CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT WORKING GROUP · CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT...

Data Driven Decisions

CRIMINALJUSTICECONSENSUSCOST-BENEFITWORKINGGROUP

FINALREPORT

ASTUDYCOMMISSIONEDBYACTNo.61

2013-2014LEGISLATIVESESSIONSTATEOFVERMONT

Submittedto:

TheVermontSenateJudiciaryCommitteeTheVermontHouseJudiciaryCommittee

TheVermontJointCommitteeonCorrectionsOversight

Submittedby:TheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch

P.O.Box267NorthfieldFalls,VT05664

802-485-4250

April,2014

ThisprojectwassupportedwithfundsfromtheBureauofJusticeStatistics,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJusticethroughGrantNumber2011-BJ-CX-K014

CRIMINALJUSTICECONSENSUSCOST-BENEFITWORKINGGROUP

FINALREPORT

ASTUDYCOMMISSIONEDBY

ACTNo.612013-214LEGISLATIVESESSION

STATEOFVERMONT

Submittedby:

THEVERMONTCENTERFORJUSTICERESEARCH

ResearchTeam

MaxSchlueter,Ph.D.,DirectorPrincipalInvestigator

RobinWeber,J.D.,Ph.D.,ResearchDirector

MarciaBellas,Ph.D.,ResearchAssociate

William(Travis)Morris,Ph.D.,ResearchAssociate

NathanLavery,JointFiscalOffice

NancyGreenewalt,JointFiscalOffice

April,2014

ThisprojectwassupportedwithfundsfromtheBureauofJusticeStatistics,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJusticethroughGrantNumber2011-BJ-CX-K014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch(VCJR)acknowledgesthehardwork,attentiontodetail,andcollegialityofthosewhogenerouslyservedasmembersoftheCost-BenefitServiceDeliveryTeamsandprojectconsultants.LawEnforcementServiceDeliveryTeam:TravisMorris,Coordinator,VCJRChiefMichaelSchirling,BurlingtonPDChiefJamesBaker,RutlandPDChiefTonyFacos,MontpelierPDChiefDouglasJohnston,SpringfieldPDChiefRobbieBlish,WoodstockPDChiefGeorgeMerkel,VergennesPDSheriffKeithClark,WindhamCountySheriff’sOfficeMajorWilliamSheets,VermontStatePolice(VSP)LtBrianMillerVSPJoanneChadwick,DirectorofAdministration/Finance,DepartmentofPublicSafety(DPS)RickHallenbeck,AssistantDirectorofAdministration/Finance,DPSBettyWheeler,ITAnalyst/SpillmanAdministrator,DPSAdjudicationServiceDeliveryTeam:RobinWeber,Coordinator,VCJRTheHonorableAmyDavenport,AdministrativeJudge,VermontSupremeCourtCarolHarrison,ChiefFinancialOfficer,VermontCourtAdministrator’sOfficeBramKranichfeld,ExecutiveDirector,DepartmentofState’sAttorneysandSheriffsSeanThomson,DepartmentofState’sAttorneysandSheriffsJohnTreadwell,CriminalDivision,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralMathewValerio,DefenderGeneralLoraEvans,BusinessManager,OfficeoftheDefenderGeneralDepartmentofCorrectionsServiceDeliveryTeam:NathanLavery,NancyGreenewalt,andIra Sollace,Coordinators,LegislativeJointFiscalOfficeMonicaWeeber,DirectorofAdministrativeServices,DepartmentofCorrections(DOC)SarahClark,FinanceDirector,DOCDaleCrook,FieldServicesDirector,DOCScottDubois,AssistantSuperintendent,NorthwestStateCorrectionalFacility,DOCCherylElovirta,FieldServicesOperationsManager,DOCRickByrne,Out-of-StateCaseworkSupervisor,DOCDonnaPratt,FieldServicesComplianceMonitor,DOCThemanyDOCstaffmemberswhoprovidedinputontimeestimatesJuvenileJusticeServiceDeliveryTeam:MarciaBellas,Coordinator,VCJRCheryleBilodeau,PolicyandOperationsManager/JuvenileJusticeDirector,Departmentfor ChildrenandFamilies(DCF)--FamilyServicesElizabethStratton,FinancialManagerI,DCF--BusinessOfficeMargoBryce,QualityAssuranceAdministrator,DCF--FamilyServicesDivisionJaySimons,Director,WoodsideJuvenileRehabilitationCenter,DCF--FamilyServicesLindyBoudreau,JuvenileJusticeAdministrator,DCF--FamilyServicesNancyWilliams,RevenueEnhancementUnit,DCF--FamilyServicesLindaMoulton,RevenueEnhancementUnit,DCF--FamilyServices

VictimServiceDeliveryTeam:MaxSchlueter,Coordinator,VCJRJudyRex,ExecutiveDirector,VermontCenterforCrimeVictimServices(VCCVS)MaryKayHewlett,DirectorofVictimServices,VCCVSCarolMorgan,VictimCompensationProgramManager,VCCVSElaineBoyce,RestitutionUnitProgramManager,VCCVSProjectConsultantsAshleighHoland,ThePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative,ThePewCharitableTrustsStevenLize,Ph.D.,consultanttoThePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative,ThePewCharitableTrusts

TABLEOFCONTENTSEXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1RESEARCHMETHODS.......................................................................................................................1CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................2RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................3

THELEGISLATIVECHARGE....................................................................................................................5INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................7

BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................7OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................7VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODEL...................................................................................................8

RESEARCHMETHODS...........................................................................................................................9CALCULATINGCRIMINALJUSTICECOSTS...........................................................................................10

TYPESOFGOVERNMENTCOSTS....................................................................................................11HOWTOCALCULATEMARGINALCOSTS........................................................................................12DATACOLLECTIONSTRATEGIES.....................................................................................................12

LawEnforcementTeam.............................................................................................................12AdjudicationTeam.....................................................................................................................15DepartmentofCorrections........................................................................................................20JuvenileJustice..........................................................................................................................22Victims.......................................................................................................................................24

COSTANALYSISRESULTS:MARGINALCOSTS....................................................................................25COSTANALYSISRESULTS:OPPORTUNITYCOSTS...............................................................................29

LAWENFORCEMENTSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM.............................................................................30ADJUDICATIONSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM......................................................................................30

Courts........................................................................................................................................30State’sAttorneys.......................................................................................................................31DefenderGeneral......................................................................................................................32

DEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONSSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM...........................................................32JUVENILEJUSTICESERVICEDELIVERYTEAM..................................................................................33

VERMONTCRIMINALJUSTICETHROUGHPUTMODEL.......................................................................34VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODEL:THEBENNINGTONCOUNTYINTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKETPROJECT...............................................................................................................................42DATAQUALITY....................................................................................................................................44

TIMEANALYSISDATA.....................................................................................................................44THROUGHPUTMODELDATA.........................................................................................................45VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODEL.................................................................................................46

MANAGEMENTRESPONSIBILITYFORTHECOST-BENEFITMODEL.....................................................46CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................47RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................48

CriminalJusticeConsensusCost-BenefitWorkingGroupReport

1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

INTRODUCTIONPursuanttoAct61thisprojecthadthefollowinggoals:1)determinethecostsofthecriminalandjuvenilejusticesystemincludingcoststovictims;2)develop“ThroughputModels”1ofthecriminaljusticesystemtoidentifyhowcasesproceedthroughthesystemandtoserveasatooltoassessthecostsofpolicychanges;3)analyzethecostbenefitsoftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketProjectusingtheResultsFirstModel2;4)assessthequalityofjusticedatacollectionsystemsforthepurposeofconductingcost-benefitanalysis;and5)investigatetheneedforandthemostappropriateentitywithinstategovernmenttomanageanongoingcriminaljusticecostbenefitmodel.Giventhattheprojectwaslimitedtoapproximatelysixmonths,theresultsreportedinthisreportshouldbeviewedmoreasaproofofconceptthanasafinalproduct.AlloftheobjectivessetforthinAct61wereaccomplished.Insomecases,however,costsassociatedwithparticularlycomplicatedorhighly-specificcriminalandjuvenilejusticeactivitiesweremorelooselyestimatedorleftunaddressedthanwouldhavebeenthecaseiftherehadbeenalongerstudyperiod.Withthatcaveatinmind,thereportprovidesawealthofinformationregardingcriminalandjuvenilejusticecostsandprovidesafirmfoundationonwhichtobaseadditionalanalysis.

RESEARCHMETHODSAct61directedtheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch(VCJR)tomanagetheproject.TheVCJRadoptedacollegialdatacollectionandreviewmodelwherebyagenciesdevelopedmarginalandopportunitycostsratherthanusinga“datacollectionbyexternalexpert”approach.TwoWorkingGroupswereestablished–theExecutiveWorkingGroupandtheTechnicalWorkingGroup.TheExecutiveWorkingGroupwascomprisedofcriminalandjuvenilejusticeagencyheads,andtheTechnicalWorkingGroupwasmadeupoffinancialmanagersandsubjectmatterexpertsfromtheagenciesnamedinAct61.TheTechnicalWorkingGroupwasfurtherdividedintoServiceDeliveryTeams,oneforeachcriminal/juvenilejusticefunctionandoneforvictims.EachServiceDeliveryTeamwasassignedastaffcoordinatoreitherfromVCJRortheLegislativeJointFiscalOffice(JFO).TheServiceDeliveryTeamsworkedthroughoutthefallof2013todevelopbothmarginalandopportunitycostsfortheirrespectiveduties.Amarginalcostistheamountthetotalagencybudgetchangeswhenthereisasmallchangeintheworkloadoftheagency.Anopportunitycostisthevalueofwhatcouldhavebeendonewithresourcesiftheyhadnotbeencommittedto

1Agraphicwhichillustratestheflowofcriminalcasesthroughthecriminaljusticesystemtogetherwiththeassociatedopportunitycosts.2ThePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative,aprojectofthePewCharitableTrustsandtheJohnD.andCatherineT.MacArthurFoundation(withadditionalsupportfromtheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation),workswithstatestoimplementandcustomizeaninnovativecost-benefitanalysistoolthathelpstheminvestinpoliciesandprogramsthatareproventowork.


2

somethingelse.Forexample,whentherearesmallreductionsinaparticularcrime,thetimewhichwasdevotedtohandlingthatcrimecanbedivertedtootheractivitieswithinanagency.Astatewidecriminalandjuvenilejusticecostmodelwasdevelopedfromthecostestimatesdevelopedbytheteams.ServiceDeliveryTeamsweregiventheflexibilitytodevelopdatacollectionmethodsappropriatetotheirservicearea.Staffcoordinators,withtheassistanceoftechnicalconsultantsfromthePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative,ensuredthattheresearchmethodswerevalidandcomparablebetweenteams.Theanalysisof“benefits”inthiscost-benefitprojectwasbasedontheVermontResultsFirstModel.ThismodelwasdevelopedbyThePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiativebasedonworkconductedbytheWashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.InitialdevelopmentoftheVermontResultsFirstModelforcriminaljusticeserviceswasundertakenbytheLegislativeJointFiscalOfficewithassistancefromtheVCJR.TheVermontResultsFirstmodelisastate-specificcost-benefittoolthatanalyzesthecostsandbenefitsofpotentialinvestmentsinevidence-basedprograms.ThemodelincorporatesVermontcriminaljusticesystemcosts,calculatesprogrambenefitsassociatedwithreducedsystemuseandavoidedvictimizationswithinthestate,andpresentsVermont-specificreturnoninvestmentstatisticsforindividualprogramsandcombinationsofprograms.IncompliancewithAct61,thisreportdescribesthemethodsusedtocalculateVermont-specificcriminaljusticecostsforthecost-benefitmodel,reportsfindingsofthecostanalysis,providesacasestudyonthefindingsoftheVermontResultsFirstmodelfortheBenningtonCountyDomesticViolenceDocket,andprovidesrecommendationsforthecontinueduseofthecost-benefitmodel.

CONCLUSIONS1. Theprojectdemonstratedthatacollegialresearchdesignutilizingtheexpertiseofsubjectmatterexpertsisaviableapproachtodeveloping:1)validcostmodels;2)costmodelswhichareunderstoodbystakeholders;and3)costmodelswhichareendorsedbystakeholders.2. AnalysesofmarginalcostsfortheVermontcriminalandjuvenilejusticesystemssuggestthatonlylimitedbudgetsavingscanbeobtainedbysmallreductionsincrime.Theresearchdemonstratedthatmarginalcostsavingsareprimarilyaccruedbyreducingovertimeandreducingservicesthatareprovidedbycontractedservicesproviders.Smallreductionsincrimewillreducecoststovictims,animportantconsideration,butthesesavingsdonotaccruetothestatebudget.3. Planningandbudgetingactivitiesonthepartofcriminal/juvenilejusticeagenciescanbenefitfromtheidentificationofopportunitycosts.Forexample,whentherearesmallreductionsinaparticularcrime,thetimewhichwasdevotedtohandlingthatcrimecanbedivertedtootheractivitieswithinanagency.4. ThroughputModelsoftheVermontCriminal/JuvenileJusticeSystembasedonanalysisofspecificcrimesisavaluabletoolfor:1)examiningexpendituresmadebyindividualcriminal/juvenilejusticeagencieswhenprocessingcrimes;and2)identifyingtheoveralltaxpayerandvictimcostsofparticulartypesofcrime.ThroughputModelscanalsobeusedasanimportanttooltomoreaccuratelypredictthecostofpolicychangesincriminal/juvenilejustice.


3

5. TheVermontResultsFirstmodelwasdemonstratedtobeausefultoolforassessingthecost-benefitratiooftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketProject(IDVD)andotherinnovativecorrectionsprograms.Themodeldeterminedthatforevery$1investedintheIDVDthereisanexpectedlong-termbenefitof$1.89.Therefore,theIDVDprogramiscost-effective.6. Thereislittleinthewayofelectronicdatatodocumenttheamountoftimethatcriminalandjuvenilejusticeprofessionalsspendontheirduties.Onenotableexceptionisthecomputer-aideddispatchsystemsmanagedbytheDepartmentofPublicSafetyandotherpolicedepartmentswhichtracktime-on-scenedataforlawenforcementpersonnelforparticularcrimes. 7. ElectronicdatafortheThroughputModelsaremaintainedthroughcooperativedataexchangerelationshipsbetweentheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchandtheDepartmentofPublicSafety,theVermontCourtAdministrator’sOffice,andtheDepartmentofCorrections.WiththeexceptionofarrestdatafromtheDepartmentofPublicSafety,dataqualityisgenerallygood.TheThroughputModelcouldbemademorerobustifdataexchangesalsoincludedState’sAttorneysandtheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneralwhosemanagementsystemsarecurrentlyinadequateforthispurpose.8. ThedatasystemsatVermontcriminal/juvenilejusticesystemagenciesaresufficientatthistimetogeneratetherequisiteinformationtoupdateandmanagetheVermontResultsFirstModel.Theinformationwasobtainable,buttheprocessrelieduponaconsiderableamountofmanualworkonthepartofagencieswhichisinefficientandcostly.Iflegacysystemswerereplacedbymoretechnologically-advancedsystems,datacollectionfortheVermontResultsFirstmodel(aswellasotherpolicy/researchinitiatives)wouldbemoreefficient,lesscostly,andprobablymoreaccurate.9. TheCostBenefitWorkingGroupsconcludedthattheVermontResultsFirstcriminaljusticecomponentisausefulplanningtoolandtheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchisbestpositionedtomanagethecriminalandjuvenilejusticesectionsofthemodel.

RECOMMENDATIONSTheworkaccomplishedbytheTechnicalWorkingGroupduringthesixmonthsallottedtotheprojectisquiteextraordinary.However,itisimportanttonotethatthisisonlythefirstiterationoftheproject.Giventheimportantinsightsgeneratedbytheanalysis,theWorkingGroupsrecommendcontinueddevelopmentofthemodelconsistentwiththefollowingpoints:1. TheStateofVermontneedstoreinvigorateitscommitmenttosupportingevidence-basedprogrammingincriminalandjuvenilejustice.Itisessentialthatwhennewprogramsaredevelopedfundingisearmarkedforprogramevaluation.Thecostsassociatedwithcreatingandmonitoringdatasystemsforprojectmanagementandevaluationarenottrivial.IftheStateiscommittedtoevidence-basedplanningandprograming,adequatefundingfortheseactivitiesneedstobeprovided.InparticularresourcesshouldbeavailabletoevaluateprojectsinamannerconsistentwiththeVermontResultsFirstmodel.Thecreationofvalidevaluationdatasupports


4

thedata-drivenapproachembodiedintheVermontResultsFirstmodelandprovidesforacommonbasisuponwhichtoassessprogramvalue.2. TheWorkingGroupsshouldrevisitthemarginalcostsresearchundertakenduringthisprojecttoidentifystep-wisemarginalcosts.Step-wisemarginalcostsoccurwhenthetotalagencybudgetchangesbecauseacertainworkloadorcapacitythresholdisreached--forexample,whentheinmatepopulationofacorrectionalcenterdecreasesenoughtocloseanentirehousingunit.Thisinformationiscriticaltounderstandingtheimpactthatreductionsinrecidivismorchangesincriminal/juvenilejusticepolicymighthaveonthecriminal/juvenilejusticesystem.3. Sincemarginalandopportunitycostsincriminal/juvenilejusticeareprimarilydrivenbystaffcosts,theimportanceofaccuratetimestudydataforvariouscriminal/juvenilejusticedutiescannotbeoveremphasized.VermontcriminalandjuvenilejusticeagenciesshouldworktoidentifyfinancialresourcestosupportperiodictimestudiesinordertomaintainthevalidityofboththecriminaljusticeThroughputModelandtheVermontResultsFirstmodel.4. Theresultsoftheopportunitycostanalysisundertakeninthisstudyshouldbemadeavailabletocriminalandjuvenilejusticeagencies,andtechnicalassistanceshouldbeprovidedtoagencieswhowishtodevelopstrategiesforincludingopportunitycostsintheirplanningandbudgetingpractices.5. ResourcesshouldbeidentifiedtomaketheThroughputModelsamorerobusttoolforcriminal/juvenilejusticeplanningatthestate,regional,county,andlocallevels.Inparticular,theThroughputModelshouldbefurtherdevelopedtoincludeintermediatesanctiondataandregularupdatestomirrorchangesincriminalandjuvenilejusticepolicyandpractice.6. TheStateofVermontshouldcontinuedevelopingtheVermontResultsFirstmodelasawaytoidentifyinnovativeprogramsthatachieveastrongbenefit-to-costratio.TheWorkingGroupsnoted,however,thattherearestaffresourcecostsassociatedwithdevelopingtheVermontResultsFirstmodelwhichincludedatacollection(muchofwhichisnowmanual)andanalysis.Continuedeffortwillrequireamajorcommitmentfromparticipatingcriminal/juvenilejusticeagenciesaswellastheLegislaturetobecreativeaboutfindingresourcestosupporttheimprovementsintechnologyandanalysismethodsrequiredtosupportarobustcost-benefitanalysisprograminVermontstategovernment.7. Theresponsibilityforcoordinatingdatacollection,analysis,andupdatesoftheVermontResultsFirstcriminaljusticemodelcomponentshouldbeassignedtotheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch(VCJR).VCJRshouldalsoberesponsiblefordisseminatinginformationdevelopedforthemodeltootherstateagenciesforanalysis.


5

THELEGISLATIVECHARGEAct61

Sec.3.CRIMINALJUSTICECONSENSUSCOST-BENEFITWORKINGGROUP(a)(1)ACriminalJusticeConsensusCost-BenefitWorkingGroupisestablishedtodevelopacriminalandjuvenilejusticecost-benefitmodelforVermontforthepurposeofprovidingpolicymakerswiththeinformationnecessarytoweightheprosandconsofvariousstrategiesandprograms,andenablethemtoidentifyoptionsthatarenotonlycost-effective,butalsohavethegreatestnetsocialbenefit.Themodelwillbeusedtoestimatethecostsrelatedtothearrest,prosecution,defense,adjudication,andcorrectionofcriminalandjuveniledefendantsandvictimizationofcitizensbydefendants. (2)TheWorkingGroupshall: (A)developestimatesofcostsassociatedwiththearrest,prosecution,defense,adjudication,andcorrectionofcriminalandjuveniledefendantsinVermontbyusingthecost-benefitmethodologydevelopedbytheWashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicyandcurrentlyusedcollaborativelybytheJointFiscalOfficeandthePEWCharitableTrustfortheVermontResultsFirstProject; (B)estimatecostsincurredbycitizenswhoarethevictimsofcrimebyusingdatafromtheVermontCenterforCrimeVictimServices,supplementedwherenecessarywithnationalsurveydata; (C)assessthequalityofjusticedatacollectionsystemsandmakerecommendationsforimproveddataintegration,datacapture,anddataqualityasappropriate; (D)developathroughputmodeloftheVermontcriminalandjuvenilejusticesystemswhichwillserveasthebasicmatrixforcalculatingthecostandbenefitofVermontjusticesystemprogramsandpolicies; (E)investigatetheneedforandthemostappropriateentitywithinstategovernmenttoberesponsiblefor: (i)revisingthestatewidecostbenefitmodelinlightoflegislativeorpolicychanges,orboth,inthecriminalorjuvenilejusticesystems; (ii)updatingcostestimates;and (iii)updatingthroughputdataforthemodel. (3)TheWorkingGroupshallbeconvenedandstaffedbytheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch.


6

(4)ThecostsassociatedwithstaffingtheWorkingGroupshallbeunderwrittenthroughDecember31,2013byfundingpreviouslyobtainedbytheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchfromtheBureauofJusticeStatistics,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.(b)TheWorkingGroupshallbecomposedofthefollowingmembers: (1)theAdministrativeJudgeordesignee; (2)theChiefLegislativeFiscalOfficerordesignee; (3)theAttorneyGeneralordesignee; (4)theCommissionerofCorrectionsordesignee; (5)theCommissionerforChildrenandFamiliesordesignee; (6)theExecutiveDirectorofState’sAttorneysandSheriffsordesignee; (7)theDefenderGeneralordesignee; (8)theCommissionerofPublicSafetyordesignee; (9)theDirectoroftheVermontCenterforCrimeVictimServicesordesignee; (10)thePresidentoftheChiefsofPoliceAssociationofVermontordesignee; (11)thePresidentoftheVermontSheriffs’Associationordesignee;and (12)theDirectoroftheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch.(c)OnorbeforeNovember15,2013,theWorkingGroupshallreportitspreliminaryfindingstotheSenateCommitteeonJudiciary,theHouseCommitteeonJudiciary,andtheHouseCommitteeonCorrectionsandInstitutions.TheWorkingGroupshallissueafinalreporttotheGeneralAssemblyonorbeforeJanuary1,2014.


7

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUNDInNovember2011,SenatePresidentProTemporeJohnCampbellandSpeakeroftheHouseShapSmithjointlysubmittedaletterofinvitationtothePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative3requestinghelpto“guideourthinkingaboutourbudgetdevelopmentsystemdesign.”Theycommittedtopilotingthemodelin2012anddesignatedtheLegislativeJointFiscalOffice(JFO)toleadtheimplementationeffortwith“extensiveAdministrationsupportanddataassistance.”Overthelasttwoyears,theVermontCenterforJusticeResearch(VCJR)hasbeenworkingwiththeJFOtodevelopaVermont-specificcost-benefitmodelusingtheResultsFirstapproach.JFOandVCJRstaffmembershavebeentrainedinthecost-benefitmethodologybystafffromthePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative(hereafter,ResultsFirst).Act61representsthecontinuedinterestbyVermontstategovernmentintheVermontResultsFirstmodelandtheneedtodevelopmoredetailedinformationregardingcriminaljusticecosts.TheVCJRwasabletosecurepartialfundingfortheworkrequiredunderAct61fromtheBureauofJusticeStatistics,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.

OBJECTIVESInlightofthelegislativecharge,thefollowingobjectivesweredevelopedtodefineandguidetheproject:1. DevelopboththeopportunityandmarginalcostsforeachphaseoftheVermontCriminalandJuvenileJusticeSystemstoincludethecostsassociatedwitharrest,prosecution,defense,adjudication,andcorrectionsofbothadultandjuvenileoffenders.2. Developbothopportunityandmarginalcostsforcrimevictimizationtoincludetaxpayerandvictimcosts.3. DevelopThroughputModelsofthecriminaljusticesystemusingtheoffensetypesidentifiedintheResultsFirstmodeltoidentifyhowcasesproceedfromarrestthroughconvictionandsentencing.Thismodelcombinedwiththemarginalandopportunitycostsidentifiedabovewillprovideadetailedcostmodelforcriminaljustice.4. AnalyzethecostbenefitsoftheBenningtonIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketusingtheVermontResultsFirstModelwhichwillincludethecriminaljusticeandvictimcostsdevelopedabove.

3ThePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative,aprojectofThePewCharitableTrustsandtheJohnD.andCatherineT.MacArthurFoundation(withadditionalsupportfromtheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation)workswithstatestoimplementandcustomizeaninnovativecost-benefitanalysistoolthathelpstheminvestinpoliciesandprogramsthatareproventowork.


8

5. Assessthequalityofjusticedatacollectionsystemsandmakerecommendationsforimproveddataintegration,datacapture,anddataqualityasappropriate.6. Investigatetheneedforandthemostappropriateentitywithinstategovernmenttoberesponsiblefor:1)revisingthestatewidecriminaljusticecostbenefitmodelinlightoflegislativeorpolicychanges,orboth,inthecriminalorjuvenilejusticesystems;2)updatingcostestimates;and3)updatingthroughputdataforthemodel.

VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODELTheVermontResultsFirstmodelisastate-specificcost-benefittoolthatanalyzesthecostsandbenefitsofpotentialinvestmentsinevidence-basedprograms.ThemodelincorporatesVermontcriminaljusticesystemcosts,calculatesprogrambenefitsassociatedwithreducedsystemuseandavoidedvictimizationswithinthestate,andpresentsVermont-specificreturnoninvestmentstatisticsforindividualprogramsandcombinationsofprograms.ThismethodologyisbasedonamodeldevelopedbytheWashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy(WSIPP)andsupportedbythePew-MacArthurResultsFirstInitiative(ResultsFirst)4.Themodelispartofalargerapproachtoanalyzingbudgetchoicesbasedontheavailableevidencethatprogramsandpoliciesareeffective.TheResultsFirstapproachenablesstatestoidentifyopportunitiestoinvestlimitedfundstogeneratebothbetteroutcomesforcitizensandachievesubstantiallong-termsavings.Vermontisoneofagrowingnumberofstatesthatarecustomizingthisapproachtothestate-specificcontextandusingitsresultstoinformpolicyandbudgetdecisions5.Partofthisreportsummarizesthefindingsofacost-benefitanalysisoftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketProject6usingtheVermontResultsFirstmodel.TodemonstratethevalueoftheResultsFirstmodel,acost-benefitanalysiswasconductedfortheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket.Estimateswerecautiouslyconstructedtoreflectthedifficultythatcanbeencounteredwhenimplementingprograms.Severalfactorsneedtobeconsideredwheninterpretingthesefindings.Thepredictedcosts,benefits,andreturnoninvestmentratiosforeachprogramwerecalculatedasaccuratelyaspossiblebutare,likeallprojections,subjecttosomelevelofuncertainty.Itisimportanttorecognizethatprogram4ResultsFirstusesahighlysophisticatedeconometricmodelthatanalyzesthecostsandbenefitsofpotentialinvestmentsinevidence-basedprograms.ThemodelusesthebestavailableprogramresearchtopredicttheoutcomesofeachprograminVermont,basedonthestate’suniquepopulationcharacteristics.Itcalculatesthecosttoproducetheseoutcomesandtheirdiscountedlong-termdollarvalue,includingseparateprojectionsforbenefitsthatwouldaccruetoprogramparticipants,nonparticipants,andtaxpayers,combinedtoproduceatotalstatebottomline.ThemodelthencalculatestheoverallreturnoninvestmentthatVermontwouldachieveifitchosetofundaprogramorcombinationofprograms,anddeterminestheprobabilitythateachprogramwouldgeneratenetbenefitstothestateifkeyassumptionsweredifferentthanpredicted.TheeconometricmodelwasdevelopedbyWSIPPandistheculminationofover15yearsofdevelopment;themodelwasvalidatedbyindependentpanelsofnationalexpertsin2010and2012.5Vermontisoneof14statesand3CaliforniacountiescurrentlyusingtheResultsFirstapproachtosupportpolicyandbudgetdecisions.InitialdevelopmentoftheVermontResultsFirstModelforcriminaljusticeservicesandprogramswasundertakenbytheLegislativeJointFiscalOffice(JFO)withassistancefromtheVCJR.JFOcontinuestodeveloptheVermontResultsFirstModelinadditionalpolicyareas.6BenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketProject:OutcomeEvaluation.http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/idvd_final_rreport__12-9-11b.pdf


9

fidelity–howwellprogramsareimplemented–iscriticallyimportanttoachievingthepredictedoutcomes.Themodelassessesevidence-basedprogramsthataredesignedtofollowspecifictreatmentmodels,andfailuretooperatetheseprogramsasprescribedcandramaticallyreducetheiroutcomes.7Thus,safeguardingthestate’sinvestmentinevidence-basedprogramsrequiresongoingeffortstoassessprogramdeliveryand,whennecessary,takingcorrectiveactionstoholdmanagersaccountableforprogramoutcomes.

RESEARCHMETHODSDevelopingastatewidecriminalandjuvenilejusticecost-benefitmodelinsixmonthsisnoeasytask.Apartfromthelogistics,dataaccess,andlimitedknowledgeaboutcost-benefitanalysisamongagencies,istheverynaturalresistancetoaprocesswhichmightresultinagenciesgettingasmallerpieceofthefiscalpie.Someoftheinitialquestionsfromagenciesincludedintheprojectwere:Whyarewedoingthis?Howwillthedatabeused?Willouragencybeadverselyaffectedbytheoutcome?Willourworkontheprojectbeofusetousorwillitbeshelved?Whoisgoingtocollectandanalyzethedata?InlightoftheseconcernsVCJRdevelopedastakeholder-focusedmodelfordevelopingthecostbenefitdata.Basedontheassumptionthatprojectcontrolandknowledgearethemosteffectivestrategiestoreduceresistance,theVCJRadoptedacollegialdatacollectionandreviewmodelwherebyagenciesdevelopedmethodstocalculatemarginalandopportunitycostswiththeassistanceofastaffcoordinatorratherthanusinga“datacollectionbyexternalexpert”approach.AsperthedirectiveinthechargefromAct61,theVCJRbegandevelopingtheCriminalJusticeConsensusCost-BenefitWorkingGroup(hereafter,WorkingGroup)inJune,2013andconvenedthefirstmeetingoftheWorkingGrouponAugust14,2013.VCJRdecidedtoformtwogroups–TheExecutiveWorkingGroupandtheTechnicalWorkingGroup.TheExecutiveWorkingGroupwasmadeupoftheagencyheadsortheirdesigneesasindicatedinAct61.TheTechnicalWorkingGroupwasmadeupofthefinancialmanagersfromtheagenciesnamedinAct61.TheTechnicalGroupwasfurtherdividedintoServiceDeliveryTeams--theLawEnforcementTeam,AdjudicationTeam(DefenderGeneral,State’sAttorneys,AttorneyGeneral,andCourtAdministrator);theCorrectionsTeam,theJuvenileJusticeTeam,andtheVictimsTeam.ACoordinatorfromeithertheVCJRortheLegislativeJointFiscalOffice(JFO)wasappointedtoheadeachServiceDeliveryTeam.TheCoordinatorwasresponsibleforconveningtheServiceDeliveryTeams,recruitingadditionalmembersasnecessary,andstaffingtheTeams.TechnicalassistancewasprovidedbyconsultantsfromResultsFirstthroughouttheproject.Teamsmetatleasttwiceamonthduringtheprocessofdevelopingtheircostdata.

7Forexample,WashingtonState’sexperiencewithFunctionalFamilyTherapyforjuvenileoffendersfoundthatprogramoutcomescloselymatchedthosepredictedbythemodelwhentheprogramwasappropriatelyimplemented,butrecidivismamongjuvenileoffendersactuallyrosewhentheprogramwasnotimplementedcompetently.SeeBarnoski,R.,Aos,S.(2004).OutcomeEvaluationofWashingtonState’sResearch-BasedProgramsforJuvenileOffenders(DocumentNo.04-01-1201).Olympia:WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.


10

AspecialtrainingsessionwasheldonAugust27,2013,fortheTechnicalWorkingGroup.ItspurposewastotrainFinancialManagersintheResultsFirstmethodologyforcollectingcriminaljusticecostfigures.AMidtermAssessmentMeetingforbothExecutiveandTechnicalWorkingGroupswasheldonOctober22,2013toevaluatetheprogressoftheprojectandbringstakeholdersup-to-dateontheworkoftheotherServiceDeliveryTeams.AkeygoaloftheMidtermAssessmentMeetingwastosecureacceptancefromallteamsregarding:1)themethodsbeingusedbytheteams;and2)theirpreliminaryfindings.Thisbuy-inonthepartofstakeholderswascriticalbecausethemethodsusedbythedifferentteamstoidentifycostsvaried.Amajorgoalofthecollegialprocesswastoensuresupportforthefinalproductfromstakeholders.Assuch,itwasimportantthatteamsagreedontheapproachesthatwerebeingtakenbytheircolleaguestoestimatecosts.OnNovember12,2013thePrincipalInvestigatorprovidedaprogressreportontheprojecttotheJointLegislativeCorrectionsOversightJointCommittee.Afterdatacollectionwascompleted,thedraftcostanalysiswassenttothePrincipalInvestigatortoassemble.AdraftofthecostmodelwasreturnedtotheTeamCoordinatorstoreview.AdraftreportwassubsequentlywrittenanddisseminatedtotheTeamCoordinators,allmembersoftheWorkingGroups,andtheconsultantsfromResultsFirstforreview.TheTeamCoordinators,theExecutiveWorkingGroupandtheTechnicalWorkingGroupwereconvenedforadiscussionofthedraftreport.AdraftoftheExecutiveSummarywhichcontainedtheconclusionsandrecommendationswasdevelopedbasedoninputfromtheCoordinators,WorkingGroups,andtheconsultants.Afinaldraftofthereportwassubsequentlydevelopedanddistributedtoallpartiesforreview.AfinalreportwasdevelopedbasedoninputfromallpartiesandsubmittedtotheLegislatureinApril,2014.

CALCULATINGCRIMINALJUSTICECOSTSBypartneringwiththeResultsFirstInitiative,VermontadoptedWSIPP’scost-benefitmethodology,asincorporatedintotheResultsFirstcomputerapplication,forconductingtheanalysis.8Thisreportfocusesonanalysisofthecostsofper-unitresourcesusedwhenconvictionsoradjudicationsforcrimeoccur.Othercomponentsusedinthecost-benefitsanalysisofcrime-reductionpolicyoptionswillbediscussedelsewhere.TheVeraInstituteofJusticehasdevelopedaveryhelpfulandreadablereferenceshowingmethodsofcalculatingcostsforcost-benefitanalysisentitled,AGuidetoCalculatingJustice-SystemMarginalCosts(hereafter,TheGuide).ThematerialinthissectioneitherreliesheavilyontheVeraInstitute’sworkordirectlyquotesfromTheGuidetoexplaincostanalysisconceptsusedincost-

8Lee,S.,Aos,S.,Drake,E.,Pennucci,A.,Miller,M.,Anderson,L.,&Burley,M.Returnoninvestment:Evidence-basedoptionstoimprovestatewideoutcomes:TechnicalAppendixandUser-Manual,(DocumentNo.12-04-1201B).Olympia:WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy,2012.Retrievedfrom:http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=12-04-1201


11

benefitanalysis9.ThemethodssuggestedinTheGuideareconsistentwiththetrainingandmaterialsprovidedbyResultsFirststaff.Inthismodelthemarginalcostsarecalculated.AccordingtoTheGuidethemarginalcostistheamountthetotalcostchangeswhenaunitofoutput(alsoreferredtoasworkload)changesovertime.10Saidanotherway,themarginalcostistheamountofchangeinanagency’stotaloperatingcostwhenoutputssuchasarrests,prosecutions,orincarcerationschangeovertimebecauseofchangestopoliciesorprograms11.Marginalcostsaredistinguishedfromaveragecosts(totalbudgetdividedbythetotalworkload)becauseaveragecostsincludefixedcostssuchasadministrationandotheroverheadcoststhataren’tnecessarilyaffectedbychangesinpolicyorprogramming.Further,marginalcostshouldbemeasuredoverthelong-term,astheimplicationsforcriminaljusticepoliciesexaminedincost-benefitanalysishaveincrementalimpactsontaxpayers’resourcesandvictimizationoverthelong-term.

TYPESOFGOVERNMENTCOSTSTheGuidesuggestsaveryusefulframeworkforunderstandinggovernmentcosts:12Thecostsofgovernmentagenciesaresaidtobevariable,fixed,orstep-fixed.Identifyingthesecostsisthefirststepincalculatingmarginalcosts.Variablecostsarethosecostsdirectlyrelatedtoworkloadandchangeimmediatelyasworkloadincreasesordecreases.Examplesofvariablecostsincludeovertime,contractedservices,andtravelcosts.Fixedcosts,incontrast,arethosethatremainfixedoveragivenperiodandarenotusuallyaffectedeveniftheworkloadchanges.Examplesoffixedcostsincluderent,utilities,centraladministration,andequipment.Step-fixedcostsremainconstantforacertainrangeofworkload,butcanchangeiftheworkloadexceedsorfallsbelowthatrange.Themostcommonexamplesofstep-fixedcostsarestaffsalariesandbenefits.Thesestep-fixedcostsaresometimessaidtobetiered,becausepositionsaretypicallyaddedorsubtractedonlyiftheworkloadreachesacertainthreshold.Forexample,aprobationdepartmentmightnothireanewofficerinresponsetoasmallincreaseinitscaseload,butislikelytowaituntilthecaseloadreachesapointatwhichtheworkwouldfullyoccupythetimeofanadditionalofficer.Similarly,theDepartmentofCorrectionscannotreducejailstaffingiftheinmatepopulationdecreasesslightly,butifthedeclineissufficienttocloseanentirehousingarea,thecorrectionsdepartmentcouldeliminatethepositionsrelatedtothatunit.9ChristianHenrichsonandSarahGalgano,AGuidetoCalculatingJustice-SystemMarginalCosts(NewYork:VeraInstituteofJustice,2013).10HenrichsonandGalgano,4.11HenrichsonandGalgano,5.12HenrichsonandGalgano,6.


12

Tothislistofgovernmentalexpensesisaddedthenotionof“opportunitycosts.”Opportunitycostsarethecostsassociatedwithaforegonealternative:thevalueofwhatcouldbesthavebeendonewiththeresourcesiftheyhadnotbeencommittedtothatinterventionorprocess.13Ifyouchoseonealternativeoveranother,thenthecostofchoosingthatalternativeisanopportunitycost.Opportunitycostsarethebenefitsyoulosebychoosingonealternativeoveranotherone.Opportunitycostsareassociatedwiththetotalvariablecosts(includingstaffsalaries)associatedwithperformingacriminaljusticefunction,forexample,thecostofstafftimeassociatedwithmakinganarrestinadomesticviolencecase.Policetimethatisinvestedinarrestsfordomesticviolencecannotbespentonotherpoliceinitiatives.Incost-benefitanalysismeasuringthetimeassociatedwithresourceuseisimportanttomeasuringthevalueoftheresourceused.Laterinthisreportanargumentwillbemadethatopportunitycostsaremoreabouttimethanmoney.

HOWTOCALCULATEMARGINALCOSTSTheGuidesuggeststwomethodsofcalculatingmarginalcosts–“thetop-down”and“bottom-upapproaches.”14Thetop-downmethodrequirestheanalysttodividethechangeintotalcostofagivenactivitybythechangeintotaloutput.It’scalledthe“top-down”methodbecauseitusestotalcostsandthendividesthembythechangeinoutput.Toachievevalidmarginalcostsitiscriticaltoincludeonlyvariablecosts–thecostsrelatedtothechangeinoutput.The“bottom-upmethod”involvesidentifyingallofthecostsrelatedtoaparticularactivity.Sincemostcriminalandjuvenilejusticecostsinvolvelaborcosts,thebottom-upmethodinvolvesidentifyingalloftheemployeeswhoareinvolvedinanactivity,identifywhattheydo,determinehowmuchtimetheyspenddoingitandthenmultiplyingthattimebytheirhourlyrate.BothmethodswereusedbyTeamsforthisreportthoughthepredominantmodelinvolvedthe“bottom-up”approach.

DATACOLLECTIONSTRATEGIES

LawEnforcementTeamTheVermontLawEnforcementCost/BenefitProjectusedabottom-upapproachandwascomprisedofthreephases:dataidentification,datacollection,anddataanalysis.ALawEnforcementServiceDeliveryTeamdeterminedwhichdatatocollect,thebestapproachtocollectingthedata,andhowtoorganizeit.TheworkinggroupwascomprisedofVermontlawenforcementexecutivesandstaffthatrepresentedlarge,medium,andsmallsizedpolicedepartmentsfromacrossthestate,sheriffs’departments,andtheVermontStatePolice.Additionally,atechnicalconsultantfromResultsFirstwaspartoftheworkinggroupduringvariousiterationsoftheproject.Thefirstphaseoftheprojectinvolveddatacollection.TheinitialstepwastodeterminehowtoclassifytheVermontcriminalstatuesaccordingtotheVermontResultsFirstframework.The

13AnnNetten,Identifyingcostsandcostingcomplexinterventionprograms,inJ.Roman,T.Dunworth,&K.Marsh,eds.,Cost-BenefitAnalysisandCrimeControl.Washington,DC:TheUrbanInstitutePress,2010,34.14HenrichsonandGalgano,8-10.


13

workinggroupdecidedtousethecriminalcodetablesintheComputerAidedDispatch/RecordsManagementSystem(CAD/RMS)usedbyVermont’sDepartmentofPublicSafety.ThesedatawereusedasthestartingpointtoalignVermont’scodestotheVermontResultsFirstframework.AllcriminalcodesenteredintotheCAD/RMSwereidentifiedandtheworkinggroupreclassifiedthemaccordingtotheVermontResultsFirstframework.Forexample,aggravatedassault,domesticabuse,elderlymistreatmentandchildmistreatmentwerecombinedtoformtheAggravatedAssaultandDomesticViolencecategoryfromtheResult’sFirstmodel.(SeeTable1below.)ThenextstepwastousethetimedatafromCAD/RMStodeterminethetimealawenforcementofficerspentonacaseforeachoffense.Theworkinggroupdeterminedthatthreeyearsofdatawouldbethebesttimeperiodfromwhichtoaverageoffensearresttimesandnumberofcasesforeachoffense.InordertodeterminetheaveragetimefortheVermontResultsFirstoffenses,three-yearaverageswereweightedtoreflectthenumberofcasesandtimespentoneacharrest.Table1belowprovidesinformationforthenumberofcasesandaveragetimepolicespentonthescenefortheAggravatedAssaultandDomesticViolencecrimetypefortheyears2010-2012. Table1

LAWENFORCEMENTTIMESTUDY:AGGRAVATEDASSAULT&DOMESTICVIOLENCE

2010 2011 20123YearAverage

VRFCategoryObservedOffenses

#ofcases

AverageTime

#ofcases

AverageTime

#ofcases

AverageTime

AggravatedAssault&DV

AggravatedAssault 4890 2:19:23 5287 2:32:48 6339 2:53:27 2:35:13

DomesticAssault 526 2:25:17 583 3:07:10 685 3:30:21 3:00:56

Elderlymistreatment 7 0:32:39 6 1:06:46 3 0:40:24 0:46:36

Childmistreatment 131 1:48:28 190 3:41:09 203 3:00:35 2:50:04

Thesecondstepindatacollectionrequiredtheworkinggrouptoidentifyforeachoffensethecomponentsofarrestthatincurredexpenses.Table2illustratesthearrestcomponentsforadultsexualoffenseasconstructedbythecost/benefitworkinggroup.


14

Table2PERSONNELINVOLVEDWITHADULTSEXCRIMEARREST

PERSONNELDispatchFirstRespondingLEO(s)InvestigatorSupervisorsForensicInterviewerAdmin/CasePrepSupportCrimeSceneProcessingLEO(s)SexAssaultNurseExaminerAdvocatesEnhancedPatrolsMediaHandling/FOIAAttorneysDeposition,Hearings,Trial+prepPublicOrder(CourtOrderEnforcement)

Tocompletethedatacollectionphase,theworkinggroupcreatedastandardizeddatacollectionformtoensuredatacompatibilityacrosslawenforcementagencies.TheworkinggroupalsodecidedtouseBurlingtonPoliceDepartmentsalaryratesforthosewhorespondedtoadultsexualcrimesbecauseoftheDepartment’sexperiencewiththeChittendenUnitforSpecialInvestigations(CUSI).VermontStatePolice’ssalaryrateswereusedforallotheroffenses.15Table3illustratesthedatadocumentationprocessforMurder/Manslaughtercrimes.Specificmemberswithineachlawenforcementagencycollectedthedata,andannotatedthedatasourceandtheindividualresponsiblefordatacollection.

Table3LAWENFORCEMENTDATADOCUMENTATION:MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER

Murder/ManslaughterNameofAnalystorDataCollector JPSinclairSourceofData Spillman/timesheetsDescriptionofhowtimewascalculated Spillman/timesheets

ActualDataUsedHourlyratesareallbasedontheSFY14budgetamounts

Descriptionofhowcostwascalculated payroll15Salaryratesanddatawerecollectedfromsmallerandmediumsizedagenciesandwillbeusedinsubsequentreportsbeyondthefirstphaseofthisproject.


15

Theanalysisphaseinvolvedcombiningtheaveragelawenforcementtimespentoneacharrestwithotherexpensesassociatedwitheacharresttocreateopportunitycosts.Marginalcostswererestrictedtoovertimecosts.Sincecertainoffenses,specificallymurderandarson,areoutliersinbothfrequencyandcost,theworkinggroupagreedthattheyshouldbeexaminedindependentlyandinfurtherdetail.

AdjudicationTeamTheAdjudicationTeamwascomprisedofrepresentativesfromcourts,State’sAttorneysandvictimadvocates,andtheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneral(ODG).MarginalCostwasdefinedasthecostofhoursworkedonparticulartypesofcasesthatexceedthenumberofcase-specifichoursavailableduringanormalworkyear.Forthisinitialanalysis,costdatadoesnotincludethecostofappeals,juvenilecases,post-convictionrelief,andprobationviolations.

CourtsIn2009,theNationalCenterforStateCourts(NCSC)conductedacaseloadstudyfortheVermontcourts.16IntheExecutiveSummarythestudyauthorsindicatethat“Thestudyprovidesanaccuratepictureofhowjudgesandclericalstaffarecurrentlyspendingtheirtime.”17Inparticularthereportcalculatestheminutesspentoncaseswhichweresubsequentlyusedinthisreporttocalculatethetotalannualnumberofhoursworkedandtotalmarginalcosts.Thoughtimeanalysisstudiesareaneffectivewaytocalculatetheaverageamountoftimespentpercase,therecanbemethodologicalissueswiththisdatacollectionstrategywhichaffecttheaccuracyofestimatesrelatedtototalannualhours.Forthepurposesofthisreporttherearetwoprincipalconcerns–thedurationofthestudyanddoublecounting.StudyDuration:TheNCSCstudyonwhichthecourtanalysiswasbaseduseda30-daydatacollectionperiod.Thoughthisisthestandardstudydurationforstudiesofthistype,the30-daysofstudymaynothavebeenrepresentativeofannualcaseloads.Hadthestudyperiodbeenanatypicalperiod(moreorlesscasesthanusual)thetotalannualcase-specifictimemaybetoolowortoohigh.DoubleCounting:Judgesandcourtclericalsupportstaffwereinstructedtocountalltimeassociatedwithacase,evenifitmeantdoublecountingtheirtime.Thiswasdoneinordertoaccuratelyidentifyopportunitycostsassociatedwitheachcrimeinthestudy.However,thisstrategyartificiallyincreasesthetotalnumberofhoursworkedannually.Forexample,ifajudgewaswaitingforthepartiestoacasetoassembleinthecourtroomforCaseAandwhilewaitingthejudgereviewedmotionsforCaseB,thewaitingtimewouldbecountedforCaseAandthetimespentonthemotionswouldbecountedforCaseB.Doublecountingisacommonpracticeintime

16SuzanneTallaricoandJohnDouglas,NationalCenterforStateCourts,VermontWeightedCaseloadStudyofJudicialOfficersandCourtStaff(Denver,Colorado:NationalCenterforStateCourts,2009).17TallaricoandDouglas,i.


16

studies.Thoughdoublecountingdoesnotaffecttheaccuracyoftimespentontypesofcases,itcanartificiallyincreasethetotalnumberofannualhoursworkedwhenthenumberofhoursworkedpercaseistotaledfortheyear.Forthispreliminarystudyitwasnotpossibletoidentifyinstancesofdoublecountingandassuchthetotalnumberofhoursworkedannuallybyjudgesandcourtstaffmaybeoverestimated.Forthisstudythecourtsusedabottom-upmethodtoestimateopportunityandmarginalcosts.Opportunitycostsweredeterminedbytakingthenumberofcase-specifichoursspentbyjudgesonthecrimesincludedinthisprojectasreportedintheNCSCstudy,multipliedbythenumberofstudycrimesadjudicatedinCY2010.Thiscalculationprovidedboththetotalnumberofhoursspentonstudycrimesandtheamountofcase-specifictimespentonparticularcrimesinayear.Marginalcostswerebasedonthecostofhoursworkedonparticulartypesofcasesbeyondthe1,370hoursavailableannuallytojudgesinVermontforcase-specificactivities.AccordingtotheNCSCstudy,thework-yearvalueforbothVermontjudgesandclericalsupportstaffis218daysperyear18.Thework-yearvalueisthenumberofdaysperyearwhichareavailableforcriminalcaseprocessingafterweekends,holidays,vacation,sickleaveandtrainingdaysaredeleted.Thecase-specifichoursperdaywasdeterminedbysubtractingtheamountoftimespentonnon-case-specificworkandcourt-relatedtravel(103minutes/day)fromthe480minutespereight-hourday,yielding377case-specificminutesperday(82,186minutesayear)or1,370hoursofcase-specificactivitiesperjudgeperyear.BasedonthevolumeofcrimesincludedintheanalysisandthetimepercaseanalysisincludedintheNCSCstudy,the10.76FTESuperiorCourt–CriminalDivisionjudgesstatewidespentapproximately18,356hoursinCY2010oncase-specificactivitiesrelatedtoadjudicatingthecrimesincludedinthisstudy.However,basedontheannual1,370case-specificworkyear,judgeswouldbeexpectedtoworkonly14,741hours(1,370hoursX10.76judges).Assuchjudgesdedicateanadditional3,615hours(18,356hoursworkedminus14,741hoursexpectedtowork)totheadjudicationprocess.Thevalueofthoseadditionalhoursisapproximately$260,280(3,615X$72perhour).Assuch,$260,280isconsideredmarginalcosts.MarginalcostswerefurthercalculatedforeachcrimebyfiguringthepercentageofsurplustimeandcostattributabletoeachtypeofcrimeSimilaranalyseswereconductedforclericalsupportstaffsuchthatopportunitycostswerecalculatedtobe$1,740,554(55,787totalhoursX$31.20perhour)andmarginalcostswere$348,941(11,184additionalhoursX$31.20perhour).

State’sAttorneys,AssistantAttorneysGeneral,andVictimAdvocatesTheState’sAttorneys,AssistantAttorneyGenerals,andVictimAdvocatesdidnothaveexistingdatatodocumenttheamountoftimetheyspentontasksrelatedtotheprosecutionofcrimesincludedinthestudy.Assuch,33State’sAttorneysparticipatedinabottom-upstyletimestudy,trackingalltimespentonstudycrimesfor25days.TheState’sAttorneysandadvocatetimestudywasbasedontheresearchmethodsusedintheNationalCenterforStateCourts(NCSC)studyofthecourtsreferencedabove.Thegroupusedanonlinetimekeepingsystemtokeeptrackoftheirtimebyspecifictask.Afterareviewofthetimestudyinformation,theentriesfor25attorneyswere

18TallaricoandDouglas,15.


17

designatedasacceptableforanalysis.Inaddition20victimadvocatesrecordedtime.Afterreview,thetimeanalysesfrom18advocatesweredeemedsufficientlyaccurateforanalysis.ThoughtheState’sAttorneysandadvocatetimestudywasbasedontheresearchmethodsusedintheNationalCenterforStateCourts(NCSC)studyofthecourts,thereweresomedeviationsfromtheNCSCmethods.Thesedeviationsmayhavecausedoverestimatesoftotalopportunitycostsandtotalmarginalcostsforprosecutorsandadvocates.Otherestimateswereunaffected.Theestimateproblemswerelikelyrelatedtothefollowingcombinationofissuesandhighlightthedifficultiesinconductingthistypeofresearch. 1)StudyDuration:The25-daydurationofthestudymayhavebeentooshortto accuratelycaptureaveragecase-specifictime.Alongerstudyorastudywhichcollected datafromrandomlyselectedperiodsduringtheyearmayhaveresultedindifferent results. 2)Training:Inlightoftheshorttimelinefortheproject,trainingtimeforState’s Attorneysandadvocateswaslimited.TherewasinadequatetimeforState’sAttorneysand advocatestopre-testandpracticewiththedatacollectioninstructionsandsoftware. 3)MinimumUnitofTime:Theminimumunitoftimeusedtorecordtimewas15 minutes.IfaState’sAttorneyoradvocatemadeatelephonecallrelatedtoacasethat lastedfiveminutes,thesoftwarewouldrecordthetimeas15minutes.Iftherewereahigh numberofactivitiesthatlastedlessthan15minutes,totaltimeestimatesfromthe softwarewouldoverestimatetheactualtimespent. 4)ParticipationLevels:Thirty-threeofthe62State’sAttorneysstatewidevolunteeredto participateinthetimestudy.Datafrom25oftheState’sAttorneyswereeventuallyused fortheanalysis;aparticipationlevelof40%.Ifthedatafromthosewhovolunteeredwere notrepresentativeoftheentiregroup,theestimatesmaybedifferentfromtheestimates derivedfromanalyzingthetimestudyresultsfromamorecompleteorrepresentative group.TheseissuesoccurinvaryingdegreesinalltimestudiesincludingtheNCSCstudyofthecourtsreportedabove.HoweverthereweretwoadditionalissueswhichwerebelievedtohaveasubstantialeffectontimeestimatesforState’sAttorneysandadvocates--doublecountingandpre-arraignmentactivitieswhichdonotendinthefilingofacriminalcase.DoubleCounting:Aswasthecaseforthecourtstudy,State’sAttorneyswereinstructedtocountalltimeassociatedwithacase,evenifitmeantdoublecountingtheirtime.Thiswasdoneinordertoaccuratelyidentifyopportunitycostsassociatedwitheachstudycrime.However,thisstrategyartificiallyincreasesthetotalnumberofhoursworkedannually.Forexample,ifaState’sAttorneywaswaitingincourtforanarraignmentonCase1andwhilewaitingwasreviewingnewchargesforCase2,thewaitingtimeincourtwouldbecountedforCase1andthetimespentonthenewchargeswouldbecountedforCase2.Doublecountingisacommonpracticeintimestudies.ItprobablyaffectedtheestimatesofjudgestosomedegreebuttheeffectonState’sAttorneyandadvocateestimatesisbelievedtobemoresubstantial.Thoughdoublecountingdoesnotaffectthe


18

accuracyoftimespentontypesofcases,itdoesartificiallyincreasethetotalnumberofannualhoursworked.ForthispreliminarystudyitwasnotpossibletoidentifyinstancesofdoublecountingandassuchthetotalnumberofhoursworkedannuallybyState’sAttorneysisoverestimated.Resolvingthismethodologicalissueshouldbeafocusforthenextiterationofthemodel.Pre-ArraignmentActivities:Inadditiontoprosecutingcases,State’sAttorneysarealsoresponsibleforavarietyofactivitieswhichmayormaynotresultinacriminalcasebeingfiledwiththecourt.Forexample,State’sAttorneysroutinelyadviselawenforcementofficersregardingcriminalprocedure.Theyreviewsearchwarrantsandfacilitatelawenforcement’sapplicationstothecourtforthosewarrants.Theyareresponsiblefor48-hourrulecomplianceandunattendeddeathcompliance.Theycoordinatecustodyordersforjuvenileemergencies.Theyscreencasesforprosecution,diversion,andotheralternativeprogramming.Thetimespentontheseactivitieswasrecordedandaddedintothetimespentonacase.However,notalloftheseactivitiesresultinanactualcriminalcasebeingfiledwiththecourt.Casesthatarenotfiledincourtarenotincludedinthetotalnumberofcasesforayear.Thecalculationsrequiredtodeterminetheaveragenumberofhoursforacaseusesadenominatoroftotalnumberofcasesfiled,notthenumberofcasesworked.Becausethenumberofcasesfiledislessthanthenumberofcasesworked,thedenominatorissmaller,thusincreasingtheaveragehourspercaseandinturnincreasingthetotalannualhours.DifferentiatingbetweentimespentonactivitiesthatledtoanactualchargeandthosethatdidnotwasnotpossiblegiventhescopeandtimelimitsofthisprojectThesemethodologicalissuesmakeitdifficulttointerpretthetotalannualopportunityandmarginalcostsdevelopedfortheState’sAttorneysandadvocates.ClearlythetotalsarenotdirectlycomparabletothoseofthecourtortheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneralbecausedifferentmethodologieswereusedbytherespectivegroupstocalculatetheirtime.Thoughthetimesassociatedwithcase-specificactivitiesarereasonablepreliminaryestimatesgiventhelimitsoftheresearchmethods,becauseofthedoublecountingandpre-arraignmentactivitiestheannualtotalsforallState’sAttorneyactivitiesareoverestimated.However,basedontheexperiencewiththedatacollectedbythecourtsandtheOfficeofDefenderGeneral,itissafetoassumethatState’sAttorneysandadvocatescontributehourstotheadjudicationprocessabovethenormalcase-specificworkyearof1,526hoursandarecomparabletothehourscontributedbyjudges,courtclericalstaffanddefenders.Usingabottom-upapproach,theprosecutiontimeinhoursspentperchargewascalculatedforeachtypeofchargebasedontheaveragenumberofdaysittakestodisposeacaseanddatafromthe25daysoftracking.UsingthenumberofcasesdisposedofduringCY2010,thetotalannualtimeinhoursspentonaparticulartypeofchargewascalculatedbymultiplyingtheprosecutiontimespentpercasebythetotalnumberofcases.Forexample,onaverageprosecutorsspendapproximately89hoursprosecutingasexcrimecase.Sincetherewere252sexcrimesprosecutedstatewideinCY2010,prosecutorsspentapproximately22,428hoursprosecutingsexcrimecasesduringthatyear.Totalopportunitycostsof$9,322,939associatedwiththeprosecutionofallchargeswascalculatedbymultiplyingthetotalnumberofprosecutionhoursforallcrimes(247,687hours)bythemedianhourlysalaryandbenefitscostperState’sAttorney($37.64perhour).Marginalcostswerebasedonthecostofhoursworkedonparticulartypesofcasesthatareabovethenormalcase-specificworkyearof1,526hours(218daysmultipliedby7hoursofcase-specific


19

activity).Accordingtotheirtimeanalysisstudy,State’sAttorneysspent247,687hoursprosecutingthestudycrimesinCY2010.However,basedonthenormalcase-specificworkyearof1,526hoursperprosecutor,the62State’sAttorneyandfourAssistantAttorneysGeneralwhoprosecutecases,thereareonly100,716hoursofcase-specificprosecutiontimeavailableinagivenyear.Assuchprosecutorsdedicateanadditional146,971hoursperyeartocase-specificactivities(247,687hoursprosecutingminusthe100,716hoursinthecase-specificwork-year).Thevalueofthoseadditionalhoursisapproximately$5,531,988(146,971X$37.64perhour).Assuchthe$5,531,988isconsideredmarginalcosts.Marginalcostswerefurthercalculatedforeachcrimebyfiguringthepercentageofsurplustimeandcostattributabletoeachtypeofcrime.Similaranalysiswasconductedforvictimadvocatessuchthatopportunitycostswerecalculatedtobe$1,924,536(57,466X$33.49/hour)andmarginalcostswere$1,212,446(33,486X$33.49/hour).DefenderGeneralTheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneral(ODG)didnothaveexistingdatatodocumenttheamountoftimestaffspentontasks.RatherthanconductingatimestudyasdidthecourtsandState’sAttorneys,theODGestimatedtimespentoncasesbyanalyzingthefollowingsourcesoftimedata:1)invoicesfromassignedcounsel;2)invoicesfromadhoccounsel;and3)AmericanBarAssociationstandardsfordefensecaseloads.Thoughthisisaninnovativestrategyanddoesprovidealternativemethodsformeasuringopportunityandmarginalcosts,sincenotimeanalysiswasconductedbasedontheexperienceofdefenseattorneyswhowereemployeesoftheODGthestrategycouldresultinestimationproblems.DefenderswhoareemployeesoftheODGhandleapproximately72%ofODGcases,assignedcounselhandleapproximately26%ofcases,andadhoccounselhandleapproximately2%.Estimatingcase-specifictimebasedon28%oftheODGworkforcecouldcreateestimationissuesifthecase-specificactivitiesofdefenderswhoareemployeesoftheODGdifferinasubstantialwayfromthoseofassignedandadhoccounsel.UseoftheABAstandardsbringsanelementofstandardizationtotheestimatesbuttheuseofnationalstandardscouldresultinestimationproblemsifthecase-specifictimeofODGemployeesisnotcomparabletotheABAstandards.TotalhoursspentoneachtypeofchargewasdeterminedbymultiplyingtheestimatednumberofhourspercasetimesthetotalnumberofcaseshandledbytheODGduringCY2010.DocketinginformationfromtheCourtAdministrator’sOfficewasusedtodeterminewhichcriminalcasesarraignedduringCY2010receivedlegalrepresentationservicesfromtheODG(staff,adhoccounsel,andcontractattorneys).Forexample,itwasestimatedthatODGattorneysspendanaverageof416hoursdefendingmurdercases.SincetherewereeightmurdercasesdefendedinthatyearbyODGattorneys,thetotalnumberofhoursspentdefendingthosecaseswas3,328(416hours/casemultipliedbyeightcases).Marginalcostswerebasedonthecostofhoursworkedonparticulartypesofcasesthatareabovethenormalcase-specificworkyearof1,526hours(218daysmultipliedbysevenhoursofcase-specificactivity).InCY2010,attorneysfromtheODGspentanestimated87,688hoursdefendingthecrimesdiscussedinthereport.However,basedonthenormalcase-specificworkyearof1,526hoursperdefender,the48FTEdefenders(31.9publicdefenders,13.3assignedcounsel,and2.8adhocdefenders)thereareonly73,248hoursofcase-specificprosecutiontimeavailableina


20

givenyear.Assuchdefendersdedicateanadditional14,440hoursayeartocase-specificdefenseservices.Thevalueofthoseadditionalhoursisapproximately$577,90119andisconsideredmarginalcosts.Marginalcostswerefurthercalculatedforeachcrimebyfiguringthepercentageofsurplustimeandcostattributabletoeachtypeofcrime.Forexample,themarginalcostsfordefendinganAggravatedAssault/DomesticViolencetypechargeis$45.43vs.$508forasexcrimecharge.

DepartmentofCorrectionsTheDepartmentofCorrections(DOC)didnothaveexistingdatatodocumenttheamountoftimespentonvarioustasks.DOC,however,utilizedanalternativeapproachtoestimatingworktimestothe“timestudy”approachesusedbytheAdjudicationServiceDeliveryTeam.Utilizingabottom-upmethodology,theDOCapproachinvolvedtheuseofsubjectmatterexpertstoestimatetheamountoftimespentonactivities.Wheneverpossiblethestaffmemberswhoperformedthetaskwereconsultedaboutthedetailsoftheprocessandthetimeittooktocompletetheprocess.StaffmembersfrombothDOCfacilitiesandcommunitysupervisionprogramswereconsulted.DOCstartedtheprojectbycreatingflowchartsoftheprimaryworkprocessesoftheDepartment.Thefollowingflowchartswerecreated:FacilityFlowChart,FieldSupervisionFlowChart,andOutofStateFlowChart.AsampleflowchartappearsinFigure1below.

19CostsofextrahourswerecalculatedbymultiplyinglaborcostsforeachtypeofODGdefenderbythenumberofhourseachtypeofdefendergenerated.


21

Figure1

CORRECTIONALFACILITYFLOWCHART

SubjectmatterexpertsfromtheDepartmentwereaskedtoparticipateintheflowchartdevelopment.Eachchartwasdevelopedatseparatemeetingusingthefollowingstrategy:

1. EachflowchartidentifyingthevariousDepartmentprocesseswasroughedoutusingflipcharts;

2. Associatedtaskswereidentifiedforeachprocessonthechart;

3. Thetimeittakesforeachtaskwasestimatedbythesubjectmatterexperts;

4. Theflowchartsandtasksweresubsequentlydraftedintoelectronicformandreviewedby

thesubjectmatterexperts.Ifnecessary,additionalinformationwasaddedtotheflowchartstomakethemascompleteandaccurateaspossible;and

5. Timeestimateswerethenverifiedthroughdiscussionswiththestaffmembersresponsible

fortasks.AsecondstepintheprocesswastodeveloptasklistsfortheDetentionandViolationProcesses.ThiswascompletedusingDOCdirectivesthatoutlineeachprocess.Timeestimatesweredevelopedusingthesameprocessasabove.Oncethetasksweredeveloped,theDOCbusinessofficeprovidedsalaryandinformationtotheTeaminordertopreparecostestimates.Thecostestimatestaketheaveragehourlyrateforthe


22

staffmemberswhocompletethetaskandmultiplythatbythenumberofminutesittakestocompletethetask.ThefinalproductswerereviewedbyallparticipantsandtheCommissioner.Table4showsasampleopportunitycoststable.

Table4OPPORTUNITYCOSTSASSOCIATEDWITHRISKMANAGEMENTSUPERVISION

JuvenileJusticeTheDepartmentforChildrenandFamilies,FamilyServicesDivision(DCF-FSD)didnothaveexistingdatatodocumenttheamountoftimetheyspentonvarioustasks.TheJuvenileJusticeServiceDeliveryTeamsubsequentlyadoptedamethodforestimatingtheamountoftimespentonactivitiessimilartotheapproachusedbyDOCwhichwastousesubjectmatterexpertstoestimatetheamountoftimespentonactivities.TheteamdevelopedmarginalcostestimatesassociatedwithaddingonedelinquentyouthtotheDCF-FSDcaseload.EstimatesweredevelopedfromtheDCF-FSDbudget,otherfinancialdocuments,andtimeestimatesfromsubjectmatterexpertswithDCF-FSD.NearlyallyoutharescreenedandprovidedadditionalsupportbyaBalancedandRestorativeJustice(BARJ)contractedserviceproviderwhiletheyouthworkstowardcompletingprobationrequirements.Theteamobtainedmarginalcostestimatesassociatedwiththesecaseintake/managementservicesfromdocumentspreparedforDCF’sbudget,andtimeestimatesfrom

TASK TIME COSTFurloughRenewals/Changes 15 $8.52FurloughSchedules 15 $8.52OfficeandFieldAppointments 40 $22.71CollateralContacts 60 $34.06RespondtoViolations:Paperwork,Court,etc. 240 $136.25ParoleViolationReports,includes2hoursoftravel 240 $136.25CrisisManagement 240 $136.25COSAMeetings 90 $51.09UrineAnalysis 30 $17.03ParoleSummaries 45 $25.55RequestforDischarges 30 $17.03AttendTreatmentTeamMeetings,Perweek 60 $34.06Co-FacilitateProgramMeetings(CSSII)(IDAP) 420 $238.43TransitionalHousingContacts 30 $17.03TrackingGPS 15 $8.52ScheduleWorkCrew 10 $5.68ICOTSViolations 60 TotalTimeEffortforRiskManagementSupervision 27Hours $896.97


23

CheryleBilodeau,DCFPolicyandOperationsManager&JuvenileJusticeDirector,whoconsultedwithsupervisorsthroughoutthestate.MarginalcostestimatesforWoodsideJuvenileRehabilitationCenterweredevelopedfromWoodside’sandDCF-FSD’sbudgets,aswellastransportationreportspreparedbyMargoBryce,QualityAssuranceAdministrator.Woodside’sDirector,JaySimons,assistedinthedevelopmentoftheseestimates,asdidJuvenileJusticeAdministrator,LindyBoudreau.MarginalcostestimatesforresidentialplacementsotherthanWoodsideweredevelopedfromcontractswiththesefacilitiesprovidedbyDCF-FSD’sRevenueEnhancementUnit.Table5isanexampleofhowtheJuvenileJusticeServiceDeliveryTeamestimatedmarginalcostsforWoodside.Noticethatonlyvariablecosts(notfixedcosts)areincludedinthemodel.

Table5MARGINALCOSTSFORWOODSIDEJUVENILEREHABILITATIONCENTER

WoodsideDetention&TreatmentServices

Unit Who UnitCost TotalCost

SecureTransport 1transporttoWoodside

Sheriff 65/hr+mileage

$462

TransportsbyWoodsidestaff 2hrs40m WoodsideStaff 34.75/hourX2people

$185

Medical(contracted) 0.5hrs FletcherAllen 110/hr

$55

Psychiatricservices 1hr FletcherAllen 140/hr

$140

Dischargesummary 1hr HowardCenter 26.83/hr

$27

Food Year 2,572

$2,572

Laundry Year 480

$480

Supportofpersons Year 1,079

$1,079

PlusBARJIntake/CaseManagementCost

$900

EstimateofMarginalCostforDetention&TreatmentServices(peryouthperyear)

$5,700


24

VictimsCost-benefitanalysisforcriminaljusticepoliciesincludestheperspectiveofsocietyinordertodemonstratetheimpactonpublicsafety.Thevalueofsocialbenefitsachievedbyaprogramorpolicy’srecidivismreductioneffectismeasuredbyavoidedvictimizations.Calculatingmarginalandopportunitycostsforvictimsisquitedifferentfromcalculatingthesecostsformoretraditionalcriminaljusticeagencies.Theprincipledifferenceisthatthemajorityofcostsinthissectorinvolvecompensationorrestitutiontovictimsratherthanthoseassociatedwiththeprovisionofgovernmentservices.Assuch,marginalcostsforservicestovictimsarediscussedintermsoftaxpayercosts,tangiblevictimcosts,andintangiblevictimcosts.Taxpayercostsareassociatedwiththeadministrativecostsrequiredtoprovidecompensationawards,thecompensationawardsmadetovictimsfromdedicatedfunds,andcoststoproviderestitutionservicestovictims.Tangiblecostsaredefinedasdirectout-of-pocketexpenseswhichthevictimincursasaresultofbeingvictimized.Examplesoftangiblecostsincludemedicalexpenses,propertyloss,orpropertydamage.Victimintangiblecostsincludepainandsufferingasaresultofaviolentvictimization.Intermsoftaxpayercosts,theVictimsServiceDeliveryteamdevelopedopportunitycostsforprovidingservicestovictimsthroughtheCompensationProgramandRestitutionUnitusingatop-downmodel.Allotherteamsusedabottom-upapproach.Interviewswithprogramstaffdeterminedthatthetimeassociatedwithprocessingcompensationandrestitutioncasesdidnotvarybythetypeofcrime.Variationinprocessingtimeisrelatedmoretothenatureofthevictim’slossthanthecrime.Thoughsomeclaimsweremorecomplicatedtoprocessbecauseoftheneedforextradocumentationofloss,thecomplexityofthecasewasnotnecessarilydeterminedbythenatureofthecrime.Forexample,intermsofprocessingtime,somepropertycrimesmayrequireconsiderablelossdocumentationwhileothersmightbestraightforward.Thedocumentationoftangiblelossasaresultofanassaultmightbeconsiderablylessthanforamajorburglary.Assuchitwasdeterminedthatatop-downapproachwouldprovideavalidmeasureoftaxpayercost.TheprincipalstrategyfordeterminingtaxpayercostsforeachprogramwasexaminingtheFY2012andFY2013annualbudgetsforboththeRestitutionUnitandtheCompensationProgram.Carewastakentoexcludeallfixedcostsfromtheanalysis.Anaveragecostofserviceswasdeterminedbytakingthetotalbudget(excludingfixedcosts)foreachprogramanddividingitbythetotalnumberofclaimsprocessedbytherespectiveunits.Theaveragetaxpayercostforprocessingarestitutionclaimwas$316.Theaveragetaxpayercostforprocessingacompensationclaimwas$648.Inthiscontextthetaxpayercostsareopportunitycostsandnotmarginalcosts.Sincecompensationclaimsmadetovictimsofviolentcrimesaremadefromacompensationfundwhichissupportedbyasurchargeoncourtfinesandtraffictickets,compensationawardsaretechnicallymadefromtaxpayerfunds.Thatis,ifthefundwasnotusedtosupportvictimcompensationclaimsitcouldberedirectedtootherpurposes.AssuchtheTeamdeterminedthatitwasnecessarytodeterminethetaxpayercostsassociatedwiththeseawards.AveragecompensationclaimswerecalculatedbydividingthetotalcompensationawardedtovictimsofeachtypeofcrimedividedbythetotalclaimsfiledforFY2012.Forexample,atotalof$248,358wasawardedtothe214victimsofsexofassaultanddomesticviolencewhofiledacompensationclaimresultinginanaverageawardof$1,328.Thetaxpayercostsassociatedwithcompensationawardsaremarginalcostsinthatforeachreductioninvictimizationthecompensationfundaccruesthebenefitofaclaimneitherfilednorpaid.


25

TheRestitutionProgramprovidespaymentstovictimsfromtheRestitutionFund.TheRestitutionFundreceivesitsrevenuethroughsurchargesoncriminalandcivilfines.SincetheRestitutionProgramcollectsrestitutionfromoffendersinordertoreimbursetheFunditwasdeterminedthatpaymentstovictimswerenotataxpayerexpenseandthereforenotaxpayercostsforrestitutionpaymentswerecalculated.Tangible(out-of-pocket)costsandintangible(painandsuffering)costsforvictimsareverydifficulttodetermine.Giventhatneithercompensationawardsnorrestitutionpaymentsrepresentthetruetangibleorintangiblelosstothevictimduetopaymentcaps,unallowableexpenses,insurancedeductions,etc.,itwasnotpossibletoobtainvalidcostdatafromVermontvictimclaims.AssuchtheTeamreliedonastandardmethodforestimatingtangibleandintangiblecostsdevelopedbyMcCollisteretal.20TheMcCollistermethodwasrecommendedbythetechnicalconsultantfromPewCharitableTrusts.Table6presentstangibleandintangiblevictimcostsusingthismodel.

TABLE6TANGIBLEANDINTANGIBLEVICTIMCOSTS

Murder FelonySexCrimes Robbery Agg.Assault Felony

PropertyTangible $737,517 $5,556 $3,299 $8,700 $1,922

Intangible $8,442,000 $198,212 $4,976 $13,435 0

COSTANALYSISRESULTS:MARGINALCOSTS

Basedonthedatacollectionandanalysisdescribedintheprevioussections,theServiceDeliveryTeamshavedevelopedthefollowingmarginalcostanalysistables.Table7displaysmarginalcostsassociatedwitharrest,adjudication,andvictimservices.Table8displaysmarginalcostsassociatedwithcorrectionalservices.Inbothtables,monetaryfigureswhichappearinboldareactualbenefitsthatcouldbeaccruedforeachcrimethatisprevented.Figuresthatdonotappearinboldrepresentopportunitycoststotheagency.

20McCollister,French&Fang,“TheCostofCrimeToSociety,”DrugandAlcoholDependence108(2010):98-109.


26

Table7MARGINALCOSTSASSOCIATEDWITHARREST,ADJUDICATION,ANDVICTIMSERVICES*

*FiguresthatappearinBOLDareactualfinancialbenefitswhichcouldbeaccruedforeachcrimethatisprevented.Figuresthatdonotappearboldrepresentopportunitycoststotheagency.Table7aboveprovidesthemarginalcostsfortheVermontResultsFirstcrimecategories:Murder,SexCrimes,AggravatedAssaultandDomesticViolence,PropertyCrimes,DrugCrime,DUI,andPublicOrderandMajorMotorVehicleoffenses.Themarginalcostsforeachcrimearepresentedbycriminaljusticeagencyandfunction.Marginalcostfiguresthatappearinboldareactualbenefitswhichcouldberealizedforeachcrimethatisprevented.Marginalcostfiguresthatarenotboldedarebenefitswhicharebenefitswhichwouldaccrueinternallytotheagencyonly.Thatis,giventhattheprovisionofadjudicationprocessesaresoheavilydependentonuncompensatedlaborofparticipants,thereductioninasmallnumberofcrimeswouldonlyallowthoseagenciestorefocusorredirectactivitythatwasrelatedtotheprosecutionofcases.PoliceMarginalcostsassociatedwitharrestsforMurder($19,188)andSexCrimes($1,060)areactualbenefitsbecausethosecostsareassociatedwithpoliceovertimeinvolvedwiththecriminalinvestigationsofthosecrimes.ReductionsofarrestsfortheotherVermontResultsFirstcrimeswouldnotgeneratemarginalcostbenefitsbecauseovertimeisnotauthorizedforthesetypesofcrime.Essentially,marginalcostsassociatedwitharrestarerestrictedtoovertimehours.

MURDER SEXCRIMES

AGGRAVATEDASSAULT&DOMESTICVIOLENCE

PROPERTYCRIMES

DRUGCRIME

DUI PUBICORDER&MOTORVEHICLE

Police $19,188 $1,060 0 0 0 0 0Court $471 $471 $170 $137 $122 $164 $102Prosecutors NA $1,983 $575 $397 $419 $208 $221SAAdvocates NA $2,290 $690 $548 $531 $243 $250Defenders $2,437 $509 $45 $36 $26 $11 $23VictimServicesProcessingCosts

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VictimCompensationPayments/case

$1,579 $857 $1,328 NA NA $4,693 NA

VictimTangible $737,517 $5,556 $8,700 $1,922 NA NA NAVictimIntangible

$8,442,000 $198,212 $13,435 0 0 NA NA


27

CourtsOnlyminimalmarginalcostbenefitsareassociatedwithsmallreductionsinthenumberofcasesadjudicated.ThisisbecausetheCourt’sbudgetforjudgesandclericalstaffreliesheavilyontheadditionaltimethatjudgesandclericalstaffcontributeoverandabovethetimeassociatedwithanormalcase-specificworkyear.Areductioninasmallnumberofcaseswouldonlyreducetheamountofextratimecontributedbyjudgesandclericalstaff.NorealbudgetsavingscanbeachieveduntilcasereductionsaresuchthatCourtservicescanbeprovidedwithinthelimitsofanormalcase-specificworkyearforjudgesandclericalstaff.Subsequenttothatpoint,budgetsavingscouldbeachievedifreductionsinthenumberofcasesweresufficienttoreducethenumberofhoursnecessarytoprovideCourtservices.Intheinterim,priortoanormalcase-specificworkyearbeingestablished,smallreductionsinthenumberofcasesmightallowtheCourttorefocusorredirectactivitythatwasrelatedtotheadjudicationofcases.Prosecution&VictimAdvocatesOnlyminimalmarginalcostbenefitsareassociatedwithsmallreductionsinthenumberofcasesadjudicated.ThisisbecausetheDepartmentofState’sAttorney’sbudgetreliesheavilyontheadditionaltimethatState’sAttorneyscontributeoverandabovethetimeassociatedwithanormalcase-specificworkyear.AreductioninasmallnumberofcaseswouldonlyreducetheamountofextratimecontributedbyState’sAttorneys.Norealbudgetsavingscanbeachieveduntilcasereductionsaresuchthatprosecutionservicescanbeprovidedwithinthelimitsofanormalcase-specificworkyearforprosecutors.Subsequenttothatpoint,budgetsavingscouldbeachievedifreductionsinthenumberofcasesweresufficienttoreducethenumberorhoursnecessarytoprosecutecases.Intheinterim,priortoanormalcase-specificworkyearbeingestablished,smallreductionsinthenumberofcasesmightallowState’sAttorneystorefocusorredirectactivitythatwaspreviouslyrelatedtocaseprosecutions.DefendersOnlyminimalmarginalcostbenefitsareassociatedwithsmallreductionsinthenumberofcasesadjudicated.ThisisbecausetheDefenderGeneral’sbudgetfordefenseservicesreliesheavilyontheadditionaltimethatdefenderscontributeoverandabovethetimeassociatedwithanormalcase-specificworkyear.Areductioninasmallnumberofcaseswouldonlyreducetheamountofextratimecontributedbydefenders.Norealbudgetsavingscanbeachieveduntilcasereductionsaresuchthatdefenseservicescanbeprovidedwithinthelimitsofanormalcase-specificworkyear.Subsequenttothatpoint,budgetsavingscouldbeachievedifreductionsinthenumberofcasesweresufficienttoreducethenumberorhoursnecessarytoprovidedefenseservices.Intheinterim,priortoanormalcase-specificworkyearbeingestablished,smallreductionsinthenumberofcasesmightallowtheDefenderGeneraltorefocusorredirectactivitythatwasrelatedtothedefenseofcases.


28

VictimServicesNomarginalcostbenefitsareassociatedwithsmallreductionsinthenumberofclaimsprocessedbytheCompensationBoardortheRestitutionUnit.Thelackofmarginalbenefitsforvictimservicesisbecausetheprincipalcostofprovidingtheseservicesisstafflabor.Sinceovertimeisnotauthorizedfortheseprogramstheonlybenefitthatwouldaccrueiswhenstaffpositionsareeliminatedduetomajordeclinesincriminaloffenses.Thesestep-fixedcostswerenotidentifiedinthispreliminarymodel.Thereare,however,considerablemarginalcostbenefitswhichwouldaccruewithevensmallreductionsincrime.Thesebenefitswouldaccruetoeithertaxpayers,duetoreductionsinclaimsagainsttheCompensationFund,ordirectlytovictimswhowouldexperienceneitherthetangiblenorintangiblelossasaresultofacrimebeingprevented.CorrectionalServicesTable8belowpresentsthemarginalcostsforCorrectionalServicesforbothadultandjuvenileoffenders.ThetabledoesnotpresentcostsbyVermontResultsFirstcrimecategoriesbecausegenerallythecostofincarceration,supervision,orresidentialplacementdoesnotvarywiththetypeofoffenseforwhichthesubjectwasconvicted.Additionalcostsfortheseservicesaremorelikelybasedonriskand/orprogrammingdecisionsthanontheoffense.Assuch,inthisiterationofthecostmodel,themarginalcostsarepresentedforalloffenderswithoutdifferentiation.Marginalcostsfiguresthatappearinboldareactualbenefitswhichcouldberealizedforeachcrimethatisprevented.

Table8MARGINALCOSTSASSOCIATEDWITHCORRECTIONAL&JUVENILEJUSTICESERVICES*

*FiguresthatappearinBOLDareactualbenefitswhichcouldbeaccruedforeachcrimethatisprevented.Nomarginalcostsareassociatedwiththeprovisionofadultcommunitysupervisionoradministrationofcorrectioncentersbecausethemaincostsforprovidingtheseservicesareforstafflabor.Sinceovertimeisnotauthorizedfortheseprograms(orisnotbasedonthenumberofoffendersthatneedtobesupervised),theonlybenefitwhichwouldaccrueiswhenstaffpositionscouldbeeliminatedduetoreducedcaseloadsorclosingawingofacorrectionalcenterortheentirefacility.Thesestep-fixedcostswerenotidentifiedinthispreliminarymodel.DOChasidentifiedsomemarginalcostsassociatedwithcontractingforout-of-statesecureprisonbeds.Any

ACTIVITY COSTSCorrections:CommunitySupervision 0Corrections:CorrectionalCenter 0Corrections:Out-of-State $71/day25,915/yearJuvenileJustice:Intake/CaseManagement $2.50/day$900/yearJuvenileJustice:WoodsideJuvenileRehabilitationCenter

$15.61/day$5700/year

JuvenileJustice:ResidentialPlacement $115.78/day$42,263/year


29

reductioninthenumberofoffenderssentout-of-stateaccruesabenefitbasedonareductioninperdiemchargesforout-of-statelodging.TheJuvenileJusticeServiceDeliveryTeamdididentifymarginalcostsassociatedwithtreatmentservicesthatareprimarilyprovidedbycontractors.Ifthereisareductioninthenumberofjuvenileswhorequirecasemanagementservicesprovidedbycontractors,orjuvenileswhoneedservicesfromTheWoodsideJuvenileRehabilitationCenter(lessmedicalexams,psychologicalservices,personalcareitems,etc.)orchildrenwhorequireresidentialplacementservicesprovidedbycontractserviceproviders,theDepartmentforChildrenandFamiliesaccruesabenefitbasedonthereductioninneededservices.

COSTANALYSISRESULTS:OPPORTUNITYCOSTSInadditiontomarginalcosts,theteamswereaskedtodevelopopportunitycostsforasampleoftheiractivities.Opportunitycostsarebeingdefinedhereasvariablecostsassociatedwiththecostofprovidingacriminaljusticeservice.Inthiscontextopportunitycostsaremoreabouttimethanmoney.Forexample,ifalawenforcementagencycanpreventasexcrime,theywouldhaveavoidedapproximately160hoursofpersonneltimewhichamountstoapproximately$13,524.However,sincethosecostsareprimarilyassociatedwithpersonnel,thedepartmentwouldnotsavethat$13,524becausethereductionofonecrimeisnotsufficienttoreducetheoverallstaffingpatternofthedepartment.However,itisreasonabletosuggestthatifthe160hoursittakestoinvestigateasexcrimewasnotexpendedduetothepreventionofthatcrime,thosehourscouldberedirectedwithinthedepartment.Perhapsthosehourscouldbedevotedtocommunityoutreach,crimeanalysis,training,ordevelopingstandardsforaccreditation.Ifseveralhighinvestmentcrimescanbepreventedthroughcrimepreventionstrategies,effectivetreatmentservices,orcommunityproblem-solving,aconsiderableamountoftimecouldberedirectedinthedepartment.Informationrelatedtoopportunitycostsandassociatedtimeinvestmentsareimportanttoolsforcriminaljusticeagenciesforplanning,organizational,andprogramdevelopmentpurposes.Realizinghowmuchitcostsintimeandmoneytoconductaparticularactivitymightwellpromptaseriesofquestionsthatcouldguidefuturemanagementorlegislativedecisions.Forexample,usinganexamplefromtheDepartmentofCorrections,knowingthatittakes15-20hoursofstafftimetoconductapre-sentenceinvestigation(PSI)mightsuggestthefollowingquestions:1)Aretherealternativepre-sentencingtoolswhichmightbeaseffectiveasaPSIbutcouldbedonemorequickly?;2)AreweusingthePSIintherightcircumstances?;and3)CouldthePSIformatberevisedtodecreasethetimecommitment?Table9throughTable17belowidentifyboththetimeinhoursandopportunitycostswhichcouldberedirectedwithincriminalandjuvenilejusticeagencieseachtimeacrimeisprevented.


30

LAWENFORCEMENTSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM

Table9OPPORTUNITYCOSTSFORVERMONTRESULTSFIRSTCRIMETYPES

Crime TimeinHours OpportunityCost

Murder/Manslaughter 1,063 $38,246.00SexOffense–AdultVictim 258 $13,524AggravatedAssault/AggravatedDomestic 6 $184FelonyArson 68 $7,402FelonyBurglary 5.75 $204FelonyLarceny 3.25 $98FelonyAuto 5.25 $77Drugs $130DrugswithDrugTaskForceorInvestigativeSupport 185.5 $8,139DUI(NoAccidentorInjury) 2.5 $75DUI--DrugRecognitionExpertOnly 2 $407PublicOrder–Disorderlyconduct,unlawfulmischief,simpleassault

2 $58

MajorMotorvehicle–LSA,CNN,OOC,ExcessiveSpeed 2 $59

ADJUDICATIONSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM

CourtsTABLE10

COURTTIME&OPPORTUNITYCOSTSBYCRIME

CRIME JUDGETIMEINHOURS

COURTCLERICALTIMEINHOURS

OPPORTUNITYCOSTS

SexCrime,Felony 7 11 $847Assaults,Felony 2.28 6.11 $355Assaults,Misdemeanor 0.81 3.08 $154PropertyCrime,Felony 2.93 5.33 $378PropertyCrime,Misdemeanor 0.57 2.37 $115DrugCrime,Felony 2.93 5.33 $378DrugCrime,Misdemeanor 0.57 2.37 $115DUI,Felony 1.28 3.40 $198DUI,Misdemeanor 0.65 2.72 $132PublicOrder,Felony 2.93 5.33 $378PublicOrder,Misdemeanor 0.57 2.37 $115


31

State’sAttorneysTABLE11

STATE’SATTORNEYSTIME&OPPORTUNITYCOSTSBYCRIME

CRIME STATEATTORNEY’S

TIMEINHOURS

ADVOCATETIMEINHOURS

OPPORTUNITYCOSTS

SexCrime,Felony 89.00 16.00 $3,886Assaults,Felony 41.65 9.46 $1885Assaults,Misdemeanor 20.46 4.84 $932PropertyCrime,Felony 23.03 10.55 $1220PropertyCrime,Misdemeanor 15.75 6.47 $803DrugCrime,Felony 35.03 7.40 $1566DrugCrime,Misdemeanor 14.40 5.27 $719DUI,Felony 23.32 6.74 $1101DUI,Misdemeanor 8.50 1.51 $371PublicOrder,Felony 20.46 8.08 $1040PublicOrder,Misdemeanor 8.31 3.09 $443


32

DefenderGeneral

TABLE12DEFENDERGENERALTIME&OPPORTUNITYCOSTSBYCRIME*

*AttorneysfromtheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneral(ODG)arenotrequiredtodefendallstudy crimesthatarearrestedorarraigned.Therefore,opportunitycostswerecalculatedbasedonthe averagepercentageofcrimetypesthattheODGdefends.Thepercentageofcasesrepresentedby theODGisthenumberofcasesdefendedbytheODGdividedbythetotalnumberofcases disposedinCY2010.Percentageswereonlycalculatedforthefollowingcrimetypeandincluded bothfeloniesandmisdemeanors:sexcrimes(74%),assaults(77%),propertycrime(62%),drug crime(40%),DUI(47%),PublicOrderandMajorMotorVehicle(59%).

DEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONSSERVICEDELIVERYTEAM

TABLE13DEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONSTIMEANDOPPORTUNITYCOSTSFORSELECTTASKS

ACTIVITY TIMEINHOURS OPPORTUNITY

COSTResponseManagementSupervision 22 $819RiskManagementSupervision 27 $939Pre-SentenceInvestigation 15–20 $579IntermediateSanctionReport 5 $170HomeDetentionCheck 1-2 $63CorrectionalCenterBooking 1.33 $65PrisonerClassification 5.5–7.5 $186Level1SanctionProcess 2.33 $223

CRIME DEFENDERSTIMEINHOURS

OPPORTUNITYCOSTS

SexCrime,Felony 104 $3,309Assaults,Felony 52.00 $1,711Assaults,Misdemeanor 5.20 $171PropertyCrime,Felony 13.90 $372PropertyCrime,Misdemeanor 5.20 $139DrugCrime,Felony 18.50 $321DrugCrime,Misdemeanor 5.20 $90DUI,Felony 13.9 $282DUI,Misdemeanor 5.2 $102PublicOrderandMajorMotorVehicle,Felony

13.9 $355

PublicOrderandMajorMotorVehicle,Misdemeanor

5.2 $133


33

JUVENILEJUSTICESERVICEDELIVERYTEAM

TABLE14DEPARTMENTFORCHILDRENANDFAMILIESTIMEANDOPPORTUNITYCOSTSFORSELECTTASKS

TABLE15

WOODSIDEJUVENILEREHABILITATIONSERVICES:ANNUALANDCOSTSPERCHILD

INTAKE&CASEMANAGEMENTSERVICES@DISTRICTLEVEL

HOURS/YEARPERCHILD

COST

PersonnelCosts CaseAssignment 0.25 $11CaseSupervision 25 $903BARJPre-Screen 12 $180CourtTime(Includestravel,wait,andcourtroomtime) 60 $2,168SSMISDataEntry 12 $347YASIFullScreen 16 $578BARJSupervision 48 $720

FSDNetdataentryofcasenotes/BackgroundChecks 36 $1,370

WOODSIDEJUVENILEREHABILITATIONCENTER

TOTALANNUALCOST

COSTSPERCHILD/YEAR

PersonnelCosts SupervisionStaff 790,127 -Cook 115,505 -Admin 65,598 -WoodsideDirector 45,687 -CaseManagement 1,267,748 -Education 491,119 -Medical(in-house) 164,178 -Total 2,939,962 -

Contractual&OperationalCosts Physicals - $55PsychiatricServices - $140Food - $2,572Laundry - $480Supportofpersons - $1,079


34

TABLE16

DEPARTMENTFORCHILDRENANDFAMILIESTIMEANDOPPORTUNITYCOSTSFORTRANSPORTATION

TABLE17DEPARTMENTFORCHILDRENANDFAMILIESOPPORTUNITYCOSTS

FORRESIDENTIALPLACEMENT

VERMONTCRIMINALJUSTICETHROUGHPUTMODELAThroughputModel isatypeofflowchartwhichdisplaystheamountofmaterialoritemspassingthroughasystemorprocess.ForthisreportweareusingthetermThroughputModeltomeanagraphicwhichillustratestheflowofcriminalcasesthroughtheVermontcriminaljusticesystemtogetherwiththeassociatedopportunitycosts.ThroughputModelsoftheVermontcriminaljusticesystemcanbevaluabletoolsforexaminingexpendituresmadebyindividualcriminal/juvenilejusticeagenciestoprocesscrimeandtoidentifytheoveralltaxpayerandvictim

TRANSPORTATIONTYPE UNIT COSTSSecureTransport Pertransportto

Woodside$262

Non-securetransportbyWoodsidestaff

PertransporttoWoodside

$185

Non-securetransportbySheriffDepartment

Pertransport $483

Non-securetransportbyFamilyServicesDivisionstaff

60hours/year $2,168

Travelassociatedwithvisitstoyouthinplacement

72hours/year $2,168

ResidentialPlacements ANNUALCOSTT-House 126,881Becket 68,018Becket@Bennington 134,546Depot 133,094ParkStreet 175,466NFIGroupHome 139,769OutofStatePrograms 96,094


35

costsofparticulartypesofcrime.TheThroughputModelcanbeusedasanimportanttooltomoreaccuratelypredictthecostofpolicychangesincriminal/juvenilejustice.ThroughputModelscananswerquestionssuchas,“HowmuchdosexcrimescostVermonttaxpayersonanannualbasisintermsofcriminaljusticeandvictimcosts?”Toanswerthatquestionitisimportanttounderstandthecostofarresting,adjudicating,andcorrectingeachsexcrimedefendant.Victimcompensationcostsmustalsobeincludedinthecostsofsexcrimesasvictimsarefrequentlybothinjuredandemotionallyharmedwhichcanresultinmedicalandpsychologicaltreatmentexpensesaswellaslostwagesandotherexpenses.Inthisreportwehaveconstructedthroughputmodelsforeachofthecrimesinthestudyinordertodemonstratethecostsassociatedwitheachcriminaljusticeprocessandatotalcostassociatedwiththecrime.ThethroughputmodelsarebasedontheopportunitycostdatadevelopedbytheServiceDeliveryTeams.


36

SEXCRIMETHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010

TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$6,108,824

LAWENFORCEMENT21

ADJUDICATION22

CORRECTIONS23

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION2421BasedondatafromtheVermontCriminalInformationCenter–VermontCrimeOn-line.Arrestcostscalculatedat$13,524perarrest.Totalarrestsareunderreported.22Costsbasedonaveragesexcrimeprocessingtimemultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,courtclericalstaff,state’sattorneys,victimadvocates,andpublicdefenders.23DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas502daysat$14/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence419dayscalculated@$14/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof286dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationof236daysat$14/day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof409dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.24VictimCompensationbasedonFY12data--$113,229paidon132claimsplus$648processing/case.

ARRESTS92

COSTS:$1,244,208

CASESARRAIGNED203Cases

COSTS:$1,632,583

CONVICTIONS128Cases

PROBATION39Persons

COSTS:$5,866

FINE2Persons

INTERMEDIATESANCTION2

COSTS:NA

DEFERREDSENTENCE29Persons

COSTS:$7,028

SPLITSENTENCE22Persons

COSTS:$1,073,116

INCARCERATED33 Persons

COSTS:2,146,023

$202,725

COSTS:$14,728,


37

ASSAULTTHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010

TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$26,220,219

LAWENFORCEMENT25

ADJUDICATION26

CORRECTIONS27

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION28

25BasedondatafromtheVermontCriminalInformationCenter–VermontCrimeOn-line.Arrestcostscalculatedat$184perarrest.Totalarrestsareunderreported.26Costsbasedonaverageassaultcrimeprocessingtimemultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,courtclericalstaff,state’sattorneys,victimadvocates,andpublicdefenders.27DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas400daysat$9/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence395dayscalculatedat$9/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof98dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationof295daysat$9/day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof256dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.28VictimCompensationbasedonFY12data--$284,360paidon214claimsplus$648processing/case.

ARRESTS2,131

COSTS:$392,104

CASESARRAIGNED2,629Cases

COSTS:$4,949,255

CONVICTIONS1,417Cases

PROBATION409Persons

COSTS:$1,453,995

FINE164Persons


COSTS:NA


COSTS:$914,400


COSTS:$2,717,313


COSTS:$15,793,152

$423,032

COSTS:$14,728,


38

PROPERTYCRIMETHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$31,062,705

LAWENFORCEMENT29

ADJUDICATION30

CORRECTIONS31

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION29BasedondatafromtheVermontCriminalInformationCenter–VermontCrimeOn-line.Arrestcostscalculatedat$379perarrest.Totalarrestsareunderreported.30Costsbasedonaveragepropertycrimeprocessingtimemultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,courtclericalstaff,state’sattorneys,victimadvocates,andpublicdefenders.31DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas435daysat$9/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence366dayscalculatedat$9/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof73dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationof226daysat$9day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof186dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.

ARRESTS2,885

COSTS:$1,093,419


COSTS:$4,690,878

CONVICTIONS1833Cases

PROBATION345Persons

COSTS:$1,136,430

FINE311Persons


COSTS:NA


COSTS:$873,045


COSTS:$2,005,227


COSTS:$21,263,706

NoTaxpayerCosts

COSTS:$14,728,


39

DRUGCRIMETHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$10,586,916

LAWENFORCEMENT32

ADJUDICATION33

CORRECTIONS34

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION32BasedondatafromtheVermontCriminalInformationCenter–VermontCrimeOn-line.Arrestcostscalculatedat$130perarrest.Totalarrestsareunderreported.33Costsbasedonaveragedrugcrimeprocessingtimemultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,courtclericalstaff,state’sattorneys,victimadvocates,andpublicdefenders.34DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas356daysat$9/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence388dayscalculated@$9/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof58dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationof288daysat$9/day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof201dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.

ARRESTS1,554

COSTS:$202,020


COSTS:$2,022,051

CONVICTIONS838Cases

PROBATION147Persons

COSTS:$513,324

FINE298Persons


COSTS:NA


COSTS:$297,972


COSTS:$744,282


COSTS:$6,807,267

NoTaxpayerCosts

COSTS:$14,728,


40

DUITHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$10,505,730

LAWENFORCEMENT35

ADJUDICATION36

CORRECTIONS37

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION38

35BasedondatafromtheVermontCriminalInformationCenter–VermontCrimeOn-line.Arrestcostscalculatedat$75perarrest;doesnotincludehighercostsforDrugRecognitionExpert.Totalarrestsareunderreported.36IncludescaseswhichwerenotoriginallyarrestedasDUI.CostsbasedonaverageDUIhoursmultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,clerks,State’sAttorneys,VictimAdvocates,andDefenders.37DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas303daysat$1.50/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence365dayscalculatedat$1.50/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof13dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationof451daysat$1.50/day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof121dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.38VictimCompensationbasedonFY12data--$14,080paidonthreeclaimsplus$648processing/case.

ARRESTS2,654

COSTS:$199,050


COSTS:$5,227,727

CONVICTIONS2,535

PROBATION644Persons

COSTS:$369,012

FINE1,352Persons


COSTS:NA


COSTS:$8,636


COSTS:$699,593

INCARCERATED208Persons

COSTS:$4,001,712

$16,024

COSTS:$14,728,


41

PUBLICORDER&MAJORMOTORVEHICLECRIMESTHROUGHPUTMODEL:2010TotalAnnualOpportunityCosts:$37,081,809

LAWENFORCEMENT39

ADJUDICATION40

CORRECTIONS41

v

VICTIMCOMPENSATION

39Arrestcostscalculatedat$58perarrest.Totalarrestsareunderreported.40Costsbasedonaveragepublicorderandmajormotorvehiclecrimeprocessingtimemultipliedbymedianhourlysalary/benefitsforjudges,courtclericalstaff,state’sattorneys,victimadvocates,andpublicdefenders.41DeferredSentence:Averageprobationsupervisiontimewas358daysat$1.50/day;Probation:Averageprobationsentence359dayscalculated@$1.50/day;SplitSentence:Averageincarcerationof30dayscalculatedatin-statecostof$159/dayplusaverageprobationsentenceof238daysat$1.50/day;Incarceration:Averageincarcerationof163dayscalculatedatthein-staterateof$159/day.

ARRESTS3,450

COSTS:$200,100


COSTS:$4,049,154

CONVICTIONS3,356Cases

PROBATION426Persons

COSTS:$229,401

FINE1,210Persons


COSTS:NA


COSTS:$111,696


COSTS:$769,050


COSTS:$31,722,408

NoTaxpayerCosts

COSTS:$14,728,


42

VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODEL:THEBENNINGTONCOUNTYINTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKETPROJECTTheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket(IDVD)ProjectwasinitiatedinSeptember,2007,asaspecialdocketwithintheBenningtonCountyCriminal/FamilyDivisionCourts.ThegoaloftheIDVDprojectwastoprovideanimmediateresponsetodomesticviolenceeventsbycoordinatingFamilyandCriminalDivisioncases.DedicatedtotheideaofOneFamily,OneJudge,theIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoallowasinglejudge,onedayeachweek,tohaveimmediateaccesstoallrelevantinformationregardlessofthetraditionaldocketandtogatherallappropriateplayersatthetableregardlessofanytraditionallylimitedroles.TheIDVDProjectfocusedon:1)protectionandsafetyforvictimsandtheirchildrenaswellasotherfamilymembers;2)providingimmediateaccesstocommunityservicesandresourcesforvictims,theirchildren,andoffenderstohelpovercometheimpactofpriordomesticabuseandpreventfutureabuse;and3)providinganimmediateandeffectiveresponsetonon-compliancewithcourtordersbyoffenders.InDecemberof2011,theVCJRconductedanoutcomeevaluationoftheIDVD42anddeterminedthattheIDVDProjectappearstobeapromisingapproachforreducingpost-programrecidivismamongdefendantsconvictedofdomesticviolence.Intermsofallthreerecidivismmeasuresusedinthisevaluation(reconvictionfordomesticviolence,reconvictionforaviolentoffense,andreconvictionforanycrime)theparticipantsfromtheIDVDProjectrecidivatedlessfrequentlyoratacomparablelevelthandidparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroupordefendantsinastatewidedomesticassaultcohort.Themostsubstantialdifferencebetweenthegroupsinvolvedthepercentageofdefendantswhorecidivatedbasedonareconvictionforanycrime.InthiscasethepercentageofparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwhorecidivatedwasapproximately25%lowerand54%lessoftenthanwasthecasefordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.Whenconsideringwhetherornotaprogramshouldbereplicatedananalysisofthepost-programbehaviorofparticipantsisamajorfactortoconsider.Anotherconsiderationofimportanceisthecost-benefitratioforaproject.Thatis,aprojectmightbeextremelysuccessfulatreducingrecidivism,butiftheprojectistoocostlytosustainreplicationmaynotbeawisefiscalrecommendation.Oneoftheobjectivesofthiscost-benefitinitiativewastoconductacost-benefitanalysisoftheIDVDProjectusingtheVermontResultsFirstModel.BasedontheeffectsizecalculatedfortheIDVDProjectbyStevenLize,oneofthePewCharitableTrustsconsultantsontheproject,theanalysisshowsatotallong-termbenefitof$1,856perprogramparticipant.Theaveragecostperoffenderisestimatedtobe$975.OtherspecialtycourtsintheResultsFirstmodelhaveaveragecostsintheareaof$1,200perparticipant.

42http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/idvd_final_rreport__12-9-11b.pdf


43

ThebenefittocostratiofortheIDVDProjectis$1.90,indicatingthattheprogramiscosteffective.Moredetailedbreakdownsofthesefiguresarediscussedbelow: BenefitstoTaxpayers:$286PerOffender Thebenefitsarecalculatedfromthemarginalcostsofthepolice,courts,prosecutors,

defenders,andcorrectionsresultingfromtheexpectedreductioninrecidivism.Thisestimaterepresentstheexpectedbenefitfromasingleoffendersuccessfullycompletingtheprogramandcommittingfewercrimesoveraten-yearperiod.

BenefittoOtherBeneficiaries:$1,570PerOffender Thesearethebenefitsthatarecalculatedfromthetangibleandintangiblecostsof crimeforvictims;sometimesalsodescribedas"BenefitstoSociety."Again,it representstheexpectedbenefitfromasingleoffendersuccessfullycompletingthe programandcommittingfewercrimesoveraten-yearperiod. TotalBenefits:$1,856 Totalbenefitsincludebenefitstobothtaxpayersandvictims. AverageCostperParticipant:$975 AveragecostsfortheIDVDProjectwerebasedonthecostsassociatedwith adjudicatingprobationviolationsforprogramparticipants,providingexpanded supervisionservices,detentionprocessingcosts,andcostsofdetention. BenefitsMinusCosts:$881 ThisfigurerepresentsthenetbenefitsoftheIDVDprogramperparticipant. BenefittoCostRatio:$1.90 Thisfigureindicatesthatforevery$1dollarinvestedintheIDVDthereisanexpected benefitof$1.90.Therefore,theIDVDprogramiscosteffective.Partoftheprocessofestimatingareturnoninvestmentinvolvesassessingtheriskinessoftheestimates.Anyrigorousmodelingprocess,suchastheonedescribedhere,involvesmanyindividualestimatesandassumptions.Almosteverystepinvolvesatleastsomelevelofuncertainty.TheResultsFirstmodelusesthe“MonteCarlo”approachtomodelthisuncertainty.Theobjectiveoftheriskanalysisistoaccesstheoddsthatanindividualreturnoninvestmentestimatemayofferpolicymakersthewrongadvice.Forexample,ifweconcludethat,onaverage,aninvestmentintheIDVDProjecthasaratio$1.90ofbenefitsforeach$1ofcost,whataretheodds,giventheuncertaintyinthisestimate,thattheprogramwillnotevengenerateonedollarofbenefitsforeachdollarofcost?TheMonteCarloapproachrepeatstheVermontResultsFirstmodel'scalculations1,000timeswithrandomvariationsofthecostestimates,withinatenpercentwindow.TheMonteCarlosimulationhasshownthattheIDVDProjectwillstatisticallyyieldapositivenetpresentvalue58%ofthetime.Figure2belowshowstheeffecttheprogramwillhaveonrecidivismovertenyears.Theblueline(topline)representsestimatedrecidivismratesfordomesticviolenceoffenderswhodonot


44

participateintheIDVDprogramTheredline(bottomline)istheestimatedrecidivismratesfordomesticviolenceoffenderswhosuccessfullycompletetheIDVDprogram.

Figure2IDVDPROGRAMEFFECTONRECIDIVISMOVER10YEARS

BasedonthedatapresentedinFigure2abovetheIDVDProjectappearstobeacost-effectiveapproachforreducingpost-programrecidivismamongdefendantsconvictedofdomesticviolence.

DATAQUALITYSection3(a)(1)(C)ofAct61providedthattheWorkingGroupassessthequalityofjusticedatacollectionsystemsandmakerecommendationsforimproveddataintegration,datacapture,anddataqualityasappropriate.

TIMEANALYSISDATATheamountandtypeoftimeanalysisdatavariedbetweenthedifferentagenciesincludedinthiscoststudy.TheState’sAttorneysandVictimAdvocatesconductedatimeanalysiswhichwasdesignedspecificallyforthisproject.TheJudiciaryhadapriortimestudythatwasaccessibleforuseinthisstudy.TheLawEnforcementServiceDeliveryteamhadaccesstocomputer-aided


45

dispatchsystemsmanagedbytheDepartmentofPublicSafetyandotherpolicedepartmentswhichtracktime-on-scenedataforlawenforcementpersonnelforparticularcrimes.Additionalanalysesoftaskswereestimatedbysubjectmatterexperts.TheDepartmentofCorrectionsandtheJuvenileJusticeServiceDeliveryTeamsreliedprimarilyonsubjectmatterexpertstoestimatetimefortheirvarioustasks.TheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneral(ODG)estimatedtimespentoncasesusingthreemethods:1)reviewinginvoicesfromadhoccounsel;2)reviewinginvoicesfromprivatecounselwhohavecontractswiththeODG;and3)AmericanBarAssociationstandardsfordefensecaseloads.TheVictimServiceDeliveryTeamconductedatop-downanalysisofopportunityandmarginalcostswhichwasbasedonbudgetanalysis,notontimeanalysis.Sincemarginalandopportunitycostsincriminaljusticeareprimarilydrivenbystaffcosts,theimportanceofaccuratetimeanalysiscannotbeunderestimated.Theuseofsubjectmatterexpertstoestimatethetimeittakestoperformataskreliesonmemoryandthereforeispronetoestimationproblems.Errorscanbemediatedwhentheestimatesaremadebygroupsofemployeesandreviewedbyothergroups(aswasthecaseforallagenciesusingthismethodforthestudy),butrelianceonmemory,collectiveorotherwise,isstillpronetoerror.TimeanalysisstudieseitherusingcomputerizedsystemsasinthelawenforcementanalysisoronlinetasktrackingsoftwareasusedbytheState’sAttorneysarethegoldstandardforthistypeofresearch.Ofcourse,timeanalysisstudiesarenotwithouttheirownfailings.InadditiontothemethodologicalconcernsdiscussedpreviouslyintheDataCollectionStrategiessectionabove,thismethodcreatesanaddedburdenonstafftoaccountfortheirtimeinincrements.Thatburdenisespeciallyheavyforsalariedemployeeswhoarenotusedtodoingso.Evenwithcomputerizedtimetrackingsoftwarethereislikelihoodofhumanerror–forgettingtoenterdataorincorrectlyestimatingtimesoncetheemployeerealizestheyforgottomakeanentry.Thematterisfurthercomplicatedbythefactthattimestudiesquicklygrowstale.Forexample,thoughtheJudiciary’sdatafromthe2009studybyNationalCenterforStateCourtswasveryhelpful,itwillsoonbeoutdatedandwillneedtobereplicated.Finally,timestudiesneedtobeconductedoverarelativelylongperiodoftime.ThoughtheeffortonthepartoftheState’sAttorneysandVictimAdvocatestocollectoriginaltimedataislaudable,thedatacollectiononlyranfor25days.Asaresultnotimedataformurdercasescouldbecollected.Longerand/orrandomtimestudieswhichminimizedouble-countingareneededtoincreasevalidityandreducetheeffectsofdataerrorsduetoincorrectentryortimeestimation.

THROUGHPUTMODELDATAElectronicdatafortheThroughputModelaremaintainedthroughcooperativedataexchangerelationshipsbetweentheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchandtheDepartmentofPublicSafety,theVermontCourtAdministrator’sOffice,andtheDepartmentofCorrections.ForarrestdatatheVCJRaccesseslawenforcementdatautilizingtheStatewideCAD/RMSmaintainedbytheDepartmentofPublicSafety,(DPS)ortheVACLOURsystemcurrentlyadministeredbytheBurlingtonPoliceDepartment.ArrestdataisalsoavailablefromVermont


46

CrimeOn-Line(VCON),acrimereportingsystemmanagedbytheVermontCriminalInformationCenter(VCIC).VCJRhasnegotiatedlong-standingUserAgreementsandresearchagreementswithbothDPSandVCIC.DuringthecourseoftheanalysisfortheThroughputModelsitwasdiscoveredthatarrestdatainVCONwereunderreported.ProsecutionandsentencingdataisaccessedfromVCJR’sAdjudicationDatabase.TheAdjudicationDatabasemaintainsafilewithover20years’worthofdispositionandsentencingdatafromVermontSuperiorCourts–CriminalDivision.JuveniledocketanddispositioninformationareobtainedfromtheVCJRJuvenileJusticeDatabases.BothofthesedatabasesarebasedonmonthlydataextractsfromtheCourtAdministrator’sOffice.VCJRhasauseragreementwiththeSupremeCourtforaccessanduseofthisdatawhichensurestheconfidentialityofthemaintenance,analysis,anddisseminationoftherecords.DataregardinghowdefendantsactuallyservetheirsentencesisprovidedthrougharesearchagreementbetweenVCJRandtheDepartmentofCorrections.UsingdataextractsprovidedbytheDOC,theVCJRisabletodeterminetheamountoftimethatdefendantsservedinjailoronprobation.Thisdataiscrucialfordeterminingthecostofcorrectionalservicesbecausecostisdependentnotonthesentenceimposedbythecourtbutuponthetypeofservicesandthelengthofservicesactuallyusedbythedefendant.RecidivismdatanecessarytoevaluateprogramoutcomesisobtainedbyVCJRfromVCIC’scriminalhistorysystem.VCJRemploysproprietarysoftwaredevelopedbyVCJRstafftofacilitatetheanalysisoftheserecords.

VERMONTRESULTSFIRSTMODELThedatanecessaryforrunningtheVermontResultsFirstModelareacombinationofthedatanecessarytocomputemarginalcosts,throughput,andrecidivism.Asindicatedabovethethroughputandrecidivismdataarereadilyavailable.Thoughadequatetimeanalysiswasavailableforthisprojectmorerigoroustimeanalysisneedstobedevelopedinthefuture.

MANAGEMENTRESPONSIBILITYFORTHECOST-BENEFITMODELTheCostBenefitWorkingGroupstronglyrecommendsthattheworkregardingtheVermontResultsFirstModelcriminaljusticecomponentcontinuetomoveforward.ItfurtherrecommendsthattheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchbeentrustedwiththeauthorityto:1)revisethecriminaljusticecomponentofthestatewidecostbenefitmodelinlightoflegislativeorpolicychanges,orboth,inthecriminalorjuvenilejusticesystems;2)updatecostestimates;and3)updatethroughputdataforthemodel.ThereputationforobjectivitythattheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchhasdevelopedovertheyears,itsexpertisewithcriminaljusticedatasystems,recentlydevelopedskillsregardingcostmodelsandtheVermontResultsFirstmodel,anditsneutralpositionasanorganizationoutsideofstategovernmentsupportthisrecommendation.


47

TheWorkingGroupfurtherrecommendsthatannualfundingbeappropriatedtoallowtheVCJRtoconducttherequisiteresearchandupdatingassociatedwithmaintainingthemodel.

CONCLUSIONS1. Theprojectdemonstratedthatacollegialresearchdesignutilizingtheexpertiseofsubjectmatterexpertsisaviableapproachtodeveloping:1)validcostmodels;2)costmodelswhichareunderstoodbystakeholders;and3)costmodelswhichareendorsedbystakeholders.2. AnalysesofmarginalcostsfortheVermontcriminalandjuvenilejusticesystemssuggestthatonlylimitedbudgetsavingscanbeobtainedbysmallreductionsincrime.Theresearchdemonstratedthatmarginalcostsavingsareprimarilyaccruedbyreducingovertimeandreducingservicesthatareprovidedbycontractedservicesproviders.Smallreductionsincrimewillreducecoststovictims,animportantconsideration,butthesesavingsdonotaccruetothestatebudget.3. Planningandbudgetingactivitiesonthepartofcriminal/juvenilejusticeagenciescanbenefitfromtheidentificationofopportunitycosts.Forexample,whentherearesmallreductionsinaparticularcrime,thetimewhichwasdevotedtohandlingthatcrimecanbedivertedtootheractivitieswithinanagency.4. ThroughputModelsoftheVermontCriminal/JuvenileJusticeSystembasedonanalysisofspecificcrimesisavaluabletoolfor:1)examiningexpendituresmadebyindividualcriminal/juvenilejusticeagencieswhenprocessingcrimes;and2)identifyingtheoveralltaxpayerandvictimcostsofparticulartypesofcrime.ThroughputModelscanalsobeusedasanimportanttooltomoreaccuratelypredictthecostofpolicychangesincriminal/juvenilejustice.5. TheVermontResultsFirstmodelwasdemonstratedtobeausefultoolforassessingthecost-benefitratiooftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketProject(IDVD)andotherinnovativecorrectionsprograms.Themodeldeterminedthatforevery$1investedintheIDVDthereisanexpectedlong-termbenefitof$1.90.Therefore,theIDVDprogramiscost-effective.6. Thereislittleinthewayofelectronicdatatodocumenttheamountoftimethatcriminalandjuvenilejusticeprofessionalsspendontheirduties.Onenotableexceptionisthecomputer-aideddispatchsystemsmanagedbytheDepartmentofPublicSafetyandotherpolicedepartmentswhichtracktime-on-scenedataforlawenforcementpersonnelforparticularcrimes. 7. ElectronicdatafortheThroughputModelsaremaintainedthroughcooperativedataexchangerelationshipsbetweentheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchandtheDepartmentofPublicSafety,theVermontCourtAdministrator’sOffice,andtheDepartmentofCorrections.


48

WiththeexceptionofarrestdatafromtheDepartmentofPublicSafety,dataqualityisgenerallygood.TheThroughputModelcouldbemademorerobustifdataexchangesalsoincludedState’sAttorneysandtheOfficeoftheDefenderGeneralwhosemanagementsystemsarecurrentlyinadequateforthispurpose.8. ThedatasystemsatVermontcriminal/juvenilejusticesystemagenciesaresufficientatthistimetogeneratetherequisiteinformationtoupdateandmanagetheVermontResultsFirstModel.Theinformationwasobtainable,buttheprocessrelieduponaconsiderableamountofmanualworkonthepartofagencieswhichisinefficientandcostly.Iflegacysystemswerereplacedbymoretechnologically-advancedsystems,datacollectionfortheVermontResultsFirstmodel(aswellasotherpolicy/researchinitiatives)wouldbemoreefficient,lesscostly,andprobablymoreaccurate.9. TheCostBenefitWorkingGroupsconcludedthattheVermontResultsFirstcriminaljusticecomponentisausefulplanningtoolandtheVermontCenterforJusticeResearchisbestpositionedtomanagethecriminalandjuvenilejusticesectionsofthemodel.

RECOMMENDATIONSTheworkaccomplishedbytheTechnicalWorkingGroupduringthesixmonthsallottedtotheprojectisquiteextraordinary.However,itisimportanttonotethatthisisonlythefirstiterationoftheproject.Giventheimportantinsightsgeneratedbytheanalysis,theWorkingGroupsrecommendcontinueddevelopmentofthemodelconsistentwiththefollowingpoints:1. TheStateofVermontneedstoreinvigorateitscommitmenttosupportingevidence-basedprogrammingincriminalandjuvenilejustice.Itisessentialthatwhennewprogramsaredevelopedfundingisearmarkedforprogramevaluation.Thecostsassociatedwithcreatingandmonitoringdatasystemsforprojectmanagementandevaluationarenottrivial.IftheStateiscommittedtoevidence-basedplanningandprograming,adequatefundingfortheseactivitiesneedstobeprovided.Inparticular,resourcesshouldbeavailabletoevaluateprojectsinamannerconsistentwiththeVermontResultsFirstmodel.Thecreationofvalidevaluationdatasupportsthedata-drivenapproachembodiedintheVermontResultsFirstmodelandprovidesforacommonbasisuponwhichtoassessprogramvalue.2. TheWorkingGroupsshouldrevisitthemarginalcostsresearchundertakenduringthisprojecttoidentifystep-wisemarginalcosts.Step-wisemarginalcostsoccurwhenthetotalagencybudgetchangesbecauseacertainworkloadorcapacitythresholdisreached--forexample,whentheinmatepopulationofacorrectionalcenterdecreasesenoughtocloseanentirehousingunit.Thisinformationiscriticaltounderstandingtheimpactthatreductionsinrecidivismorchangesincriminal/juvenilejusticepolicymighthaveonthecriminal/juvenilejusticesystem.3. Sincemarginalandopportunitycostsincriminal/juvenilejusticeareprimarilydrivenbystaffcosts,theimportanceofaccuratetimestudydataforvariouscriminal/juvenilejusticedutiescannotbeoveremphasized.Vermontcriminalandjuvenilejusticeagenciesshouldwork


49

toidentifyfinancialresourcestosupportperiodictimestudiesinordertomaintainthevalidityofboththecriminaljusticeThroughputModelandtheVermontResultsFirstmodel.4. Theresultsoftheopportunitycostanalysisundertakeninthisstudyshouldbemadeavailabletocriminalandjuvenilejusticeagencies,andtechnicalassistanceshouldbeprovidedtoagencieswhowishtodevelopstrategiesforincludingopportunitycostsintheirplanningandbudgetingpractices.5. ResourcesshouldbeidentifiedtomaketheThroughputModelsamorerobusttoolforcriminal/juvenilejusticeplanningatthestate,regional,county,andlocallevels.Inparticular,theThroughputModelshouldbefurtherdevelopedtoincludeintermediatesanctiondataandregularupdatestomirrorchangesincriminalandjuvenilejusticepolicyandpractice.6. TheStateofVermontshouldcontinuedevelopingtheVermontResultsFirstmodelasawaytoidentifyinnovativeprogramsthatachieveastrongbenefit-to-costratio.TheWorkingGroupsnoted,however,thattherearestaffresourcecostsassociatedwithdevelopingtheVermontResultsFirstmodelwhichincludedatacollection(muchofwhichisnowmanual)andanalysis.Continuedeffortwillrequireamajorcommitmentfromparticipatingcriminal/juvenilejusticeagenciesaswellastheLegislaturetobecreativeaboutfindingresourcestosupporttheimprovementsintechnologyandanalysismethodsrequiredtosupportarobustcost-benefitanalysisprograminVermontstategovernment.7. Theresponsibilityforcoordinatingdatacollection,analysis,andupdatesoftheVermontResultsFirstcriminaljusticemodelcomponentshouldbeassignedtotheVermontCenterforJusticeResearch(VCJR).VCJRshouldalsoberesponsiblefordisseminatinginformationdevelopedforthemodeltootherstateagenciesforanalysis.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT WORKING GROUP · CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT...

Documents

Transcript of CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT WORKING GROUP · CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT...