RESULTS

The process of gathering and analyzing these data has been complex. However, the following conservative estimations can be made using the completed analysis of costs per person and the total avoided costs to Oregon taxpayers for the 1991-1992 cohort of drug treatment completers:

We can estimate that the 1991-1992 cohort of treatment completers (for residential, outpatient, and methadone modules combined) produced avoided costs to Oregon taxpayers of $83,147,187 in the two and a half years of full data collection from 1992-1995. It should be noted that these are the cost savings produced by treatment completers only. There is another group of clients (who were not part of this study) who received a good deal of treatment in the 1991-92 FY, but who did not complete treatment. From the data on employment (Figure 7) and from other research, we can expect this group of clients to also have positive societal outcomes and avoided costs. This indicates that the avoided cost estimates are conservative.

The costs can be distributed in the following way among these cost categories.

Approximately $24,450,000 of the total are costs avoided by state and local governments. These are costs that would have to be assumed by these govemmental budgets if treatment completion had not occurred. The costs include increased expenditures for police protection, court costs, supervision costs, jail and prison costs,31 increased medical assistance, food stamps, and other public assistance. Victim and theft costs represent the probable cost resulting from increased criminal activity to taxpaying citizens from their own pockets. It should be noted that in all cases where actual costs could not be measured, the estimates are conservative. In addition, access to some avoided cost data (such as unemployment compensation data) was unavailable. It is likely therefore that these figures represent the minimum savings.

THE COSTS OF TREATMENT VS THE COST SAVINGS OF TREATMENT

According to figures from the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, an estimated $14,879,128 in tax money was spent on the 1991-1992 cohort of clients who received treatment. With the estimated total of $83,147,187 of avoided costs savings, we calculate that every taxpayer dollar spent on those who completed treatment in 1991-1992 produced $5.60 of avoided costs savings to the taxpayer. Furthermore, additional (unknown) savings presumably accrued from those clients who received a good amount of treatment but who did not complete treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results, similar to results found in studies in other states, suggest that successful

31 It has been argued that some fixed costs for jails and prisons should not be included in these estimates since some additional new prisoners might be absorbed into the system. However, here we are estimating the impact of thousands of new arrests and convictions on an already overcrowded jail and prison system, making necessary the building of new jails and prisons.

drug and alcohol treatment can have positive societal outcomes. While previous studies have shown the positive effects of treatment for the time period of one year, this study indicates that these gains are sustained over longer periods of time (up to three years). By using existing state databases rather than self-reported data (often used in other studies), this study has the advantage of providing estimates of actual behavior (arrests, food stamp use, etc.). Taken together, this study and others that have preceded it, represent a strong case that drug and alcohol treatment does have positive societal benefits. Using an avoided cost estimates approach, we have been able to estimate the cost savings to taxpayers, either directly in their avoidance of criminal losses or indirectly in the avoidance of the expenditure of their tax dollars, that accrue from the positive societal outcomes of treatment.