Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Wellness Court

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Abstract

The primary goal of this research is to estimate the costs and benefits of serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC), a specialized court employing principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. The Urban Institute conducted an impact and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the effectiveness of the AWC. The study focused on the impact of the program on reducing the prevalence and incidence of new criminal justice system contact. Costs were collected to estimate the opportunity cost of the AWC. Recidivism variables were monetized to estimate the benefits from crime reductions. Outcomes were observed at 24, 30, 36, and 48 months.

Introduction

The primary goal of this research is to estimate the costs and benefits of serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC), a specialized court employing principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. The Urban Institute, as the subcontractor to the University of Alaska-Anchorage, conducted an impact and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the effectiveness of the AWC. The study focused on the impact of the program on reducing the prevalence and incidence of new criminal justice system contact. Costs were collected to estimate the opportunity cost of the AWC. Recidivism variables were monetized to estimate the benefits from crime reductions. Outcomes were observed at 24, 30, 36, and 48 months.

The Anchorage Wellness Court began serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in Anchorage, AK in August, 1999, with the goal of reducing alcohol-related offending through treatment and increased individual accountability. The Anchorage Wellness Court began as a bail and sentencing option. Arrestees with an identified alcohol problem were released into the community where they received substance abuse treatment and regular judicial supervision. Over time, the AWC expanded operations to include more components of therapeutic jurisprudence, eventually evolving into a mature therapeutic court. Program components included substance abuse treatment, moral reconation therapy (MRT), recovery meetings (such as Alcoholics Anonymous), employment and financial responsibility, case management and substance abuse monitoring, judicial supervision, and complex criminal justice collaborations. Participant eligibility was determined by clinical staff and prosecutors. Defendants voluntarily enrolled into the program and received reductions in jail terms and fines if they successfully completed the program, which usually required about 18 months.

In this study we make two sets of comparisons to estimate the effect of AWC on participant behavior. First, we compare the outcomes for 277 individuals who were eligible for the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC)—141 individuals who had no contact with the program (the Comparison Group), and 136 who were referred to the program (the Treatment Group). Although not everyone who was referred to the program formally enrolled, all who were referred received at least some exposure to AWC. We refer to those who formally opt-in to the program as the Opt-In Group, and those who were referred but did not formally enroll as the Opt-Out Group. To account for the presence of two distinct groups within the Treatment Group, we then compare outcomes for the Opt-In Group (91, including those who ultimately graduate (44) and those who fail (47)), the Opt-Out Group (45), and the Comparison Group (141).

Given the complicated enrollment process, both tests are necessary to understand the effectiveness of AWC. Those who eventually opt-out of AWC may receive considerable services from AWC before exiting the program. In effect, the decision to enroll is an intermediate outcome where those who are doing well (or are expected to do well) formally enroll and those who are not, exit. If this initial success or failure is used to determine group composition, final outcomes are confounded. Those who are on a positive path and opt-in include individuals who would be expected to do better than the average person referred to AWC, since the Comparison Group includes both those who would have opted-in and also those who would have opted-out. If such a decision rule is used to determine who is in the Treatment Group, the results are likely to be biased. As a result, the impact of AWC on all who are referred must be tested. However, it is also important to determine whether those who received the full program had better outcomes, and thus we include a second set of tests where the outcomes of the Opt-In and Opt-Out Groups are estimated separately.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.