1. Local Utility of Cost Benefit Analysis
By: Erin Dalton, Allegheny County, PA

2. AGENDA Recent cost benefit studies Current project How we got here
7/16/2012
AGENDA
How we got here
Recent cost benefit studies
Current project 2

3. 7/16/2012
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 Committee—community leaders who provide guidance and support for reentry programs—as well as dozens of agencies and volunteers. 3

4. Jail Collaborative Structure
7/16/2012
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 4

5. Jail Collaborative’s 3 Strategies
7/16/2012
Jail Collaborative’s 3 Strategies 5
Reentry
Systems change
Alternatives
Helen: use this to say that we have 3 basic strategies. First is Reentry Program, Second is Systems Change, third is developing Alternatives to Jail 5

6. Current projects Reentry Reentry Center Discharge Center
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

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

8. Example of a Service with Outcomes

9. COST BENEFIT STUDIES Mental Health Court Jail Collaborative
Costing Policy Options, Justice Reinvestment

10. Mental Health Court Fiscal Impact
Origins
Description
Pennsylvania General Assembly
Council of State Governments
RAND
Use
Allegheny County
State
National

11. MENTAL Health court Findings

12. Findings
Hypothetical to Actual Cost Comparison - Average Annual Costs (One Year Follow-up)

13. Findings
Pre/Post Cost Comparison - Average Annual Costs (Two Year Follow-Up)

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”

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 months
Total
Summary violations 18 14 11 1 44
Misdemeanor 16 39
Felony 7 3 36 31 25 2 94

16. Critical issues Where costs/benefits accrue External estimates
Level of government
Individuals
External estimates
Costs of crimes
Criminal careers
Costs of criminal justice system versus treatment

17. Jail collaborative evaluation
Allegheny County is saving over $5.3 million/yr
Greatest cost-savings generated in areas of reduced victimization among county residents
Cost-savings ratio is approximately 6 to 1
At 12 months post-release, the Collaborative inmates achieve a 50% lower recidivism rate compared to matched comparison group
No significant differences in the recidivism between Black and White inmates

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.

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

20. Utility and challenges
Policymakers & Practitioners
“it works”
“it saves money”
“let’s replicate it”
Necessarily post-intervention
Who saves money?
No standardization in estimates
Fixed costs
Putting the money on the table
Connections to Justice Reinvestment

21. Jail collaborative 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 provider’s 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.

22. Cost benefit analysis – building capacity
Communicating value to Policy Makers
Creating a set of common costs
Making more informed decisions
GOALS:
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

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

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

25. system wide measures and goals
Agreement around Costs
Understanding of cost-benefit analysis throughout the county
Process to incorporate better data into decision-making

26. innovations

27. innovations