Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency October 25, 2013

1. The Pew-MacArthurResults First Initiative:Investing in Programs that Work Governor’s Commission on Innovation, Efficiency, and Transparency October 25, 2013

2. The Policy Challenge • While we talk about making strategic choices, the budget process relies on inertia and anecdote • Very limited data on: • What programs are funded • What each costs • What programs accomplish • How they compare

3. The Solution: Bring Evidence Into the Process • Target funds using rigorous evidence • Stop funding ineffective programs • Ensure programs are implemented effectively • Achieve dramatic improvements without increased spending

4. The cost-benefit analysis approach • Long-standing approach to policy analysis • Widely used in the private sector • Increasingly used by states Goal:Assess whether a program generates enough benefits to justify funding

5. States are increasing use of CBA Report found number of studies done by states is growing significantly each year States are increasingly mandating that studies be done States are using results in policy and budget processes

6. 1 Use the best national research to identify what works 2 Predict program impacts in your state 3 Calculate and compare long-term costs and benefits

7. Step 1: Conduct a Program Inventory • Identify the programs currently provided in New Hampshire and the population that is served by those programs • Identify the current funding for programs • Assess whether the programs are evidence-based • Determine if programs are being implemented according to design

8. Step 1: Inventory Programs *Washington State 2012 dollars

9. Step 2: Identify Program Costs • Identify the costs of serving persons in each program • Include direct and indirect costs • Calculate marginal costs for each program

10. Step 2: Identify Costs *Washington State 2012 dollars

11. Step 3: Predict and Monetize Outcomes • Costs per felony conviction • Convictions avoided per participant • Other benefits throughout system • Victimizations avoided per participant Taxpayer benefits (avoided costs) Victimization benefits (avoided costs)

12. Assess full program outcomes • Taxpayer outcomes • Avoided cost of delivery of services and programs • Societal outcomes • Avoided costs incurred of crime victims • Tangible costs (e.g., lost wages, health care) • Intangible costs (e.g., pain and suffering) • Estimates based on medical records, insurance claims, and court judgments

13. Meta-analysis of Functional Family Therapy Recidivism Rate RECIDIVISM RATES REDUCED BY 22% Without FFT (actual baseline) With FFT Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy Follow-up Years

14. Cost-Benefit of Functional Family Therapy

15. Cost-benefit of Nurse Family Partnership

16. Step 4: Compare Costs and BenefitsAcross Program Portfolio *Washington State 2012 dollars

17. Results First Work in States

18. Washington State’s Long-term Success • 15+ years of using approach to help steer budget decisions • Have achieved better outcomes at lower costs LOWERED CRIME RATE and achieved $2.7 BILLION in higher long-term benefits

19. Change since 1990 in the U.S. and Washington State Juvenile Crime Reduction Benefits United States49% lower In 2000, Washington begins evidence-based Juvenile Justice program In 2003, Washington begins “full fidelity” implementation Washington State67% lower 1991 1993 1995 1971 19991 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy

20. Participation in Results First ME WA MT ND MN OR NY WI SD ID MI WY PA IA NE VT OH IN NV IL NH WV UT VA CO MA MO CA KS KY RI NC CT OK TN SC AR AZ NM NJ GA AL MS DE LA MD TX AK FL HI AK

21. What are Results First states doing? 3 enacted legislation incorporating Results First into their policy making process 2 used models to analyze legislation, avoiding millions in potential costs 5 used their models to target $28 millionin funding

22. New Mexico • Legislative Finance Committee leads initiative, expanding into agencies • Implemented Results First in all available policy areas • Innovative “Cost of Doing Nothing” report found $360M in recidivism-related corrections costs over next 15 years • Used Results First model to target$17M for evidence-based programming in early education and criminal justice

23. Iowa • Housed in the Departments of Corrections and Human Rights • Found state’s domestic violence treatment program was ineffective • Replacing with new program to achieve higher ROI • Used model to analyze sentencing reform proposals

24. New York • Used model to develop Governor’s public safety budget • Referenced in 2013 State of the State Address • Restructuring $11.4M in Alternatives to Incarceration funds to prioritize cost-effective programs • $5M allocated through competitive grant process incorporating cost-benefit analyses

25. Mississippi • Legislative PEER Committee implementing model • Very strong legislative leadership support • Using approach to re-energize performance budgeting system • Currently assessing criminal justice and education programs

26. Vermont • Legislative Joint Fiscal Office began initiative • Legislatively established the Criminal Justice Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group to expand the Vermont Results First model • Used analysis to cut funding to inefficient correctional education program

27. Results First can be used to analyze many policy areas

28. What does it take to become a Results First state?

29. State Selection Criteria 1 2 3

30. The Role of Partner States • Secure leadership support • Appoint a policy work group • Establish a staff work group with project manager • Collaborate with Results First to strengthen the model and build a learning community of states

31. Services provided by Results First • Provide software • Train staff in the approach • Provide ongoing technical assistance • Help interpret results for policymakers • Compile and share lessons learned with other participating states • Expand and update model • No charge for Results First services

32. Goal – Dramatically improve outcomes by: • Fund programs that are proven to work (and cut those that don’t) • Programs must be properly implemented • Must target the right people • Compare outcomes to predictions • Require new programs to prove success Using Evidence Ensuring Program Quality Tracking Results

33. This approach should drive the system Appropriations(investment advice) Research (test new programs) Implementation (ensure fidelity) Oversight (monitor outcomes)

34. Contact: Gary VanLandingham Director gvanlandingham@pewtrusts.org www.pewstates.org/ResultsFirst