0. Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency
The Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative: Investing in Programs that Work v
Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency
October 25, 2013

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
This first-of-its-kind study measures states’ use of cost-benefit analysis. The approach compares the expense of public programs to the returns they deliver, enabling policymakers to direct limited dollars toward the most cost-effective programs and policies while curbing spending on those that have proven to be ineffective.

5. 1 2 3 Use the best national research to identify what works
Predict program impacts in your state 3
Calculate and compare long- term costs and benefits

6. 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

7. Step 1: Inventory Programs
POLICY/PROGRAM
COST
LONG-TERM BENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT RATIO
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 PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy
$3,262
$70,370
$21.57
Aggression replacement training
$1,508
$62,947
$41.75
Coordination of services
$395
$13.94
Scared Straight
$65
-$4,949
-$76.35
*Washington State 2012 dollars

8. 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

9. Step 2: Identify Costs Intensive supervision (only) $4,140 -$578
POLICY/PROGRAM
COST
LONG-TERM BENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT RATIO
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 PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy
$3,262
$70,370
$21.57
Aggression replacement training
$1,508
$62,947
$41.75
Coordination of services
$395
$13.94
Scared Straight
$65
-$4,949
-$76.35
*Washington State 2012 dollars

10. Step 3: Predict and Monetize Outcomes
Taxpayer benefits (avoided costs)
Costs per felony conviction
Convictions avoided per participant
Other benefits throughout system
Victimizations avoided per participant
Victimization benefits (avoided costs)

11. Assess full program outcomes
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

12. Meta-analysis of Functional Family Therapy
Recidivism Rate
RECIDIVISM RATES REDUCED BY 22%
Without FFT (actual baseline)
With FFT
Follow-up Years
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy

13. Cost-Benefit of Functional Family Therapy
BENEFITS PER FAMILY
WA STATE DOLLARS
MAIN 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

14. Cost-benefit of Nurse Family Partnership
BENEFITS PER FAMILY
WA STATE DOLLARS
MAIN 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

15. Step 4: Compare Costs and Benefits Across Program Portfolio
POLICY/PROGRAM
COST
LONG-TERM BENEFITS
COST/BENEFIT RATIO
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 PROGRAMS
Functional Family Therapy
$3,262
$70,370
$21.57
Aggression replacement training
$1,508
$62,947
$41.75
Coordination of services
$395
$13.94
Scared Straight
$65
-$4,949
-$76.35
*Washington State 2012 dollars

16. Results First Work in States

17. 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 and achieved $2.7 BILLION in higher long-term benefits

18. 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 State 67% lower
United States 49% lower
In 2003, Washington begins “full fidelity” implementation
In 2000, Washington begins evidence-based Juvenile Justice program
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy

19. Participation in Results FirstHI WA TN MT OR ID WY CO UT NV CA AZ NM NE KS OK TX ME ND SD MN LA AR MO IA WI MI IL IN OH PA NY WV KY MS AL GA SC NC FL VA AK VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD AK

20. What are Results First states doing?3
enacted legislation incorporating Results First into their policy making process 2
used models to analyze legislation, avoiding millions in potential costs 5
3 – CT, MA, VT
2 – IA, IL
5 – NM, IA, MA, NY, VT
used their models to target $28 million in funding

21. 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
$360M is budget costs, not taxpayer or societal costs

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Results First can be used to analyze many policy areas
Criminal Justice
K-12 Education
Early Education
Child Welfare
Substance Abuse
Mental Health
Prevention Programs

27. What does it take to become a Results First state?

28. State Selection Criteria
Commitment to evidence-based decision making
Ability to provide necessary data
Willingness to dedicate resources
State
Selection
Criteria 1 2 3

29. 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

30. 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

31. Goal – Dramatically improve outcomes by:
Using Evidence
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
Ensuring Program Quality
Tracking Results

32. This approach should drive the system
Appropriations (investment advice)
Research
(test new programs)
Implementation
(ensure fidelity)
Oversight (monitor outcomes)

33. Contact:
Gary VanLandingham
Director