DIVERT COURT
OF DALLAS COUNTY
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS





BY

DR. THOMAS B. FOMBY AND
MS. VASUDHA RANGAPRASAD

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
DALLAS, TEXAS 75275

AUGUST 31, 2002

---

D R . T H O M A S B . F O M B Y A N D V A S U D H A R A N G A P R A S A D
D E P A R T M E N T O F E C O N O M I C S
S O U T H E R N M E T H O D I S T U N I V E R S I T Y
D A L L A S , T E X A S 7 5 2 7 5


DIVERT COURT
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• This is a follow-up study of the DIVERT Court recidivism study of August, 2001
written by Ms. Monica Turley and Ms. Ashley Sibley of the Psychology Department of
Southern Methodist University in August 2001 entitled "Presentation of Outcome
Evaluation Findings DIVERT Advisory Board." Their study examined the recidivism
behavior of 178 Divert Court participants and 78 Control Group participants over a
twenty-seven month follow-up period. They found a statistically significant reduction in
recidivism arising from participation in the DIVERT Court program.
• This study analyzes a cost-benefit ledger based on the event histories of the participants
in the Turley/Sibley recidivism study. The ledger is based on 15 months of "treatment"
costs for each participant and, after treatment, the savings to society from reduced
recidivism arising from DIVERT Court treatment.
• This study finds the Benefit-Cost ratio associated with the DIVERT Court program over
a 40 month follow-up period to be 9.43:1. That is, on average, for every dollar spent on
upgrading drug treatment from the Control group (traditional adjudication) to drug
treatment through DIVERT Court, $9.43 of costs can be saved by society over a 40
month post-treatment period. Even though this Benefit-Cost ratio is quite substantial,
it is still a conservative estimate of the benefits forthcoming from the DIVERT Court
program for reasons detailed in the report.
2

---

C O S T B E N E F I T A N A LY S I S
OF DALLAS COUNTY DIVERT COURT
S IGN IFIC ANC E F OR DRU G CO URT PRO GR AMS
Early drug courts appeared in the U.S. in the 1980s. Rigorous evaluation is being recognized as an
integral part of drug court implementation. An area of growing importance is the evaluation of costs and
benefits associated with such Diversion programs. This evaluation uses three groups of subjects in the
Dallas County, Texas criminal justice system to evaluate the economic impact of program outcomes.
Within the climate of fiscal conservatism and competing demand for resources in which most of these
programs operate, a cost benefit study can help document the “return on investments” made in a drug court
program. Evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of such programs can produce important results and have
important policy implications. Such rigorous and continuing research provides local, state and national
policymakers important decision-making information. It provides them with a knowledge database for
thinking about what works, what does not work, and the role of alternative programs such as the Diversion
Programs. As such, our findings contribute to the national database on drug court outcomes; they also
serve, along with similar studies, to focus national attention on drug courts such as the one being
implemented in Dallas County.
The Dallas Initiative for Diversion and Expedited Rehabilitation and Treatment (DIVERT)
Program was started in 1998 and serves Dallas County, Texas. The DIVERT program aims to reduce the
adverse impact of repeat drug offenders on the Dallas County criminal justice system. First time non-
violent drug addicted offenders who are either charged with a state jail felony level drug possession or
obtaining a controlled substance by fraud are eligible to participate in this program. This is a voluntary
program and on successful completion, the offender’s case is dismissed. This study examines the potential
cost savings to society of pursuing drug treatment through DIVERT Court programs as compared to
treatment of drug offenders though traditional adjudication.
3

---

I N T RO DU C T I O N
This is a follow-up study of the Divert Court recidivism study written by Ms. Monica Turley and
Ms. Ashley Sibley of the Psychology Department of Southern Methodist University. The results of their
study are reported in the paper "Presentation of Outcome Evaluation Findings DIVERT Advisory Board”
dated August 23, 2001. In their study recidivism rates and type of arrest were examined and compared for
three groups of subjects in the Dallas County, Texas criminal justice system. Group one consisted of
seventy-seven subjects who successfully completed the Dallas County DIVERT Court Program. Group
two consisted of one hundred and one subjects who participated in the DIVERT Court Program, but were
discharged or dropped out before completing the program. Group three consisted of seventy-eight subjects
who were matched to the DIVERT graduates on age, gender, and ethnicity, but who went through the
typical adjudication process. The participants in all three groups were tracked for up to twenty-seven
months.

Summarizing their research findings, Turley and Sibley found that, over a 27 month period, the
DIVERT Court graduates had a re-arrest percentage of 15.6% and a mean number of re-arrests of 0.21.
Somewhat less satisfactorily, the DIVERT Court dropouts had a re-arrest percentage of 39.5% and a mean
number of re-arrests of 0.58. For all DIVERT Court participants, whether dropout or graduate, the re-arrest
rate was 27.8%. In comparison, over a twenty-seven month period, the traditional adjudication group,
hereafter called the Control group, had a re-arrest percentage of 48.7% and a mean re-arrest rate of 0.86.
Thus, as measured by the re-arrest percentage, the recidivism rate of the DIVERT Court graduates was only
32% of that of the Control group. The DIVERT Court dropouts’ re-arrest percentage was only 81% of that
of the Control group, and for all DIVERT Court participants, whether graduate or dropout, their re-arrest
percentage was only 57% of that of the Control group. Quoting Turley and Sibley, “These findings suggest
that the DIVERT Court Program is successful in reducing overall post program recidivism and specifically
drug related re-arrests for those who graduated from the program. Additionally, overall recidivism
4

---

including arrests for drug related charges are lower for those who have dropped out of DIVERT than for
the comparison group.”1

In contrast to the Turley/Sibley study, the purpose of this study is to “put some dollars and cents”
into the comparisons between DIVERT Court and traditional adjudication when it comes to treating drug
offenders. Even though the recidivism rates among DIVERT Court participants were less than the
recidivism rates of the Control group, does it make economic sense to spend substantially more for drug
treatment through the DIVERT Court system when the cost of the traditional adjudication system is much
less? Possibly the extra cost to society of treating drug offenders through DIVERT Court does not provide
enough benefits to society to warrant the extra expense. Examining the relative costs and benefits of
DIVERT Court vis-à-vis traditional adjudication is the major purpose of this study.
I D E N T I F IC A T I O N O F E V E N T H IS TO R I ES
The cost-benefit analysis reported in this study consists of two research activities that enable us to
calculate the Benefit-Cost ratio reported here. The first activity consists of calculating the cost of
"treatment" of participants whether in the form of jail time, court time, or drug treatment. The second
activity consists of detailing the costs incurred by society of additional violations of the law in the follow-
up period. The cost-benefit analysis conducted here, compares the costs of treatment across the DIVERT
Court and Control Group participants with the savings to society of fewer additional violations perpetrated
by the Divert Court participants.
In this section, we discuss the identification of event histories of all participants. In the next
section, we explain the derivation of cost factors that are attached to the various events and in the following
section we show how the identified events and derived cost factors are used to calculate the Benefit-Cost
ratio.
In creating the event histories of the participants in this study we had to track the complete
involvement of all of the participants in the criminal justice system from arrest and booking to judgment

1 p. 2, Turley and Sibley, August 23, 2001.
5

---

and sentencing, and examining re-arrest records of the participants in the follow-up period. The event
histories of all the participants in all three groups (Control group, DIVERT Court graduates, and DIVERT
Court non-graduates) were recorded as accurately as possible from the time of arrest until August 31, 2002.
Principal sources of data included printed computer screens (JI55 and CAS screens) and information
provided by the Communities Supervision Corrections Department (CSCD). The information derived from
these sources was incorporated with cost factor data in a spreadsheet to determine an estimated cost for
each case.
A standard arrest process was assumed for all sample cases. This process includes investigation,
arrest, interrogation and booking. We assumed that events such as prosecutorial review, defense attorney
interviews, and case processing and arraignment in county court occurred for all the participants in the
study. The CADISP and CACORT screens contain basic information about each case and brief
descriptions of the court events associated with each case. Judgment and sentencing information for the
initial arrest pertaining to the study, as well as future arrests, were obtained from the JI55 screens. Each
judgment and sentencing event was tallied as a single event, although sentencing might include any number
of court-ordered requirements and conditions (e.g., probation, confinement, treatment and incarceration).
Information about treatment participation and testing were obtained from the CANARR and CASRAT
(narratives and referral agency information) screens.
We used the information on the CAS (County Access System) screens to calculate the number of
days on probation. The days on probation were calculated as the difference between the probation start and
end dates. The start date was defined as the day of sentencing while the end date was defined as the earliest
of three possible dates: (1) the actual end date of the probation as shown in the CAS screens; (2) the
scheduled end date of probation date as shown by the original court sentence; (3) August 31, 2002. Jail and
prison records were used to determine whether the offender was sentenced to serve jail/prison time, the
length of the sentence in days, the number of days confirmed (by the JI55 screens) to have been served, and
the number of days projected to be served. The number of days served and assumed to have been served
includes all times served at state and county facilities after the date of the presenting arrest; for the
offenders currently serving jail/prison time, August 31, 2002 is the last day counted for this event. The
6

---

number of days projected to be served by participants after August 31, 2002 were not included in the event
histories of the participants.
Diversion program and treatment participation was recorded as the number of months the offender
participated in the diversion program. The information was obtained from the screens maintained by the
program manager of the diversion program. The screens contained detailed information about the
participants: date of entry, discharge date, number of court appearances, number of urine analyses (UAs),
the treatment plan, the treatment facilities the participants went to, the number of days of treatment and so
on. Similar information for the Divert Court non-graduates was obtained and the reasons for discharge, the
type and the date were recorded.
We derived cost factors for each of the major events listed above by gathering data from various
agencies. In Appendix A of this report we show all of our cost factors used in our analysis. We also list our
key sources of information that were critical to the completion of the cost benefit analysis.
ES T IMAT ED C OS TS OF TR EAT MEN T O F DIV ERT C OURT PART IC IPAN TS V ERS US
C ON TROL GROUP PART IC IPAN TS
In conducting this cost-benefit study we considered the costs of drug treatment in DIVERT Court
versus the costs of “treatment,” be they drug treatment or incarceration, among the Control group
participants. We also considered the benefits to society that come from the reduced re-arrest rate that
results from DIVERT Court participation.
DIV ERT C OU RT TR EATMEN T C OST S
The various costs associated with DIVERT Court drug treatment fall into one of the following six
categories:
1) Pre-trial processing costs
2) Evaluation and Screening costs
3) Administrative costs
4) Treatment costs
5) Urine analysis testing costs
6) Miscellaneous
costs.
7

---

1) Pre-trial processing costs: Consideration for admission to DIVERT Court is limited to those
offenders who meet the eligibility criteria adopted by the Dallas County Commissioner's court for
pre-trial release, including participants bonded from jail prior to pre-trial interviews and
individuals bonded from surrounding counties who commit crimes in Dallas county.
2) Evaluation and Screening Costs: If the participants meet the eligibility requirements for pre-trial
and DIVERT Court, then they will report to the Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration Program-
Comprehensive Assessment and Treatment Services (TAIP-CATS). The CATS staff evaluates
offenders, determines the appropriate level of treatment, and makes the necessary
recommendations for follow-up. Currently screening and assessment are in-kind contributions of
a grant serving DIVERT Court.
3) Administrative costs include court costs and salaries of personnel. The judge’s time was donated.
The Grant pays the program manager’s salary. Also the Assistant District Attorney’s and the
Public Defender’s salary is paid by the grant. The Public Defender’s salary has been an in-kind
contribution since June 2000. There are two bailiffs and one security officer and the Grant pays
their salaries. There are four case managers and their salaries and fringe benefits are an in-kind
contribution from Communities Supervision Corrections Department (CSCD). All the Divert
Court participants are required to appear in Court on a regular basis.
4) Treatment Costs:
• Out-patient Treatment: Group and Individual Counseling
• Inpatient treatment
• Substance educational and vocational classes
5) Urine Analysis costs: The participants are tested through out the duration of their treatment. The
participants are required to pay for their positive UA’s and also have to pay for their confirmation
UA’s.
6) Miscellaneous Costs: Includes travel related costs, some fixed costs.
8

---

In the subsequent cost-benefit analysis we separately account for in-kind contributions in the above
categories, first assuming that all in-kind costs will eventually be borne by the program for a more
conservative calculation of the benefit-cost ratio and then, later, assuming the grant continues in perpetuity
for a more liberal calculation of the benefit-cost ratio. (See p. 13, footnote 3)
CONTROL COURT TREATMENT COSTS
Apart from the costs of pre-screening, the costs of the Control group fall into the same
categories as the DIVERT Court treatment costs:
1) Evaluation and Screening costs
2) Urinalysis Testing costs
3) Probation Costs
4) Treatment Costs
5) Costs
of
Incarceration.
In contrast to the DIVERT Court program, however, the Control group costs do not benefit
from in-kind contributions of time, et cetera.
METH ODOLO GY
To review, the data set used in this study consists of the three groups defined by the recidivism
study of Ms. Turley and Ms. Sibley. The three groups consisted of 77 DIVERT Court graduates, 101
DIVERT non-graduates and 70 Control group participants.2
To execute this cost-benefit study, we need to examine the event histories of 70 participants in the
Control group and 178 participants in DIVERT Court over the period February 1998 through August 2002.
The economic details of these event histories allow us to determine the Benefit-Cost ratio of
moving a participant from traditional adjudication (the Control group) to Divert Court for drug treatment

2 Eight people from the Control group dropped out. Some of the cases were dismissed and some were transferred to other
counties or states.
9

---

purposes. The following assumptions were used in constructing the cost-benefit ledgers of the participants
in this study:
• The average time of treatment among the DIVERT Court participants (both graduate and dropout)
in our sample was 15 months.
• Control group participants who went through traditional adjudication were given “equal time” by
counting all costs for the first 15 months, whether incarceration, probation, or actual drug
treatment, as the costs of treatment for the Control group.
• After 15 months, all events, whether they be associated with DIVERT Court participants or
Control group participants such as re-arrests, court appearances, more probation, further
incarcerations, more drug treatment and the like were counted as “avoidable” costs to society
which, if eliminated through DIVERT Court treatment, would be a benefit to society.
• If a DIVERT Court dropout came back into the criminal justice system after initial treatment, costs
incurred through the 15th month were treated as “treatment” costs whereas costs incurred beyond
15 months were treated as “avoidable” costs to society. After the DIVERT Court graduates
graduated, any costs incurred afterward were treated as “avoidable” costs to society and were
added to the graduate’s cost-benefit ledger.
Given these assumptions, we created a cost-benefit ledger for all of the participants based upon at least
15 months of "treatment" and, after treatment, we calculated "avoidable" costs due to recidivism. The logic
of the cost-benefit analysis we conduct here is then based upon comparing the costs of treatment for the
various groups with the “avoidable” costs incurred after treatment. If the increased cost of treatment vis-à-
vis DIVERT Court is more than offset by the reduction in “avoidable” costs offered from successful drug
treatment (hereafter referred to as "savings to society"), DIVERT Court would then meet the test of a
beneficial program.

10

---

Document Outline

• SIGNIFICANCE FOR DRUG COURT PROGRAMS
• INTRODUCTION
• IDENTIFICATION OF EVENT HISTORIES
• ESTIMATED COSTS OF TREATMENT OF DIVERT COURT PARTICIPANTS VERSUS CONTROL GROUP PARTICIPANTS
• DIVERT COURT TREATMENT COSTS
• CONTROL COURT TREATMENT COSTS
• METHODOLOGY
• CALCULATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
• CALCULATION OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO
• CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES
• APPENDIX A: COST FACTORS
• APPENDIX B
  • • • • TABLE 1
        • Comparison of Treatment Costs and Avoidable Costs
        • of Control Group Participants versus Divert Court Participants
• CONTROL GROUP PARTICIPANTS
  • • • • TABLE 1 (Continued)
• CONTROL GROUP PARTICIPANTS
• DIVERT COURT GRADUATES
• DIVERT COURT GRADUATES
• DIVERT COURT NON-GRADUATES
• DIVERT COURT NON-GRADUATES
• DIVERT COURT NON-GRADUATES
• ALL-DIVERT COURT SUMMARY

---