Phone Call Scam Alert: We are aware of reported phone calls that claim to be from the state of Minnesota asking state vendors to update banking information.
Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) and other state agencies will never send vendors unsolicited messages asking for banking information.
A service is a state- or locally-implemented intervention (treatment, program, or practice) that attempts to affect one or more outcomes (e.g. reducing recidivism or hospitalization, increasing employment).
The inventory of services collects data on all practices, treatments, and interventions administered by the state or participating local partners. MMB conducts benefit-cost analyses for those services that meet the following criteria.
The service has an evidence base including rigorous studies or a rigorous local evaluation in Minnesota.
The service, as operated in Minnesota, has a similar treatment, duration, frequency, and participant profiles as the empirical research.
A benefit-cost analysis is a systematic approach to determining the cost effectiveness of alternative services or policies by comparing expected benefits to expected costs. The comparison statistic is a benefit-cost ratio. This ratio represents anticipated benefits to state residents for every dollar in cost to deliver the service. Future benefits and costs are adjusted in recognition that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar in the future. Colloquially, the ratio means "for every dollar invested in this service, there are X dollars in benefits."
Return on investment is estimated for the longest period for which impacts can be reliably estimated, based on existing research and data. For some services, this includes the rest of a participant's lifetime. For other services, it only includes the period during which the participant is receiving the service.
Benefits accumulate from successful public services that lead to better outcomes for participants. In the benefit-cost ratio, these are split into two groups: taxpayer and other societal. Examples of taxpayer benefits are avoided costs to state and county systems. Other societal benefits accumulate to Minnesota residents. These benefits vary depending on the policy area. For example, when there is reduced crime there are less crime victims and expenses. When adults with mental illness or substance use disorder receive effective services, research shows improvements in labor market outcomes, which are considered other societal benefits in the analysis.
Yes, to the extent that adequate data is available, the Results First model can differentiate between benefits realized by state, local, and federal taxpayers, participants, and other beneficiaries. The model also provides information on the estimated timing of benefits.
Yes, where appropriate, the Results First model includes costs that would have occurred if a participant had not been served by the service being analyzed. For example, offenders provisionally released to house arrest with electronic monitoring, may have otherwise been incarcerated.
No, the aggregated nature of the research used to determine a level of evidence does not make this possible. The Results First Initiative combines existing research in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis collects all existing evaluations on the service or practice and calculates an average effect size on the distinct outcome. Often the underlying studies do not have outcomes broken out by demographic groups. Because the Results First framework relies on a meta-analysis if the service is being delivered to a population that is comparable to the population served in the underlying research.
No. Many public services are often prescribed as a set of interventions given together to address multiple needs. The Results First model analyzes the effect of a single service or practice. It cannot estimate the impact of two separate services taken together, unless research has examined the combined effects of these services.
No. MMB works with the state and counties to understand if the service model applied in each jurisdiction matches the structure of services reviewed by Washington Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP), including having a similar treatment population and treatment components (e.g. dosage and duration). In cases where they do not meet these requirements or staff articulate a concern for fidelity, the service is not included in the benefit-cost analysis.
Yes. The Results First framework uses findings from multiple rigorous evaluations for each service and practice. Each of these evaluations is sophisticated in their own right, as is the process for summarizing their findings and incorporating them into the benefit-cost model. The analysis may include local evaluations, assuming they meet a set criteria of rigor.
For more information and the technical documentation visit Washington Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP): http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost
