IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/cherrs/17a.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Bronwyn Lind
  • Don Weatherburn
  • Shuling Chen
  • Marian Shanahan
  • Emily Lancsar
  • Marion Haas

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen & Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas, 2002. "New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness, CHERE Project Report 17a," Research Reports 17a, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    • Handle: RePEc:her:cherrs:17a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward Godber & Ray Robinson & Andrea Steiner, 1997. "Economic Evaluation and the Shifting Balance Towards Primary Care: Definitions, Evidence and Methodological Issues," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 275-294, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Leigh, 2003. "Randomised Policy Trials," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 341-354.
    2. Ojmarrh Mitchell & David B. Wilson & Amy Eggers & Doris L. MacKenzie, 2012. "Drug Courts' Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages -87.
    3. Jeff Borland & Yi-Ping Tseng & Roger Wilkins, 2013. "Does Coordination of Welfare Services Delivery Make a Difference for Extremely Disadvantaged Jobseekers? Evidence from the ‘YP-super-4’ Trial," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(287), pages 469-489, December.
    4. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    5. Elizabeth L. C. Merrall & Sheila M. Bird, 2009. "A Statistical Perspective on the Design of Drug-Court Studies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 33(3), pages 257-280, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rob Anderson & Marion Haas, 2001. "Cost-effectiveness of shared care compared with usual hospital-based care for people with Hepatitis C, CHERE Project Report No 17," Research Reports 17, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    3. K Taylor & B Dangerfield, 2005. "Modelling the feedback effects of reconfiguring health services," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(6), pages 659-675, June.
    4. Robinson, Ray, 1999. "Limits to rationality: economics, economists and priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 13-26, September.
    5. Rob Anderson, 2010. "Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 350-364, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic evaluation; treatment programs;

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:cherrs:17a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Liz Chinchen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.