Cooperative efforts and collateral effects: The cost-benefit analysis of a statewide substance abuse treatment syste

Idaho is presently facing major budget shortfalls. Social services, such as those associated with substance abuse treatment, are often considered ripe grounds for trimming costs. Currently, there is a growing demand to target cuts in funding through the use of cost-benefit research. In response to this demand, this study employed cost-benefit methods to estimate the economic costs and benefits associated with the provision of substance abuse treatment in Idaho. Taking methodological advantage of a naturalistic study design, this study was able to compare treatment group outcomes such as criminal recidivism, client monetary earnings, and correctional system involvement with those of a propensity score matched comparison group.;Outcomes tied to client monetary earnings and involvement in the Idaho Department of Correction did not strongly indicate a difference in patterns in favor of the treatment group. In regard to criminal recidivism, however, the outcomes fell significantly in favor of the treatment group. Findings indicated that a one-dollar investment in treatment saved $1.46 in the fifteen-month study period following discharge from treatment. Therefore, it is clear that treatment, compared to the absence of treatment, has a positive overall effect on economic outcomes.;To lend context to the cost-benefit findings, this research utilized theoretical concepts from the fields of public policy, criminal justice, and criminology. In recognizing that the provision of substance abuse treatment is a valid form of social support, this study expands our understanding of the role of policy-makers within treatment systems. Specifically, this study details the impact that the network, collaborative capacity, and wicked problem concepts have on the criminal justice and treatment fields. Findings related to a collaborative capacity survey indicate a need for: (1) improvement in the relationships among treatment network partners; (2) the identification of sustainable financial and intellectual support; (3) the formation of a stable network structure that can handle the ongoing research needs of the system; and, (4) the creation of information on evidence-based practices and their short and long-term consequences for the health and safety of the people of Idaho.