Results First Using Cost-Benefit Analysis to Analyze State Policy August 6, 2012

Criminal Justice Cost-Benefit Analysis: Big Picture Estimate the cost of crime in your state o Police, Jails, Courts, Probation, Prison, Post- release supervision, Victimization Examine programs/policies that reduce crime Apply the costs of crime to the programs/ policies that reduce crime to estimate their monetary benefits

Results First Approach Aggregate best national research to identify evidence-based programs that are effective Estimate these programs’ impact if implemented, based on a state’s unique population characteristics Use the state’s fiscal data to estimate total costs and benefits for each program Built upon the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)’s benefit-cost model

Approach can be used in many ways Consumer Reports – compare multiple programs Prison Economics – examine the trade off between prisons and programs Cost of Recidivism – identify the benefits of avoiding one recidivist Same approach can be used in other policy areas

Probability of Resource Use

Estimated Convictions Avoided for FFT Participants Recidivism rates reduced by 22 percent Without FFT With FFT Without FFT, an offender has a 72% chance of being reconvicted for a new felony or misdemeanor after 15 years; With FFT, the odds drop to 59%. Recidivism Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Recidivism Rate Follow-up Years

Example: Functional Family Therapy (Washington State Dollars) Benefits Per Family Reduced crime Increased high school graduation Reduced health care costs $31,745 $5,686 $307 $37,739 Total Benefits Per Family Cost Per Family $3,190 Net Present Value $34,549 Benefits Per Dollar of Cost $11.86 Main Source of Benefits Lower state & victim costs Increased earnings Lower public costs Addendum (distribution of benefits) $3,599= Benefits to participant $8,336= Benefits to taxpayers $21,636= Benefits to others (crime victims)

Sample “Consumer Reports” List $11.86

Results First Technical Assistance Provide model to state Train staff in the approach Provide technical assistance Help interpret results Compile and share lessons learned with other participating states Periodically expand and update model

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

Results First State Examples Iowa o Public Safety Advisory Board and Department of Corrections o Iowa Results First: Return on Investment for Corrections Programs – 2012 (May 2012) New Mexico o Legislative Finance Committee, Department of Corrections, and NM Sentencing Commission staff o Reducing Recidivism, Cutting Costs and Improving Public Safety in the Incarceration and Supervision of Adult Offenders (June 2012)

Informing Policy Iowa o DOC budget request o Modeling mandatory minimum sentencing changes for drug offenses New Mexico o Identifying gaps in reporting for community-based programs o Identifying programs that should receive priority funding

Big picture take-aways Research shows that programs can reduce crime and victimization while reducing future spending CBA can provide a framework to compare across policy choices and improve public safety Results First can assist your state with developing CBA expertise

For more information Mike Wilson Technical Consultant, Results First Ashleigh Holand Senior Associate, Results First (202) Connecticut Florida Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Massachusetts New Mexico New York Oregon Texas Vermont