Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:12 am
Time: 12:12 am
Results for cost analysis
12 results foundAuthor: Barnoski, Robert Title: Providing Evidence-Based Programs With Fidelity in Washington State Juvenile Courts: Cost Analysis Summary: This report describes a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2008 costs associated with providing state-funded evidence-based programs in the Washington State juvenile courts. Appendix A contains a description of each state-funded evidence-based programs examined in this study. These programs are: Aggression Replacement Training (ART); Coordination of Services (COS); Functional Family Therapy (FFT); Family Integrated Transitions (FIT); and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). The first two exhibits in this report summarize the cost of implementing evidence-based programs in Washington State juvenile courts during fiscal year 2008. The remainder of the report provides more detailed analyses of these costs. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-12-1201.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-12-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 120324 Keywords: Cost AnalysisEvidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile Courts (Washington State)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Guerin, Paul Title: Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities Summary: The goal of this report was to better understand how long felony arrestees stay in detention centers and the corresponding cost. Specifically, the report looks at the length of stay of felony arrestees in six New Mexico detention facilities. Highlights of the study include the following: 68.9% of the arrestees held in local New Mexico detention facilities were charged with at least one felony. More than 50% of arrestees held in detention centers spent almost 7 1/2 months in jail (224 days). Unsentenced probation violators (546 arrestees) spent more than two months in jail from the time they were booked to the time they were sentenced. Median length of stay varied from a low of 38 days in Eddy County to a high of 96 days in Dona Ana County. Reducing the length of stay of probation violators will reduce jail crowding. Unsentenced arrestees on new charges spent a median of 167 days in jail from the time they were booked to the time the case was closed by the District Court. According to an NIJ study, courts can exercise considerable control over how quickly cases move through the court system without sacrificing justice. Slightly more than 18% (459) of all arrestees in the sample were sentenced to prison. Between the date these individuals were sentenced and the date they were transported to prison they spent a median of 19 days in jail. This ranged from 13 days in Dona Ana County to 34 days in Eddy County. These individuals accounted for 8,721 bed days. Reducing the length of stay by 50% would save almost 4,500 bed days. Detention center administrators do not control jail admissions or length of stay and so cannot directly affect jail populations. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2005. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Shelf Number: 121215 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: Freeman, Kathryn Title: Breaking Rules, Breaking Budgets: Cost of Exclusionary Discipline in 11 Texas School Districts Summary: This report documents the high price tag attached to public schools' use of out-of-school suspension, expulsion, and alternative schools and spending on school policing--an approach that has failed to reduce the number of student disciplinary referrals. Eleven school districts, educating a quarter of Texas' public school students, are surveyed. The aim is to encourage a dialogue about strategically scaling back spending in these areas and redirecting a portion of the savings to less costly, more effective approaches to student discipline. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=848&Itemid= Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=848&Itemid= Shelf Number: 126824 Keywords: Cost AnalysisSchool Discipline (Texas)School PolicingSchool Suspensions |
Author: Freeman, Linda Title: Length of Stay in Detention Facilities: A Profile of Seven New Mexico Counties Summary: In 2004, the New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC) contracted with the New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) to conduct a study to estimate the cost of housing arrestees charged with felonies in New Mexico detention facilities. Fiscal impact was the primary focus of the study; however, a second report Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities was published that analyzed the amount of time arrestees charged with felonies spent in jail. In subsequent years, the cost estimate has been updated annually. The length of stay study had not been updated since 2005. In June 2011, NMAC contracted with NMSC to update the length of stay study. Rather than just look at arrestees with felony charges, the update includes arrestees charged with misdemeanor charges as well as collection of other data elements. Much of the conclusions from the 2005 report are still relevant. Jail population is a consequence of two factors: the number of jail admissions and the length of stay. Robert Cushman observes in a 2002 NIJ publication, Preventing Jail Crowding: A Practical Guide, that often times jail management is reactive rather than proactive. Many communities leave the jail population to seek its own level. Jail managers do not control how people get in or out so little is done to analyze the jail composition. However, an examination of the type and duration of the length of stay and the sources of admission can give jail managers the information to formulate policy and improve public protection. Variations exist in the length of stay by county. Efforts need to continue to be made to: Analyze the detention process in each county to determine efficiencies and positive externalities; Determine how county detention centers, courts, district attorneys, public defenders, and private attorneys can work together to reduce unsentenced length of stay; Work with county detention centers and sheriffs to reduce the delay in transferring arrestees to prison after the judgment and sentence is signed, and; Consider ways to hear probation revocations more quickly to reduce unsentenced length of stay for probation violators. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2012. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Shelf Number: 126858 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: Nelson, Nanette M. Title: The Cost of Substance Abuse in Wyoming 2010 Summary: The Wyoming Department of Health, Public Health Division (PHD) contracted with the Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center (WYSAC) at the University of Wyoming to conduct a cost of illness (COI) analysis of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug abuse, prescription drug abuse, and mental health in the state. WYSAC received methodological guidance on the project from the Wyoming State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW). In this report, WYSAC presents estimates of the economic impacts of substance abuse. In COI studies, estimated costs represent opportunity costs (WYSAC, 2011). Opportunity costs in COI studies are the economic values of opportunities or resources that could have otherwise been used for an alternative purpose instead of those opportunities or resources being used because of adverse health conditions or other outcomes. In this study WYSAC researchers estimated economic costs that would not have been incurred if the Wyoming population was not exposed to the risk factor (i.e., substance abuse) at some point during 2010. Details: Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center University of Wyoming, 2012. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: WYSAC Technical Report No. DER-1250, 2012: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://wysac.uwyo.edu/Reports.aspx?TypeId=4 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://wysac.uwyo.edu/Reports.aspx?TypeId=4 Shelf Number: 128658 Keywords: Cost AnalysisDrug Abuse and AdditionMedical CostsSubstance Abuse (Wyoming, U.S.) |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Managing Prison Health Care Spending Summary: Nationwide, spending on both health care and corrections is putting serious pressure on state budgets. Medicaid-the largest component of states' health care spending-has been the fastest-growing part of state expenditures over the past two decades, with corrections coming in just behind it. Despite increasing interest among policymakers and taxpayers in improving outcomes and controlling costs in health care and corrections, the intersection of these two areas-health care for prison inmates-has garnered comparatively little attention. To better understand spending for inmate health services, researchers from The Pew Charitable Trusts analyzed cost data from the 44 states included in a study by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, or BJS. Pew found that prison health care spending in these 44 states totaled $6.5 billion in 2008, out of $36.8 billion in overall institutional correctional expenditures. Most states' correctional health care spending increased substantially from fiscal 2001 to 2008, the years included in the BJS report: Spending increased in 42 of the 44 states, with median growth of 52 percent. In a dozen states, prison health expenditures grew 90 percent or more. Only Texas and Illinois experienced inflation-adjusted decreases in this spending area. Per-inmate health care spending rose in 35 of the 44 states, with 32 percent median growth. In 39 of the states, prison health care costs claimed a larger share of their total institutional corrections budgets, increasing, on average, from 10 percent in fiscal 2001 to 15 percent in fiscal 2008. Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and West Virginia were the only exceptions. This significant growth reflects, in part, the rise in prison populations nationally. From 2001 to 2008, the number of sentenced prisoners in correctional institutions increased by 15 percent, from 1,344,512 to 1,540,100. This rise was part of a multi-decade trend; the number of Americans in prison nearly tripled from 1987 to 2007. The dramatic increase was driven in part by tougher sentencing laws and more restrictive probation and parole policies that have put more people in prison and held them there longer. This trend, however, has recently begun to reverse in about half of the states as sentencing and corrections reforms have spurred reductions in prison populations. The sheer number of state prisoners does not explain all of the increased spending. Higher per-inmate expenses and the expanding slice of corrections budgets devoted to health care suggest that other factors are also pushing costs up, including: Aging inmate populations; Prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases, mental illness, and substance abuse among inmates, many of whom enter prison with these problems; and challenges inherent in delivering health care in prisons, such as distance from hospitals and other providers. Inmates' health, the public's safety, and taxpayers' total corrections bill are all affected by how states manage prison health care services. Effectively treating inmates' physical and mental ailments, including substance abuse, improves their well-being and can reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes or violate probation once released. In addition to examining spending data, Pew researchers interviewed correctional health care experts across the country to identify innovative strategies to deliver health care to inmates, protect public safety, and control costs. This report examines Pew's findings on state prison health care spending and explores the factors driving costs higher. It also illustrates a variety of promising approaches that states are taking to address these challenges by examining four strategies that were frequently cited during the expert interviews: the use of telehealth technology, improved management of health services contractors, Medicaid financing, and medical or geriatric parole. These examples offer important lessons as policymakers seek the best ways to make their correctional health care systems effective and affordable. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2013 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/SHCS_Pew-Managing_Prison_Health_Care_Spending_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/SHCS_Pew-Managing_Prison_Health_Care_Spending_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131609 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of Corrections Inmate Health Care (U.S.)Prisoners, Medical Care |
Author: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Title: Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General's Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health, 2016 Summary: The United States has a serious substance misuse problem. Substance misuse is the use of alcohol or drugs in a manner, situation, amount, or frequency that could cause harm to the user or to those around them. Alcohol and drug misuse and related substance use disorders affect millions of Americans and impose enormous costs on our society. In 2015, 66.7 million people in the United States reported binge drinking in the past month and 27.1 million people were current users of illicit drugs or misused prescription drugs. The accumulated costs to the individual, the family, and the community are staggering and arise as a consequence of many direct and indirect effects, including compromised physical and mental health, increased spread of infectious disease, loss of productivity, reduced quality of life, increased crime and violence, increased motor vehicle crashes, abuse and neglect of children, and health care costs. The most devastating consequences are seen in the tens of thousands of lives that are lost each year as a result of substance misuse. Alcohol misuse contributes to 88,000 deaths in the United States each year; 1 in 10 deaths among working adults are due to alcohol misuse. In addition, in 2014 there were 47,055 drug overdose deaths including 28,647 people who died from a drug overdose involving some type of opioid, including prescription pain relievers and heroin—more than in any previous year on record. Even though the United States spends more than any other country on health care, it ranks 27th in life expectancy, which has plateaued or decreased for some segments of the population at a time when life expectancy continues to increase in other developed countries—and the difference is largely due to substance misuse and associated physical and mental health problems. For example, recent research has shown an unprecedented increase in mortality among middle-aged White Americans between 1999 and 2014 that was largely driven by alcohol and drug misuse and suicides, although this trend was not seen within other racial and ethnic populations such as Blacks and Hispanics. An analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) demonstrated that alcohol and drug misuse accounted for a roughly 4-month decline in life expectancy among White Americans; no other cause of death had a larger negative impact in this population. Substance misuse and substance use disorders also have serious economic consequences, costing more than $400 billion annually in crime, health, and lost productivity. These costs are of a similar order of magnitude to those associated with other serious health problems such as diabetes, which is estimated to cost the United States $245 billion each year.12 Alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorders alone costs the United States approximately $249 billion in lost productivity, health care expenses, law enforcement, and other criminal justice costs. The costs associated with drug use disorders and use of illegal drugs and non-prescribed medications were estimated to be more than $193 billion in 2007. Despite decades of expense and effort focused on a criminal justice–based model for addressing substance use-related problems, substance misuse remains a national public health crisis that continues to rob the United States of its most valuable asset: its people. In fact, high annual rates of past-month illicit drug use and binge drinking among people aged 12 years and older from 2002 through 2014 (Figure 1.1) emphasize the importance of implementing evidence-based public-health-focused strategies to prevent and treat alcohol and drug problems in the United States. A public health approach seeks to improve the health and safety of the population by addressing underlying social, environmental, and economic determinants of substance misuse and its consequences, to improve the health, safety, and well-being of the entire population This Surgeon General’s Report has been created because of the important health and social problems associated with alcohol and drug misuse in America. As described in this Report, a comprehensive approach is needed to address substance use problems in the United States that includes several key components: $ Enhanced public education to improve awareness about substance use problems and demand for more effective policies and practices to address them; $ Widespread implementation of evidence-based prevention policies and programs to prevent substance misuse and related harms; $ Improved access to evidence-based treatment services, integrated with mainstream health care, for those at risk for or affected by substance use disorders; $ Recovery support services (RSS) to assist individuals in maintaining remission and preventing relapse; and $ Research-informed public policies and financing strategies to ensure that substance misuse and use disorder services are accessible, compassionate, efficient, and sustainable. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/2016alcoholdrugshealth/index.html Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/2016alcoholdrugshealth/index.html Shelf Number: 140756 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder Alcoholism Cost AnalysisDrug Abuse and Addiction Drug Abuse and Crime Drug Treatment Substance Abuse Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Title: The Projected Costs of Marijuana Legalization in Connecticut Summary: Much has been said about the revenue that marijuana legalization might bring to Connecticut. Few, however, discuss the costs of such a policy. Omitting costs is a critical oversight: no policy or business plan would be complete without discussing both sides of the balance sheet. Although a full cost accounting of marijuana legalization would be impossible at present, enough data exists to make rough-and-ready estimates of certain likely direct and short-term costs, such as: 1. Administrative and enforcement costs for regulators 2. Increased drugged-driving fatalities 3. Increased drugged-driving injuries 4. Increased property damage to vehicles related to drugged driving 5. Short-term health costs a. More emergency room visits for marijuana poisonings b. Injuries from marijuana-concentrate extraction lab explosions/fires 6. Increased rates of homelessness 7. Workplace costs a. Increased absenteeism b. More workplace accidents among full-time employees Initial approximations of these preliminary costs indicate that it is unlikely that revenues from legalization would ever exceed its costs. This report concludes that even a conservative cost estimate limited to only the issues above would cost Connecticut approximately $216 million in 2020, which would be the third year of legalization if the policy was implemented in 2018. (According to data from the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis, the legalization program will only be fully operational in its third year of operation. ) Such costs exceed, by more than 90 percent, the maximum projected official revenue estimate of $113.6 million for the third year of the proposed legalization program. (These costs are almost 300 percent of the minimum revenue estimate of $54.4 million, but to be conservative, this report uses the maximum estimate. ) Further, even without considering such costs, the maximum projected revenue estimate would account for just one-half of one percent of the governor's proposed FY 2018–19 budget. Sch a conclusion is also consistent with well-established information about alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs whose costs to society are at least 10 times the tax revenue their sale generates for the state. Details: Alexandria, VA: SAM, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2018 at: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SAM-CT-Report-Costs-Marijuana2123.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SAM-CT-Report-Costs-Marijuana2123.pdf Shelf Number: 149162 Keywords: Cost AnalysisMarijuana Marijuana Legalization |
Author: O'Brien, Matthew Title: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017) Summary: A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government's inefective eforts to secure our borders, present signifcant national security and public safety threats to the United States. Tey also have a severely negative impact on the nation's taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. Political and judicial efforts to accord illegal aliens the same government benefits available to U.S. citizens (e.g., the Supreme Court's holding in Plyler v. Doe guaranteeing illegal alien children a free public education, at taxpayer expense) have increasingly stressed federal, state and local budgets - to the detriment of Americans, particularly the poor, elderly, and disabled. Te impact on public school systems1 and criminal justice institutions has been particularly harsh. And the situation has been greatly exacerbated by government refusal to implement measures aimed at deterring, detecting and prosecuting illegal aliens who commit fraud to obtain benefits and/or to avoid deportation following a criminal conviction. Tis study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets. It does not address the question of whether unchecked mass migration is a net boon to the United States. Most studies that extol the many benefits that allegedly accrue from illegal immigration suffer from a number of key problems: - Unreasonable assumptions about who is an illegal alien. Most relevant data sets don't clearly distinguish who is an illegal alien and who isn't. Studies that wish to portray illegal immigration in a favorable light frequently rely on narrow definition of "illegal alien" to skew data in their favor. - Failure to examine whether the same, or even more significant, benefits would be achieved by flling vacant jobs, at market wages, with American employees. - Refusal to acknowledge that there are many activities which create profit but remain illegal because of their negative effects on society as a whole. Te exploitation of illegal alien labor to increase the profits of unscrupulous employers falls squarely into this category. - A deceptive and inappropriate focus on the amount of taxes remitted by illegal aliens, rather than the taxes actually paid by illegal aliens. Te American system of taxation returns a signifcant portion of monies paid by people earning low incomes. As a result, most illegal aliens receive a refund of all tax payments along with additional net income from the federal government, in the form of tax credits. - Erroneous claims that illegal aliens subsidize federal benefit programs through un-refunded tax payments remitted by illegal aliens who are unable collect a return. Most illegal aliens are able to file a tax return using an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). In addition, neither the states or the federal government have any data indicating how much of the pool of unclaimed tax refunds is attributable to illegal aliens versus deceased taxpayers, foreign investors, etc. Even in the absence of any complex studies, basic mathematics make it self-evident that illegal aliens are a drain on the U.S. economy. For example, in its report Te Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the U.S. Health Care System in 2009, FAIR found that, in some hospitals, as many as two-thirds of total operating costs are attributable to uncompensated care for illegal aliens.3 If those costs are being borne by American taxpayers, rather than the illegal aliens who received medical treatment, then those illegal aliens are consuming more services than they pay for, and the costs of providing those services are never recouped. Tat makes them a net drain on the economy. A careful examination of the federal budget shows an annual outlay of approximately $46 billion for expenses related to illegal immigration. A review of state budgets indicates even greater local costs, estimated at $89 billion annually. This means that the overall costs attributable to illegal aliens totals an annual bill of $135 billion. Tat equates to over $8,000 per illegal alien and dependent, per year. Some illegal aliens do pay certain taxes. However, employers usually hire illegal aliens to obtain cheap labor at wages well below the market rate for a given area. Many of those employers pay illegal aliens "under-the-table" and do not deduct payroll taxes. Due to their lack of immigration status, illegal aliens are unlikely to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Therefore, state and local governments, as well as the federal government, are not collecting enough taxes from illegal aliens to cover the costs of the services they consume. We estimate that illegal aliens actually pay just under $19 billion in combined state, local, and federal taxes. Tat means that the United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were fled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments. FAIR firmly believes that the costs of illegal immigration (and massive legal immigration) significantly outweigh any perceived benefit. Accordingly, this study focuses only on calculating the overall costs of illegal immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2017. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2018 at: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149551 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationImmigration |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates Summary: Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2017, ICE operated on a budget of nearly $3 billion to manage the U.S. immigration detention system, which houses foreign nationals whose immigration cases are pending or who have been ordered removed from the country. In recent years, ICE has consistently had to reprogram and transfer millions of dollars into, out of, and within its account used to fund its detention system. The explanatory statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2017, includes a provision for GAO to review ICE's methodologies for determining detention resource requirements. This report examines (1) how ICE formulates its budget request for detention resources, (2) how ICE develops bed rates and determines ADP for use in its budget process, and (3) to what extent ICE's methods for estimating detention costs follow best practices. GAO analyzed ICE's budget documents, including CBJs, for fiscal years 2014 to 2018, examined ICE's models for projecting ADP and bed rates, and evaluated ICE's cost estimating process against best practices. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the Director of ICE: (1) document and implement its review process to ensure accuracy in its budget documents; (2) assess ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (3) update ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (4) document the methodology and rationale behind the ADP projection used in budget requests; and (5) take steps to ensure that ICE's detention cost estimate more fully addresses best practices. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-343: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Shelf Number: 149880 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: Sullivan, Riley Title: The Fiscal Impact of the Opioid Epidemic in the New England States Summary: The rise in the abuse of-and addiction to-opioids and the rapid increase in the number of fatal overdoses in recent years have made the opioid epidemic a priority for local, state, and federal policymakers. Understanding the epidemic's direct fiscal impact is key to acknowledging its scope and magnitude. While opioid abuse has many direct and indirect fiscal costs, few studies quantify them. This report assembles available data on the impact of opioid epidemic on criminal justice, treatment, and related health expenditures in the New England states. The research finds that state governments in the region spend a higher percentage on total opioid-related costs and more per capita than the national averages. Across the region, treating opioid-use disorder-on both an emergency and a long-term basis-accounts for the majority of the costs. Estimates for medical treatment expenditures associated with opioid abuse reach as high as $340 million annually in Massachusetts alone. While providing new insight the author acknowledges that the costs considered in this policy report are incomplete. It's plausible that the opioid epidemic's impact on state revenues is also significant and could affect regional fiscal health. For example, individuals incarcerated for drug crimes or in residential treatment programs are not earning wages. Evidence also suggests that non-institutionalized individuals abusing opioids are more likely out of work than employed, likewise resulting in lost revenue (Krueger 2017). The author plans to conduct further research on opioid abuse's impact on employment and labor force participation, which should contribute to a fuller understanding of the epidemic's fiscal cost to the region. However, beyond the fiscal cost is the toll opioid abuse has taken on individuals, families, and communities. The costs analyzed in this report are just a small part of the greater damage inflicted across the region and the country. Details: Boston: New England Public Policy Center; Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report 18-1: Accessed July 9, 2018 at: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-england-public-policy-center-policy-report/2018/the-fiscal-impact-of-the-opioid-epidemic-in-the-new-england-states.aspx#collapse2 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-england-public-policy-center-policy-report/2018/the-fiscal-impact-of-the-opioid-epidemic-in-the-new-england-states.aspx#collapse2 Shelf Number: 150778 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse TreatmentOpioid CrisisOpioid EpidemicOpioidsPrescription Drug Abuse |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Jackson County Adult Treatment Court: Kansas City and Independence, Missouri: 4-Track Model Outcome and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: The Jackson County Adult Treatment Court (JCATC) Program began in October 1993. Jackson County encompasses a large urbanized area and consists of a major metropolitan community, Kansas City, with a number of suburban communities, including Independence, Missouri. Court dockets, including adult treatment court, are held in both communities. Services for treatment court participants are offered in both of these communities as well as at other sites around the county. The treatment court program has been fortunate to have a treatment court commissioner who has a long tenure with the program, providing leadership and continuity as the program has expanded and changed to reflect new research and needs in the community. As part of a statewide initiative in July 2012, the Jackson County adult treatment court and veterans treatment court began using the Risk and Needs Triage (RANT®), a scientifically validated screening tool developed by the Treatment Research Institute (TRI), to screen participants at entry into the program. In October 2014, the program began using the RANT to place participants into quadrants based on prognostic risk and criminogenic need with the objective to use resources more efficiently by targeting the specific risks and needs of the participants. As of January 2018 there were 580 participants with RANT scores, 248 participants in Quadrant 1 (Q1) high-risk/high-need, 46 participants in Quadrant 2 (Q2) lowrisk/high-need, 172 in Quadrant 3 (Q3) high-risk/low-need and 114 in Quadrant 4 (Q4) low-risk/low-need. In October 2014, the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) in Missouri, in partnership with NPC Research, received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to perform process, outcome and cost evaluations of two drug courts operating in Missouri using the 4-track model, one of which is the JCATC. Detailed process and outcome evaluations were conducted to determine the effectiveness and any efficiency gained by separating participants into separate tracks how best to replicate the practices. A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to determine what resources are needed to operate alternative tracks, any cost efficiencies in delivering services according to participant risk/need level and any savings due to improved outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation was designed to address the following study questions: 1. Did the program tailor the treatment court requirements and services to each of the four quadrants? That is, did the program provide services differently in each of the four tracks? 2. Did graduation rates differ before and after 4-track implementation? 3. Did placing participants into the four tracks according to assessed risk and need result in reduced recidivism including rearrests and reincarceration compared to traditional drug court and compared to individuals who were eligible for the treatment court but who did not participate? 4. What are the costs of program participation after implementing the 4-track model? 5. Were there any cost savings or offsets due to improved participant outcomes after 4-track implementation? NPC selected a sample of treatment court participants at two time points: 1) Participants before the implementation of the 4-track model, and 2) Participants after the four tracks were implemented. Comparison groups of individuals eligible for treatment court but who did not participate in the program were selected at both time points (pre and post 4-track implementation). All individuals in the four sample groups were followed through administrative datasets for up to 4 years post program entry. Outcomes examined included graduation rates, rearrests and associated charges, and time incarcerated after program entry. The cost approach used by NPC Research is called Transactional and Institutional Cost Analysis (TICA). The TICA approach views an individual's interaction with publicly funded agencies as a set of transactions in which the individual utilizes resources contributed from multiple agencies. In order to maximize the study's benefit to policymakers, a "cost-to-taxpayer" approach was used for this evaluation. The central core of the cost-to-taxpayer approach in calculating benefits (avoided costs) for drug courts specifically is the fact that untreated substance abuse will cost tax dollar-funded systems money that could be avoided or diminished if substance abuse were treated. The TICA approach also looks at publicly funded costs as "opportunity resources." That is, resources that are not spent on a particular transaction (e.g., time in jail) are available to be used in other contexts or for other individuals. Details: Portland, OR: NPR Research, 2018. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 11, 2019 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/JCATC-Outcome-and-Cost-Evaluation-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/JCATC-Outcome-and-Cost-Evaluation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 154891 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCost-Benefit Analysis Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Courts Problem-Solving Courts Risk and Needs Assessment |