Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "By: Erin Dalton, Allegheny County, PA LOCAL UTILITY OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS."— Presentation transcript:


2 AGENDA  How we got here  Recent cost benefit studies  Current project

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 Committee—community leaders who provide guidance and support for reentry programs—as well as dozens of agencies and volunteers.

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

5 Jail Collaborative’s 3 Strategies Reentry Systems change Alternatives 5

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

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


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

10  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


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 monthsTotal Summary violations181411144 Misdemeanor111611139 Felony713011 Total363125294

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

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

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 o “it works” o “it saves money” o “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  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. JAIL COLLABORATIVE

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

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  Agreement around Costs  Understanding of cost-benefit analysis throughout the county  Process to incorporate better data into decision-making SYSTEM WIDE MEASURES AND GOALS



Download ppt "By: Erin Dalton, Allegheny County, PA LOCAL UTILITY OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google