By: Erin Dalton, Allegheny County, PA
LOCAL UTILITY OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
AGENDA
How we got here
Recent cost benefit studies
Current project
Jail Collaborative Structure
Jail Collaborative’s 3 Strategies5
CURRENT PROJECTS
ReentrySecond Chance Act Adult DemonstrationSecond Chance Reentry Court GrantRWJ Family Support
Justice ReinvestmentFirst set of county-sitesState site
IT Development Cost Benefit Analysis
Reentry Center Discharge Center
Release w/in 48 hours Screening & Assessment RFP for Evidence Based
Programs Treatment pods DUI Hotel Criminal Court Case Review One Judge, one defendant Postponements reduced IT infrastructure to capture
reentry programs
DATA WAREHOUSE
• Allegheny County Housing Authority• Allegheny County Jail• Allegheny County Coroner• Department of Public Welfare• Housing Authority City of Pittsburgh• Juvenile Probation• Pittsburgh Public Schools• Adult Probation• Pretrial Services• Criminal Court
• Children, Youth and Families• Aging• Drug & Alcohol• Early Intervention•Mental Health•Intellectual Disabilities•Family Support Centers• HeadStart• Human Services Development Fund• Homelessness & Housing• Low Income House Energy AssistanceProgram• System of Care Initiative
COST BENEFIT STUDIES
Mental Health Court Jail Collaborative Costing Policy Options, Justice Reinvestment
MENTAL HEALTH COURT FINDINGS
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR439.pdf
FINDINGS
Diversion successfulShort term: not more expensiveLonger term: saves money “In the short run, the more effective MHC
is at reducing incarceration, the more expensive it is to taxpayers”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR439.pdf
CRITICAL ISSUES
Where costs/benefits accrue o Level of government
o Individuals
External estimatesoCosts of crimes
oCriminal careers
oCosts of criminal justice system versus treatment
JAIL COLLABORATIVE EVALUATION
oAllegheny County is saving over $5.3 million/yr oGreatest cost-savings generated in areas of reduced victimization among county residentsoCost-savings ratio is approximately 6 to 1 oAt 12 months post-release, the Collaborative inmates achieve a 50% lower recidivism rate compared to matched comparison group oNo significant differences in the recidivism between Black and White inmates
METHODS
Cost of jail stayCost of processing offenders in the criminal justice systemCosts of crime victimizationCost of providing services at the jailCost savings associated with Collaborative participants’
recidivism reduction
The greatest cost-savings generated areas of public safety and reduced victimization among county residents – 86 percent of
total cost savings.
COSTING POLICY OPTIONS
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-8% -7% -5% -3% -2% 0% 2% 3% 5% 7% 8%
Percent Change in JBD
Cha
nge
in A
LO
S (D
ays)
-100000
-80000
-60000
-40000
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
JBD
• Reduce ALOS by an average of one day to produce a 1.7% reduction in jail bed days
• This is the equivalent of 17,929 days and $1,290,888*
Urban Institute Presentation to Allegheny County
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS – BUILDING CAPACITY
SCHOOL BASED PROBATION – QUANTIFYING OUTCOMES
DAY REPORTING CENTERS – IDENTIFYING GOALS AND OUTCOMES
Agreement around Costs
Understanding of cost-benefit analysis throughout the county
Process to incorporate better data into decision-making
SYSTEM WIDE MEASURES AND GOALS
INNOVATIONS
INNOVATIONS
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-08-1201.pdf
Top Related