BACKGROUND: Since many offenders have drug problems, investigators have proposed that drug testing and treatment should be an integral part of probation. In 1994, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) funded a demonstration project designed to integrate drug treatment with traditional supervision services. As part of this demonstration a new procedure called 'seamless' probation was set up in which treatment providers were co-located with probation officers and probation officers coordinated offenders' participation in treatment. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study examines the cost of providing substance abuse treatment coordination through probation agencies. METHODS: We used Activity Based Costing (ABC) to examine the cost of probation with and without treatment coordination in one probation agency. Agency budget was analyzed and allocated to various programs. A questionnaire was developed to assess probation officer's activities. The cost of coordinating treatment for one offender was calculated by dividing the total cost of the program by units of various activities done by the probation officers. RESULTS: Preliminary test of reliability of the instrument showed that it was accurately portraying the probation officers time allocation. Probation officers spent 6.9% of their time in seamless supervision and 83.3% time in traditional supervision (83.83%). The seamless probation officers had more group meetings and more phone contact with their offenders than traditional probation officers. The average cost per offender per day was 12 dollars for seamless probation and 7 dollars for traditional probation. DISCUSSION: This study is limited because it focuses on one agency at one point in time. Results may not be relevant to other agencies or to the same agency as it makes its operation more efficient. This study provides a method of allocating budget cost to per client costs using survey of probation officer's activities -- a tool developed in this study. Comparison of seamless and traditional supervision activities showed major differences in terms of the probation officers' activities and costs. IMPLICATIONS: There are significant costs associated with asking probation officers to coordinate treatment. Studies should be undertaken to examine the relative benefits that can be derived from this increased cost.
BACKGROUND: Since many offenders have drug problems, investigators have proposed that drug testing and treatment should be an integral part of probation. In 1994, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) funded a demonstration project designed to integrate drug treatment with traditional supervision services. As part of this demonstration a new procedure called 'seamless' probation was set up in which treatment providers were co-located with probation officers and probation officers coordinated offenders' participation in treatment. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study examines the cost of providing substance abuse treatment coordination through probation agencies. METHODS: We used Activity Based Costing (ABC) to examine the cost of probation with and without treatment coordination in one probation agency. Agency budget was analyzed and allocated to various programs. A questionnaire was developed to assess probation officer's activities. The cost of coordinating treatment for one offender was calculated by dividing the total cost of the program by units of various activities done by the probation officers. RESULTS: Preliminary test of reliability of the instrument showed that it was accurately portraying the probation officers time allocation. Probation officers spent 6.9% of their time in seamless supervision and 83.3% time in traditional supervision (83.83%). The seamless probation officers had more group meetings and more phone contact with their offenders than traditional probation officers. The average cost per offender per day was 12 dollars for seamless probation and 7 dollars for traditional probation. DISCUSSION: This study is limited because it focuses on one agency at one point in time. Results may not be relevant to other agencies or to the same agency as it makes its operation more efficient. This study provides a method of allocating budget cost to per client costs using survey of probation officer's activities -- a tool developed in this study. Comparison of seamless and traditional supervision activities showed major differences in terms of the probation officers' activities and costs. IMPLICATIONS: There are significant costs associated with asking probation officers to coordinate treatment. Studies should be undertaken to examine the relative benefits that can be derived from this increased cost.
Authors: Alexander J Cowell; Gary A Zarkin; Brendan J Wedehase; Jennifer Lerch; Scott T Walters; Faye S Taxman Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-01-31