By: Erin Dalton, Allegheny County, PA LOCAL UTILITY OF COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Slide 2
AGENDA How we got here Recent cost benefit studies Current
project
Slide 3
Jail Collaborative Formed in 2000 to improve public safety,
restrain the growth in Jail costs, and prevent the disintegration
of communities and families impacted by crime and incarceration.
Led by President Judge and Administrative Judge for Criminal
Court--Court of Common Pleas; Warden, Allegheny County Jail;
Director, Allegheny County Health Department; and Director,
Allegheny County Department of Human Services. Other members of the
Jail Collaborative include the Civic Advisory Committeecommunity
leaders who provide guidance and support for reentry programsas
well as dozens of agencies and volunteers.
Slide 4
Jail Collaborative Structure CABINET Human Services, Health,
Jail, Courts OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Human Services, Jail, Courts,
Jail Health Services CIVIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL WORKGROUPS
Reentry Case Review Discharge Center Evaluation
Slide 5
Jail Collaboratives 3 Strategies Reentry Systems change
Alternatives 5
Slide 6
CURRENT PROJECTS Reentry Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration
Second Chance Reentry Court Grant RWJ Family Support Justice
Reinvestment First set of county-sites State 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
Slide 7
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 Assistance Program System of
Care Initiative
Origins o Description o Pennsylvania General Assembly o Council
of State Governments o RAND Use o Allegheny County o State o
National MENTAL HEALTH COURT FISCAL IMPACT
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR439.pdf
Slide 11
MENTAL HEALTH COURT FINDINGS
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR439.pdf
Slide 12
FINDINGS Hypothetical to Actual Cost Comparison - Average
Annual Costs (One Year Follow-up)
Slide 13
FINDINGS Pre/Post Cost Comparison - Average Annual Costs (Two
Year Follow-Up)
Slide 14
FINDINGS Diversion successful Short term: not more expensive
Longer 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
Slide 15
RECENT FINDINGS Mental Health Court Graduate Recidivism (3
Years Post- Graduation) 17 percent (including summary violations
and criminal convictions) 10 percent (criminal convictions only)
Level of All Convictions 6 months 12 months 24 months 36
monthsTotal Summary violations181411144 Misdemeanor111611139
Felony713011 Total363125294
Slide 16
CRITICAL ISSUES Where costs/benefits accrue o Level of
government o Individuals External estimates o Costs of crimes o
Criminal careers o Costs of criminal justice system versus
treatment
Slide 17
JAIL COLLABORATIVE EVALUATION o Allegheny County is saving over
$5.3 million/yr o Greatest cost-savings generated in areas of
reduced victimization among county residents o Cost-savings ratio
is approximately 6 to 1 o At 12 months post-release, the
Collaborative inmates achieve a 50% lower recidivism rate compared
to matched comparison group o No significant differences in the
recidivism between Black and White inmates
Slide 18
METHODS Cost of jail stay Cost of processing offenders in the
criminal justice system Costs of crime victimization Cost of
providing services at the jail Cost 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.
Slide 19
COSTING POLICY OPTIONS 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
Slide 20
UTILITY AND CHALLENGES Policymakers & Practitioners o it
works o it saves money o lets replicate it Necessarily
post-intervention Who saves money? No standardization in estimates
Fixed costs Putting the money on the table Connections to Justice
Reinvestment
Slide 21
Introduction to Jail Collaborative Application What is the Jail
Collaborative Application? The repository of record for complete,
real-time service information for all Jail Collaborative clients.
It will also capture information on services, goals and their
outcomes for these clients. What the Jail Collaborative Application
is not? The Jail Collaborative Application is not a complete Case
Management system and is not intended to recreate a providers
current workflow process No Services Rendered or Billing at this
time (possible later release) New System capabilities that impacts
Providers daily interaction: Provider Client Management: Record of
all assessments, notes, referrals, services and outcomes
information for clients. MPER: Central repository of information
related to providers, including facilities, service offerings,
contacts, etc. JAIL COLLABORATIVE
Slide 22
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS BUILDING CAPACITY Allegheny County
Department of Human Services Data Warehouse Technical Capabilities
Allegheny County Court (Criminal and Family) - (Juvenile and Adult
Probation) Program Expertise Allegheny County Office of Budget and
Finance Decision makers Information consumers Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas Court Administration Program administration
Program budgets GOALS: Communicating value to Policy Makers Making
more informed decisions Creating a set of common costs
Slide 23
SCHOOL BASED PROBATION QUANTIFYING OUTCOMES Began in 1994 with
3 Probation Officers in schools. Now in 20 of 43 School Districts
(21 in PPS) Supervise all Court active Juveniles in School. On-site
intake Improve Attendance, Deter School conflicts, Reduce need to
come downtown to courts. Decrease participation in adult justice
system. Improve educational outcomes. Reduce recidivism
Slide 24
DAY REPORTING CENTERS IDENTIFYING GOALS AND OUTCOMES 2 Centers
(2009, 2011) one stop shop for Human Services Define the Goals of
the program. What are the intended consequences of the program? How
is this different from other probation programs? Cost Analysis
Compare DRCs to other probation services Impact Analysis Identify
and measure outcomes
Slide 25
Agreement around Costs Understanding of cost-benefit analysis
throughout the county Process to incorporate better data into
decision-making SYSTEM WIDE MEASURES AND GOALS
