This study reviews benefit–cost analyses of programs designed to reduce demand for illicit drugs. Data were synthesised from 67 benefit–cost analyses of prevention, law enforcement and treatment programs. Eighty percent of the 70 separate benefit–cost ratios exceeded 1.0, indicating that savings outweighed costs among most programs reviewed. Benefit–cost ratios ranged from −18.20 to 63.32, varying substantially for different program types and populations. On average, demand reduction programs produced a return on investment of $5.40 for every dollar spent. These findings suggest demand reduction programs are generally economical.
References
URLs correct as at July 2022
Acumen Alliance 2005. Benefit and cost analysis of the drug court program: Final report. Victoria: Department of Justice. https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20050629151303/http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/ca2569020010922a/page/listing-home+page+news-drug+court+-+evaluation+reports
Anton P 2007. Benefit–cost calculations for three adult drug courts in Minnesota: A report to the Office of Justice Programs. Minnesota: Wilder Research. https://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-library/benefit-cost-calculations-three-adult-drug-courts-minnesota
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2020. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019. Drug statistics series no. 32. AIHW cat. no. PHE 270. Canberra: AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey-2019/contents/summary
Cannon J et al. 2017. Investing early: Taking stock of outcomes and economic returns from early childhood programs. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1993
Carey SM, Finigan M, Crumpton D & Waller M 2006. California drug courts: Outcomes, costs and promising practices: An overview of phase II in a statewide study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38: 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2006.10400598
Caulkins JP, Sohler Everingham SM, Chiesa J & Bushway SD 1999. The benefits and costs of drug use prevention: Clarifying a cloudy issue. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RB6007
Chisholm J 2000. Benefit-cost analysis and crime prevention. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 147. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi147
Degenhardt L & Hall W 2012. Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease. The Lancet 379(9810): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61138-0
Dennis ML, French MT, McCollister KE & Scott CK 2011. The economic costs of quarterly monitoring and recovery management checkups for adults with chronic substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 41: 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.02.007
Deogan C et al. 2015. Cost-effectiveness of school-based prevention of cannabis use. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 13: 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0175-4
Department of Health 2017. National Drug Strategy 2017–2026. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-drug-strategy-2017-2026
Downey PM & Roman JK 2014. Cost-benefit analysis: A guide for drug courts and other criminal justice programs. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief no. 246769. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. https://nicic.gov/cost-benefit-analysis-guide-drug-courts-and-other-criminal-justice-programs
Ettner S et al. 2006. Benefit–cost in the California treatment outcome project: Does substance abuse treatment “pay for itself”? Health Services Research 41(1): 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00466.x
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 2009. Polydrug use: Patterns and response. Lisbon: EMCDDA. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/selected-issues/polydrug-use-patterns-and-responses_en
Fagan AA et al. 2019. Scaling up evidence-based interventions in US public systems to prevent behavioral health problems: Challenges and opportunities. Prevention Science 20: 1147–1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01048-8
French MT et al. 2008. Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34: 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.008
Guyll M, Spoth R & Cornish MA 2012. Substance misuse prevention and economic analysis: Challenges and opportunities regarding international utility. Substance Use & Misuse 47: 877–888. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.663276
Guyll M, Spoth R & Crowley D 2011. Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 72(4): 577–85. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2011.72.577
Karoly LA 2010. Toward standardization of benefit-cost analyses of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1753326
Kedia S, Sell M & Relyea G 2007. Mono- versus polydrug abuse patterns among publicly funded clients. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-2-33
Klapp A et al. 2017. A benefit-cost analysis of a long-term intervention on social and emotional learning in compulsory school. International Journal of Emotional Education 9(1): 3–19
Kuklinski M, Oesterle S, Briney JS & Hawkins JD 2021. Long‑term impacts and benefit–cost analysis of the Communities That Care prevention system at age 23, 12 years after baseline. Prevention Science 22: 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01218-7
Lind B et al. 2002. New South Wales Drug Court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness. Legislative evaluation no. 15. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_publication/Pub_Summary/Legislative/L15-NSW-Drug-Court-evaluation-Cost-effectiveness.aspx
Lipsey MW 2018. Effective use of the large body of research on the effectiveness of programs for juvenile offenders and the failure of the model programs approach. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1): 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12345
Loman L 2004. A cost-benefit analysis of the St. Louis city Adult Felony Drug Court. Missouri: Institute of Applied Research. https://iarstl.org/
Longo M, Cooke R & Weir L 2020. The social costs of alcohol, tobacco, opioids, methamphetamine and cannabis in Australia. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia
Manikandan S 2011. Measures of central tendency: Median and mode. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics 2(3): 214–215. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.83300
Mazerolle L, Soole D & Rombouts S 2007. Drug law enforcement: A review of the evaluation literature. Police Quarterly 10(2): 115–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611106287776
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016. Advancing the power of economic evidence to inform investments in children, youth, and families. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23481
Pacula RL et al. 2009. Issues in estimating the economic cost of drug abuse in consuming nations: Report 3. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR709.html
Pollack HA & Reuter P 2014. Does tougher enforcement make drugs more expensive? Addiction 109(12): 1959–1966. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12497
Ritter A et al. 2014. New Horizons: The review of alcohol and other drug treatment services in Australia. Sydney: Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW. https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/new-horizons-review-alcohol-and-other-drug-treatment-services-australia
Ritter A & McDonald 2005. Drug policy interventions: A comprehensive list and a review of classification schemes. Drug Policy Modelling Project Monograph Series no.2. Fitzroy: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre. https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/02-drug-policy-interventions-comprehensive-list-and-review-classification-schemes
Sindelar JL, Jofre-Bonet M, French MT & McLellan AT 2004. Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: Paradoxes of multiple outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73: 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.09.002
Smithson M, McFadden M, Mwesigye S-E & Casey T 2003. The impact of illicit drug supply reduction on health and social outcomes: The heroin shortage in the Australian Capital Territory. Addiction 99(3): 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00603.x
Tait R & Allsop S (eds) 2020a. Quantifying the social costs of cannabis use to Australia in 2015/16. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University. https://ndri.curtin.edu.au/ndri/media/documents/publications/T287.pdf
Tait R & Allsop S (eds) 2020b. Quantifying the social costs of pharmaceutical opioid misuse & illicit opioid use to Australia in 2015/16. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University. https://ndri.curtin.edu.au/ndri/media/documents/publications/T277.pdf
Tait R & Allsop S (eds) 2016. The social costs of methamphetamine in Australia 2013/14. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University. https://ndri.curtin.edu.au/ndri/media/documents/publications/t246.pdf
Vining A & Weimer DL 2010. An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 1(1): Article 6. https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1013
Wan W-Y, Weatherburn D, Wardlaw G, Sarafidis V & Sara G 2014. Supply-side reduction policy and drug-related harm. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 486. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi486
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) 2019. Benefit–cost technical documentation. Olympia: WSIPP. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
Washington State Institute for Public Policy nd. Estimating program effects using effect sizes. Olympia: WSIPP. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
Weatherburn D, Topp L, Midford R & Allsop S 2000. Drug crime prevention and mitigation: A literature review and research agenda. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_publication/Pub_Summary/General-Series/R49-Drug-crime-prevention-and-mitigation-A-literature-review-and-research-agenda.aspx
Welsh BC & Farrington DP 2000. Monetary costs and benefits of crime prevention programs. In M Tonry (ed), Crime and justice: A review of research vol 27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 305–361. https://doi.org/10.1086/652202
Zarkin GA, Dunlap LJ, Belenko S & Dynia PA 2005. A benefit-cost analysis of the Kings County District Attorney’s office Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program. Justice Research and Policy 7(1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.7.1.2005.1