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