This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness, CHERE Project Report 17a

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Bronwyn Lind
Don Weatherburn
Shuling Chen
Marian Shanahan
Emily Lancsar
Marion Haas () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In this report we examine an issue central to the creation of the NSW Drug Court: namely its cost-effectiveness, compared with conventional sanctions, in reducing drug-related crime. We were particularly fortunate in undertaking this evaluation, to receive the support and cooperation of the Drug Court and the Attorney General in evaluating the Drug Court using a randomised controlled trial. Randomised controlled trials, in which individuals are randomly allocated to ?treatment? and ?control? groups are recognised as being the ?gold standard? when it comes to outcome evaluation. They provide more assurance of control over extraneous factors which might otherwise bias an evaluation than any other form of research design. To our knowledge, this is the first occasion on which a criminal justice program in Australia has been evaluated using a randomised control design. The evaluation is a first in one other way as well. Very few evaluations of criminal justice or crime prevention programs (either in Australia or overseas) pay much heed to the cost of the program. This greatly hampers the capacity of Government to make rational decisions about the allocation of scarce resources across competing programs. Of course, decisions on programs which affect the liberty of citizens cannot, and should not, be made on the grounds of cost-effectiveness alone. Nevertheless it is to be hoped that our efforts will convince others of the feasibility and value of introducing cost-effectiveness analyses into criminal justice evaluation.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/r17.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: First version, 2002
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Research Reports with number 17a.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:her:cherrs:17a

Contact details of provider:
Postal: PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007, Level 2, Block D, Building 5, 1-59 Quay Street Haymarket NSW 2000
Phone: 61 2 9514 4720
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Email:
Web page: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Liz Chinchen).

Related research
Keywords: Economic evaluation; treatment programs;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Production

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Over 80% of the top 1000 economists are registered on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.