|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$5,187||Benefits minus costs||$14,672|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$5.56|
|Others||$11,723||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$983||benefits greater than the costs||96 %|
|Net program cost||($3,221)|
|Benefits minus cost||$14,672|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($1,610)||($1,610)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$2,656||2006||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($3,221)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2006||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
Boothroyd, R.A., Mercado, C.C., Poythress, N.G., Christy, A., & Petrila, J. (2005). Clinical outcomes of defendants in mental health court. Psychiatric Services, 56(7), 829-834.
Christy, A., Poythress, N.G., Boothroyd, R.A., Petrila, J., & Mehra, S. (2005), Evaluating the efficiency and community safety goals of the Broward County Mental Health Court. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(2), 227-243.
Cosden, M., Ellens, J., Schnell, J. & Yamini-Diouf, J. (2004). Evaluation of the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Treatment Court with intensive case management. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara; Gervitz Graduate School of Education.
Dirks-Linhorst, P.A., & Linhorst, D.M. (2010). Recidivism outcomes for suburban mental health court defendants. American Journal of Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. DOI 10.1007/s12103-010-9092-0
McNiel, D.E., & Binder, R.L. (2007). Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(9), 1395-1403.
Moore, M.E., & Hiday, V.A. (2006). Mental health court outcomes: A comparison of re-arrest and re-arrest severity between mental health court and traditional court participants. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 659-674.
Steadman, H.J., Redlich, A., Callahan, L., Robbins, P.C., & Vesselinov, R. (2011). Effect of mental health courts on arrests and jail days: A multisite study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(2), 167-172.