Police diversion for low-severity offenses (pre-arrest)
Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023. Literature review updated March 2017.
Pre-arrest diversion programs for low-severity offenses redirect individuals suspected of these offenses from the traditional criminal justice system into services in the community. Service referrals are specific to the assessed needs of each individual (e.g., mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment in the community). This review focuses on pre-arrest diversion programs, which are police-based programs. Police-based diversion programs divert participants to services without applying criminal charges.
ALL |
BENEFIT-COST | META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant |
|
|
Taxpayers |
$1,311 |
|
Benefits minus costs |
$5,261 |
|
|
Participants |
$0 |
|
Benefit to cost ratio |
n/a |
|
|
Others |
$2,313 |
|
Chance the program will produce |
|
|
|
Indirect |
$983 |
|
benefits greater than the costs |
86% |
|
|
Total benefits |
$4,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net program cost |
$654 |
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits minus cost |
$5,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.
2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.
3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant |
|
|
Taxpayers |
Participants |
Others2 |
Indirect3 |
Total
|
|
Crime |
Criminal justice system |
$1,311 |
$0 |
$2,313 |
$655 |
$4,279 |
|
Program cost |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$327 |
$327 |
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$1,311 |
$0 |
$2,313 |
$983 |
$4,606 |
|
Click here to see populations selected
Click here to hide populations selected
Populations - Primary |
Crime |
Adults under DOC community supervision – low risk Adults sentenced directly to Department of Corrections community supervision for a criminal offense who were classified as low risk for recidivism as measured on a risk assessment instrument |
Earnings |
Previous criminal justice involvement All individuals with a previous arrest and booking |
For more information on populations see the
Technical Documentation
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant |
Program costs |
$6,384 |
2014 |
Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) |
$654 |
Comparison costs |
$6,932 |
2014 |
Cost range (+ or -) |
10% |
Program costs reflect average monthly program costs per person following program implementation of the LEAD program described in Collins et al., 2015. Control group costs reflect the difference between the treatment and control group in average criminal and legal systems costs incurred during the LEAD program evaluation. All cost estimates were obtained from Collins, S.E., Lonczak, H.S., & Clifasefi, S.L. (2015). LEAD Program Evaluation: Criminal Justice and Legal System Utilization and Associated Costs. Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab at the University of Washington–Harborview Medical Center.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs |
Benefits by Perspective |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value |
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative 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 discounted dollars. 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. |
Benefits by Perspective Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the breakdown of the estimated cumulative benefits (not including program costs) per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. These cash flows provide a breakdown of the classification of dollars over time into four perspectives: taxpayer, participant, others, and indirect. “Taxpayers” includes expected savings to government and expected increases in tax revenue. “Participants” includes expected increases in earnings and expenditures for items such as health care and college tuition. “Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance. “Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the changes in the value of a statistical life and changes in the deadweight costs of taxation. If a section of the bar is below the $0 line, the program is creating a negative benefit, meaning a loss of value from that perspective. |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis
Brennan, I.R., Green, S., & Sturgeon-Adams, L. (2016). Early diversion and empowerment policing: evaluating an adult female offender triage project. Policing and Society, 2, 1-17.
Collins, S.E., Lonczak, H.S., & Clifasefi, S.L. (2015). LEAD program evaluation: Recidivism report. Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab. Harborview Medical Center. University of Washington.