Article Abstract Online ISSN: 1099-176X    Print ISSN: 1091-4358 The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics Volume 7, Issue 2, 2004. Pages: 51-58 Published Online: 30 May 2004 Copyright © 2004 ICMPE.

* Correspondence to: Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Dean of Graduate Health Science, George Mason University, College of Nursing and Health Science, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4444, USA
Tel.: +1-703-993 4226
Fax: +1-703-993 1953
E-mail: falemi@gmu.edu

Source of Funding: R01DA10705 National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH.

Abstract

Many offenders have drug problems and investigators propose drug testing/ treatment be a part of probation. In 1994, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) funded a demonstration of integrated substance abuse treatment and traditional supervision --‘‘seamless’’ probation co-located treatment providers and probation officers. This study examines “seamless” care costs using Activity Based Costing (ABC). An agency budget analysis allocated program costs based on a probation officer activity questionnaire. The cost of “seamless” for one offender is derived from total program cost divided by standardized units of probation activities. Preliminary reliability tests show the instrument accurately portrays an allocation probation officer time including: 6.9% time in seamless supervision and 83.3% in traditional supervision. Comparisons show seamless activities in “group meetings” and “offender phone contact” are higher compared with traditional probations. The average cost per offender per day was $12 for seamless probation and $7 for traditional probation.

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 for seamless probation and $7 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.

Received 27 May 2003; accepted 18 February 2004

Copyright © 2004 ICMPE