Cost analysis of long-term outcomes of an urban mental health court

Sheryl Kubiak, Juliette Roddy, Erin Comartin and Elizabeth Tillander

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2015, vol. 52, issue C, 96-106

Abstract: Multiple studies have demonstrated decreased recidivism and increased treatment engagement for individuals with serious mental illness involved in Mental Health Courts (MHC). However, the limited availability of social and fiscal resources requires an analysis of the relationship between a program's effectiveness and its costs. Outcome costs associated with a sample of 105 participants discharged for more than 1 year – and grouped by completion status – were compared to an eligible sample not enrolled (n=45). Transactional costs analysis (TCA) was used to calculate outcomes associated with treatment, arrest, and confinement in the 12-month post-MHC. Total outcome costs for the Successful Group ($16,964) significantly differed from the Unsuccessful ($32,258) and Compare Groups ($39,870). Costs associated with the higher number of arrests for those in the Compare Group created the largest differences. Total cost savings between Successful and Compare (M=$22,906) equated to $916,240 and savings between Unsuccessful and Compare (M=$7612) were $494,708. The total combined cost savings for participants in the 12-month post-MHC period was $1,411,020. While it is important to understand that MHCs and the individuals that they serve vary and these results are for a felony-level court, policy makers and researchers can use these results to guide their decision-making.

Keywords: Specialty courts; Mental health; Cost/benefit (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000476
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:epplan:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:96-106

DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.04.002

Access Statistics for this article

Evaluation and Program Planning is currently edited by Jonathan A. Morell

More articles in Evaluation and Program Planning from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().