieved better outcomes at lower costs
LOWERED CRIME RATE LOWERED CRIME RATE and achieved and achieved
$2.7 BILLION $2.7 BILLION in higher long-term benefitsin higher long-term benefits
19
Juvenile Crime Reduction Benefits
Change since 1990 in the U.S. and Washington State
1991 1993 1995 1971 19991 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Washington StateWashington State67% lower67% lower
Washington StateWashington State67% lower67% lower
United StatesUnited States49% lower49% lower
United StatesUnited States49% lower49% lower
In 2003, Washington begins “full fidelity” implementation
In 2000, Washington begins evidence-based Juvenile Justice
program
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
20
Participation in Results First
AK
HIHI
WAWA
TNTN
MTMT
OROR
IDID
WYWY
COCOUTUT
NVNV
CACA
AZAZ NMNM
NENE
KSKS
OKOK
TXTX
MEME
NDND
SDSD
MNMN
LALA
ARAR
MOMO
IAIA
WIWI
MIMI
ILIL ININOHOH
PAPA
NYNY
WVWV
KYKY
MSMS ALAL GAGA
SCSC
NCNC
FLFL
VAVA
AKAK
21
What are Results First states doing?
enacted legislation incorporating Results First into their policy making process
used models to analyze legislation, avoiding millions in potential costs
22
New Mexico
• Legislative Finance Committee leads initiative, expanding into agencies
• Implemented Results First in all available policy areas
• Innovative “Cost of Doing Nothing” report found $360M in recidivism-related corrections costs over next 15 years
• Used Results First model to target $17M for evidence-based programming in early education and criminal justice
23
Iowa
• Housed in the Departments of Corrections and Human Rights
• Found state’s domestic violence treatment program was ineffective
– Replacing with new program to achieve higher ROI
• Used model to analyze sentencing reform proposals
24
New York
• Used model to develop Governor’s public safety budget
– Referenced in 2013 State of the State Address
• Restructuring $11.4M in Alternatives to Incarceration funds to prioritize cost-effective programs
– $5M allocated through competitive grant process incorporating cost-benefit analyses
25
Mississippi
• Legislative PEER Committee implementing model
• Very strong legislative leadership support
• Using approach to re-energize performance budgeting system
• Currently assessing criminal justice and education programs
26
Vermont
• Legislative Joint Fiscal Office began initiative
– Legislatively established the Criminal Justice Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group to expand the Vermont Results First model
• Used analysis to cut funding to inefficient correctional education program
30
The Role of Partner States
• Secure leadership support
• Appoint a policy work group
• Establish a staff work group with project manager
• Collaborate with Results First to strengthen the model and build a learning community of states
31
Services provided by Results First
• Provide software
• Train staff in the approach
• Provide ongoing technical assistance
• Help interpret results for policymakers
• Compile and share lessons learned with other participating states
• Expand and update model
• No charge for Results First services
32
Goal – Dramatically improve outcomes by:
–Fund programs that are proven to work (and cut those that don’t)
–Programs must be properly implemented
–Must target the right people
–Compare outcomes to predictions
–Require new programs to prove success
Using EvidenceUsing Evidence
Ensuring Program QualityEnsuring Program Quality
Tracking ResultsTracking Results
33
This approach should drive the system
Appropriations(investment
advice)
Research(test new programs)
Implementation (ensure fidelity)
Oversight (monitor
outcomes)