Advertisement

Economic Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) Model

  • Kathryn McCollister
  • Pamela Baumer
  • Monica Davis
  • Alison Greene
  • Sally Stevens
  • Michael Dennis
Article

Abstract

Juvenile drug court (JDC) programs are an increasingly popular option for rehabilitating juvenile offenders with substance problems, but research has found inconsistent evidence regarding their effectiveness and economic impact. While assessing client outcomes such as reduced substance use and delinquency is necessary to gauge program effectiveness, a more comprehensive understanding of program success and sustainability can be attained by examining program costs and economic benefits. As part of the National Cross-Site Evaluation of JDC and Reclaiming Futures (RF), an economic analysis of five JDC/RF programs was conducted from a multisystem and multiagency perspective. The study highlights the direct and indirect costs of JDC/RF and the savings generated from reduced health problems, illegal activity, and missed school days. Results include the average (per participant) cost of JDC/RF, the total economic benefits per JDC/RF participant, and the net savings of JDC/RF relative to standard JDC.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The development of this article was funded by the Department of Justice - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) through an interagency agreement with the Library of Congress (contract number LCFRD11C0007) and by OJJDP (grant number 2013-DC-BX-0081). Additional support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA040500; R21 DA044378). The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies of OJJDP, the Library of Congress, or the NIH; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors do not have financial, commercial, professional, or any other conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldman HH, Ganju V, Drake RE, et al. Policy Implications for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices. Psychiatric Services. 2001;52(12):1591–1597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleming NS, Culler SD, McCorkle R, et al. The Financial and Nonfinancial Costs of Implementing Electronic Health Records in Primary Care Practices. Health Affairs. 2011;30(3):481–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palinkas LA, Fuentes D, Finno M, et al. Inter-Organizational Collaboration in the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices among Public Agencies Serving Abused and Neglected Youth. Administration and Policy Mental Health and Mental Health Services. 2014;41(1):74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greene A, Ostlie E, Kagan R, et al. The Process of Integrating Practices: The Juvenile Drug Court and Reclaiming Futures Logic Model. Drug Court Review. 2016;10(1):31–59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nissen LB, Pearce J. Exploring the Implementation of Justice-Based Alcohol and Drug Intervention Strategies with Juvenile Offenders: Reclaiming Futures, Enhanced Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment, and Juvenile Drug Courts. Children and Youth Services Review. 2011;33:S60-S65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Korchmaros J, Baumer P, Valdez E. Critical Components of Adolescent Substance Use Treatment Programs: The Impact of Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice and Elements of Reclaiming Futures. Drug Court Review. 2016;10(1):80–115.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dennis M, Baumer P, Stevens S. The Concurrent Evolution and Intertwined Nature of Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures Approaches to Juvenile Justice Reform. Drug Court Review. 2016;10(1):6–30.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Logan T, Hoyt WH, McCollister KE, et al. Economic Evaluation of Drug Court: Methodology, Results, and Policy Implications. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2004;27(4):381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnoski RP, Aos S. Washington State's Drug Courts for Adult Defendants: Outcome Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/827/Wsipp_Washington-States-Drug-Courts-for-Adult-Defendants-Outcome-Evaluation-and-Cost-Benefit-Analysis_Full-Report.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  10. 10.
    Drake E. Inventory of Evidence-Based and Research-Based Programs for Adult Corrections. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1542/Wsipp_Inventory-of-Evidence-Based-and-Research-Based-Programs-for-Adult-Corrections_Final-Report.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  11. 11.
    Lee S, Aos S, Pennucci A. What Works and What Does Not? Benefit-Cost Findings from WSIPP. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1602/Wsipp_What-Works-and-What-Does-Not-Benefit-Cost-Findings-from-WSIPP_Report.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  12. 12.
    French MT, Zavala SK, McCollister KE, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Interventions for Adolescents with a Substance Use Disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2008;34(3):272–281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCollister KE, French MT, Sheidow AJ, et al. Estimating the Differential Costs of Criminal Activity for Juvenile Drug Court Participants: Challenges and Recommendations. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2009;36(1):111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zavala SK, French MT, Henderson CE, et al. Guidelines and Challenges for Estimating the Economic Costs and Benefits of Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatments. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2005;29(3):191–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. National Drug Court Institute Review. 1998;1(1):1–42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belenko S. Challenges of Integrating Drug Treatment into the Criminal Justice Process The Albany Law Review. 1999;63:833.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuklinski MR, Fagan AA, Hawkins JD, et al. Benefit-Cost Analysis of a Randomized Evaluation of Communities that Care: Monetizing Intervention Effects on the Initiation of Delinquency and Substance Use through Grade 12. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2015;11(2):165–192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Available online at https://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction-research/reports/research-drug-courts-critical-review-2001. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  19. 19.
    Welsh BC, Farrington DP, Gowar BR. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Crime Prevention Programs. Crime and Justice. 2015;44(1):447–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borduin CM, Dopp AR. Economic Impact of Multisystemic Therapy with Juvenile Sexual Offenders. Journal of Family Psychology. 2015;29(5):687–696.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Einspruch E, Mark KLJ, Waller S, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Measure 57 Intensive Drug Court for Medium- to High-Risk Property Offenders. NPC Research. Available online at https://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CJC_and_NPC_M57_drug_court_eval_March_20_2015.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  22. 22.
    Carey SM, Mackin, JR, Finigan MW. What Works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court: Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review. 2012:6–42.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mackin J, Lucas L, Lambarth C, et al. Anne Arundel County Juvenile Treatment Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research. Available online at file:///C:/Users/aarmstrong2/Downloads/aa_co_juv_dc_outcome-cost_0110.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carey SM, Waller MS. Oregon Drug Court Cost Study: Statewide Costs and Promising Practices, Final Report. NPC Research. Available online at http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/ORDC_BJA_Cost_and_Best_Practices_Final_Rerelease_03112.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  25. 25.
    Drake E. Evidence-Based Juvenile Offender Programs: Program Description, Quality Assurance, and Cost. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/986/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Juvenile-Offender-Programs-Program-Description-Quality-Assurance-and-Cost_Full-Report.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  26. 26.
    Lee S, Aos S, Drake E, et al. Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1102/Wsipp_Return-on-Investment-Evidence-Based-Options-to-Improve-Statewide-Outcomes-April-2012-Update_Full-Report.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  27. 27.
    McCollister KE, French MT. The Relative Contribution of Outcome Domains in the Total Economic Benefit of Addiction Interventions: A Review of First Findings. Addiction. 2003;98(12):1647–1659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nissen LB, Hunt SR, Bullman S, et al. Systems of Care for Treatment of Adolescent Substance Use Disorders: Background, Principles and Opportunities. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2004;36(4):429–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nissen LB, Merrigan D. The Development and Evolution of Reclaiming Futures at the Ten-Year Mark: Reflections and Recommendations. Children and Youth Services Review. 2011;33:S9-S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nissen LB, Butts JA, Merrigan D, et al. The RWJF Reclaiming Futures Initiative: Improving Substance Abuse Interventions for Justice-Involved Youths. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 2006;57(4):39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nissen LB. Boundary Spanners Revisited: A Qualitative Inquiry into Cross-System Reform through the Experience of Youth Service Professionals. Qualitative Social Work. 2010;9(3):365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    French MT. Brief Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (Brief DATCAP): Program Version, First Edition. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dennis ML, Titus JC, White MK, et al. Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Administration Guide for the GAIN and Related Measures. Bloomington, IL: Chestnut Health Systems, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Find Occupation. O*Net Online. U.S. Department of Labor. Available online at https://www.onetonline.org. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  35. 35.
    Our Work. Our 6-Step Model. Reclaiming Futures. Available online at https://www.reclaimingfutures.org/our-model. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  36. 36.
    McCollister KE, French MT, Fang H. The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program Evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010;108(1):98–109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Light A. In-School Work Experience and the Returns to Schooling. Journal of Labor Economics. 2001;19(1):65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    French MT, Salomé HJ, Carney M. Using the DATCAP and ASI to Estimate the Costs and Benefits of Residential Addiction Treatment in the State of Washington. Social Science & Medicine. 2002;55(12):2267–2282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCollister K, Yang X, McKay JR. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Continuing Care Intervention for Cocaine-Dependent Adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2016;158:38–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    French MT, Salome HJ, Sindelar JL, et al. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Addiction Treatment: Methodological Guidelines and Empirical Application Using the DATCAP and ASI. Health Services Research. 2002;37(2):433–455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2003;27(1):5–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Utility Theory, and Healthy-Years Equivalents. Medical Decision Making. 1989;9(2):142–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wiest KL, Martin, SJ, Waller M, et al. Indiana Drug Courts: St. Joseph County Drug Court Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research. Available online at http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St._Joseph_Adult_Eval_Final3.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
  44. 44.
    Carey SM, Waller MS, Marchand G. Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court Enhancement: Process, Outcome/Impact and Cost Evaluation Final Report. NPC Research. Available online at http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CCJDC-Enhancement-Evaluation-Final-Report1.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn McCollister
    • 1
  • Pamela Baumer
    • 2
  • Monica Davis
    • 3
  • Alison Greene
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sally Stevens
    • 3
  • Michael Dennis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Soffer Clinical Research CenterMiamiUSA
  2. 2.GAIN Coordinating Center, Chestnut Health SystemsNormalUSA
  3. 3.Southwest Institute for Research on WomenUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.School of Public HealthIndiana UniversityIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations