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

Overview

Journal J Behav Health Serv Res

Publisher Springer

Specialty Health Services

Date 2018 Mar 28

PMID 29582233

Citations 3

Authors

Kathryn McCollister

Pamela Baumer

Monica Davis

Alison Greene

Sally Stevens

Michael Dennis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Implementation of Substance Use Services to Justice-Involved Youth: Examining Barriers, Facilitators, and Best Practices.

Goldman P, Deanna Wilson J J Correct Health Care. 2023; 29(5):347-354.

PMID: 37695816 PMC: 10623469. DOI: 10.1089/jchc.22.05.0040.

Economic benefits of substance use disorder treatment: A systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies from 2003 to 2021.

Fardone E, Montoya I, Schackman B, McCollister K J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2023; 152:209084.

PMID: 37302488 PMC: 10530001. DOI: 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209084.

Costs attributable to criminal justice involvement in injuries: a systematic review.

Miller G, Barnett S, Wulz A, Luo F, Florence C Inj Prev. 2023; 29(1):91-100.

PMID: 36600522 PMC: 10101176. DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044756.

References

Kuklinski M, Fagan A, Hawkins J, Briney J, Catalano R . 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. J Exp Criminol. 2015; 11(2):165-192. PMC: 4512954. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-014-9226-3. View

Borduin C, Dopp A . Economic impact of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders. J Fam Psychol. 2015; 29(5):687-96. DOI: 10.1037/fam0000113. View

French M, Zavala S, McCollister K, Waldron H, Turner C, Ozechowski T . Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007; 34(3):272-81. PMC: 2323204. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.008. View

Mehrez A, Gafni A . Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989; 9(2):142-9. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8900900209. View

McCollister K, Yang X, McKay J . Cost-effectiveness analysis of a continuing care intervention for cocaine-dependent adults. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015; 158:38-44. PMC: 4698077. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.032. View

McCollister K, French M, Sheidow A, Henggeler S, Halliday-Boykins C . Estimating the differential costs of criminal activity for juvenile drug court participants: challenges and recommendations. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2008; 36(1):111-26. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-007-9094-y. View

French M, Salome H, Carney M . Using the DATCAP and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment in the State of Washington. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(12):2267-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00060-6. View

McCollister K, French M . The relative contribution of outcome domains in the total economic benefit of addiction interventions: a review of first findings. Addiction. 2003; 98(12):1647-59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00541.x. View

McCollister K, French M, Fang H . The cost of crime to society: new crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010; 108(1-2):98-109. PMC: 2835847. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.002. View

10.

French M, Salome H, Sindelar J, McLellan A . Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment: methodological guidelines and empirical application using the DATCAP and ASI. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37(2):433-55. PMC: 1430361. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.031. View

11.

Zavala S, French M, Henderson C, Alberga L, Rowe C, Liddle H . Guidelines and challenges for estimating the economic costs and benefits of adolescent substance abuse treatments. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005; 29(3):191-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2005.06.004. View

12.

Goldman H, Ganju V, Drake R, Gorman P, Hogan M, Hyde P . Policy implications for implementing evidence-based practices. Psychiatr Serv. 2001; 52(12):1591-7. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1591. View

13.

Nissen L, Hunt S, Bullman S, Marmo J, Smith D . Systems of care for treatment of adolescent substance use disorders: background, principles and opportunities. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2005; 36(4):429-38. DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2004.10524426. View

14.

Fleming N, Culler S, McCorkle R, Becker E, Ballard D . The financial and nonfinancial costs of implementing electronic health records in primary care practices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30(3):481-9. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0768. View

15.

Palinkas L, Fuentes D, Finno M, Garcia A, Holloway I, Chamberlain P . Inter-organizational collaboration in the implementation of evidence-based practices among public agencies serving abused and neglected youth. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012; 41(1):74-85. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-012-0437-5. View