Regular a

e a

f D

her

sity o

nt Va

titute,

evised

as d

Cacciola, Durell, &

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatmenogy, 5202 University Drive, Merrick Building, Room 121F, P.O. Box

248162, Coral Gables, FL 33124-2030, USA. Tel.: +1 305 284 6039; fax:financial data from addiction treatment programs. The addiction research community could clearly benefit from a version of the DATCAP

that reduced the time and effort required for its administration without compromising the integrity of its cost estimates. This paper introduces

the Brief DATCAP and presents some preliminary findings. Initial feedback from respondents suggests that the Brief DATCAP is

understandable, and easier and quicker to complete than the DATCAP. More importantly, preliminary results indicate that cost estimates from

the Brief DATCAP differ from those of the longer DATCAP by less than 2%. These results have important research and policy implications

because a shorter yet reasonably accurate cost instrument will enhance the feasibility and precision of future economic evaluations of

addiction interventions. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cost; Economics; Brief DATCAP

1. Introduction

The foundation of the economic evaluation of any

addiction treatment is a cost analysis of the services that

define that treatment. A proper economic cost analysis is

required to examine cost-effectiveness as well as the net

benefits of alternative treatments or interventions. Unlike the

outcomes side of program evaluation, instrument develop-

ment has emerged only recently for cost analyses. Indeed,

despite the use of various cost instruments in some evalua-

tion studies (e.g., Anderson, Bowland, Cartwright, & Basin,

1998; Barnett, Zaric, & Brandeau, 2001; Capital Consulting

Corporation, 1998; Cisler, Holder, Langabaugh, Stout, &

Zweben, 1998), the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis

Program (DATCAP) is the only cost instrument that has

undergone extensive testing, regular updates, and peer

review (Alexandre, Roebuck, French, & Barry, 2003; Brad-

ley, French, & Rachal, 1994; Bray, French, Bowland, &

Dunlap, 1996; French & McGeary, 1997; French, Bradley,

Calingaert, Dennis, & Karuntzos, 1994; French, Dunlap,

Galinis, Rachal, & Zarkin, 1996; French, Dunlap, Zarkin,

& Karuntzos, 1998; French, Dunlap, Zarkin, McGeary, &

McLellan, 1997; French, Roebuck, et al., 2002; French,

Sacks, DeLeon, Staines, & McKendrick, 1999; McCollister

& French, 2002; McGeary, French, Sacks, McKendrick, &

DeLeon, 2000; Roebuck, French, &McLellan, 2003; Salome

& French, 2001; www.DATCAP.com). In addition to tra-

ditional cost analyses, the DATCAP has also been used

along with other instruments to perform more advanced eco-

nomic evaluations, including cost-effectiveness analysis and

benefit-cost analysis (Alexandre, Salome, French, Rivers,* Corresponding author. University of Miami, Department of Sociol-Cost estimation when tim

The Brie

Michael T. Frencha,*, M. ChristopaDepartment of Sociology, Univer

bCaremark, HucTreatment Research Ins

Received 17 November 2003; received in r

Abstract

The Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP) w0740-5472/04/$ see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.07.001

+1 305 284 5310

E-mail address: mfrench@miami.edu (M.T. French).rticle

nd resources are limited:

ATCAP

Roebuckb, A. Thomas McLellanc

f Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

lley, MD, USA

Philadelphia, PA, USA

form 26 May 2004; accepted 1 July 2004

esigned in the early 1990s as a research guide to collect and analyze

t 27 (2004) 187193acks, McKendrick,& McCoy, 2002; French, McCollister,

Stephens, 2002; French, McCollister, S.

& DeLeon, 2002; French et al., 2003; French, Salome, &

economic cost analysis (Drummond, OBrien, Stoddart, &

anceTorrance, 1997; Gold, Siegel, Russell, & Weinstein, 1996)

and has performed well in numerous evaluation studies, re-

cent information indicates that modifications are necessary

for some applications. At 26 pages, the instrument is some-

what overwhelming for addiction program administrators

who may have little or no familiarity with economic analysis.

Many of these individuals are further discouraged by the

increasing programmatic demands on their time and the

shortage of support staff. Even with a fairly large cash

incentive (e.g., $500), it has become increasingly difficult to

enlist the support of program directors for a cost analysis

employing the DATCAP. The primary reason for declining to

participate was not a lack of interest or data sensitivity con-

cerns, but a lack of available time to complete the DATCAP.

Another concern with administration of the DATCAP at

multiple programs is facilitator burden. As stated in the

DATCAP UserTs Manual (French, 2002b), it is stronglyrecommended that an economist or similarly trained

professional direct the data collection and analysis through

a site visit and ongoing communication such as conference

calls, emails, and telephone conversations. These activities

can easily amount to 3 days or more if treatment admin-

istrators require extensive assistance to assemble data and

comprehend the various measures and related economics

principles of the questionnaire. A shorter instrument that is

easier to understand and complete will certainly reduce the

burden placed on the economist facilitator.

Despite the obvious advantages of a shorter and simpli-

fied DATCAP, such a pursuit would be futile if the resulting

data were incomplete and/or misreported, leading to biased

cost estimates. To investigate the feasibility, burden, and

precision of a Brief DATCAP, we pilot tested the instrument

at five substance abuse treatment programs. The programs

were not selected randomly, but they do represent a range of

different substance abuse interventions, settings, and clients.

In addition, three of the five programs completed both the

DATCAP and Brief DATCAP, which allowed us to assess

any differences in cost estimates between the two instru-

ments. Ultimately, we anticipate that this research project

will lead to a cost estimation instrument that is more

accommodating to program and clinical personnel without

sacrificing economic estimation objectives.

2. Treatment cost estimation

2.1. DATCAP history

The DATCAP was created and launched in the earlyCarney, 2002; French, Salome, Sindelar, Krupski, McKay,

Donovan, McLellan, & Durell, 2000; French, Salome, Sin-

delar, et al., 2002; McCollister, French, Prendergast, et al.,

2003; McCollister, French, Inciardi, et al., 2003).

Although the DATCAP conforms to the principles of

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Subst1881990s (Bradley et al, 1994; French et al., 1994) and hassince undergone extensive revisions. Currently, the eighth

edition of both the DATCAP Program Version (French,

2002a) and the DATCAP UserTs Manual (French, 2002b)can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format (.pdf) from

www.DATCAP.com or requested by mail. In addition to the

recently created Brief DATCAP, a Client DATCAP was

also developed to calculate the cost of treatment incurred

by clients (Salome, French, Miller, & McLellan, 2003).

Preliminary versions of these instruments are also available

on the website or by written request. The DATCAP in-

struments are in the public domain, but it is recommended

that an experienced economist administer them.

The DATCAP is a data collection instrument and

interview guide designed to estimate the costs of a substance

abuse treatment program, defined as a single intervention

(i.e., a facility offering both outpatient and inpatient

treatment services would require the completion of two

DATCAPs). Based upon standard accounting and economic

principles, the instrument measures both accounting and

economic costs. Accounting costs represent the actual ex-

penditures of a treatment program and the depreciation of

its resources. Economic costs represent the full value of all

resources (i.e., opportunity costs), regardless of whether a

direct expenditure is involved. In general, economic costs

are equal to accounting costs plus the incremental value of

those resources that are either partially subsidized or used

free of charge by the treatment program (French, 2002b).

The DATCAP is appropriate for economic cost estimation

of most treatment modalities in most social service settings.

The instrument is intended to collect and organize detailed

information on resources used in service delivery and their

associated costs. Resource categories include personnel,

contracted services, buildings and facilities, equipment,

supplies and materials, and miscellaneous items. Addition-

ally, the DATCAP gathers data on program revenues and

client caseflows.

2.2. DATCAP administration

Administration of the DATCAP is generally a collabo-

rative effort involving an economist and various members

of the treatment programTs staff (e.g., administrators,therapist coordinators, and accounting/finance personnel).

The process begins by issuing DATCAP materials to

program personnel who are most familiar with the

operations and financing of the facility. After these person-

nel have had adequate time to review the materials, several

conference calls are conducted between them and the

DATCAP-trained health economists to formulate strategies

for preliminary data collection and to answer questions

regarding the completion of the DATCAP. Generally, pro-

gram personnel are offered guidance about the type and

source of information to gather for administration of the

DATCAP. Besides the familiar categories of program per-

sonnel, equipment, and facilities, indirect costs such as sup-

Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 187193port personnel, services, contractors, and shared equipment

anceare emphasized. The proper inclusion of these items is

critical for the accuracy of the resource use and cost esti-

mates. A site visit/tour is then conducted by the DATCAP

administrator, during which face-to-face meetings are held

and the instrument is completed. The purpose of the site

visit is to ensure that certain important elements associated

with the operation and financing of the treatment program

are not inadvertently overlooked by either the provider or

the researchers.

2.3. Data assembly procedures

As DATCAP interviews are completed, the resulting data

are entered into a supplementary Microsoft Excel spread-

sheet template that mirrors the hard copy version of the

instrument. This spreadsheet generates a two-page Results

Summary Report, which provides the analysts and the

program director with key statistics from the cost evalua-

tion, including total annual economic cost for the program,

weekly economic cost per client, and total economic cost

per treatment episode.

2.4. Elements of the Brief DATCAP

One of the top priorities in the creation of the Brief

DATCAP was to retain the key elements of the DATCAP.

That is, the Brief DATCAP needed to be structured along

the same resource categories, to produce an identical two-

page Results Summary Report through a corresponding

spreadsheet program, and to include a UserTs Manual toanswer any questions and generally to assist program

personnel. In addition to these features, we also developed

an electronic version of the Brief DATCAP, giving

respondents the option of entering all information directly

from a personal computer rather than on a hard copy of the

instrument. This enhancement assists both program person-

nel and the DATCAP administrators by improving the

efficiency and clarity of data entry.

Regarding the specific changes from the DATCAP to the

Brief DATCAP, some were cosmetic or editorial in nature

while others were more substantive. The list below

summarizes all changes made, organized by sections of

the instrument.

2.4.1. Section A: Program Revenue

All of the program revenue questions were deleted.

This information is useful for describing the financial

operations of the program, but it is not necessary for

cost estimation.

2.4.2. Section B: Client Information

bAverage client-to-counselor/therapist caseload (ratio)Qwas deleted. This question is not necessary for cost

estimation.

Client information is requested for the current fiscal year

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Substonly instead of the current, prior, and next fiscal years.2.4.3. Section C: Personnel

Total cost of employee benefits is now requested in the

aggregate rather than by individual benefit categories (e.g.,

FICA, health insurance, etc.).

2.4.4. Section D: Contracted Services

No changes were made to this section.

2.4.5. Section E: Buildings and Facilities

Questions about the use of buildings and facilities during

the previous and next fiscal years were deleted.

Questions about specific uses of the buildings and

facilities were deleted.

Questions about the annual lease/rental price per square

foot and the estimated fair market value per square foot were

combined into one question. A total of 11 questions in this

section was reduced to 5.

The number of pages in the instrument was reduced

considerably by removing extra copies of the Buildings and

Facilities section and requesting that the respondent make

additional copies of this section for each building/facility

operated by the program.

2.4.6. Section F: Equipment

All detailed and lengthy questions about the units of

equipment by category (i.e., office, computers, electronic,

medical, recreational, child care, residential, vehicles,

miscellaneous), purchase price, purchase year, and condition

were deleted. A single replacement question was added

pertaining to depreciation expenses for all equipment.

2.4.7. Section G: Supplies and Materials

Rather than asking for the cost of supplies and materials

for narrow categories (e.g., medical, office, housekeeping),

a single question now asks about the aggregated cost for all

supplies and materials.

A similar change was executed for the estimated market

value (cost) of supplies and materials used by the treatment

program free of charge.

2.4.8. Section H: Miscellaneous Resources and Costs

No changes in this section.

2.4.9. Section I: Resources and Costs Not

Recorded Elsewhere

This section was eliminated because past administrations

of the DATCAP indicated that very few programs entered

information in this section.

Although these changes to the DATCAP may seem

abundant, it is important to note that the sections and

questions that were preserved in the Brief DATCAP

represent the vast majority of costs at most programs.

For example, Sections C, D, E, and H were retained in

their original form or with minor changes. Summary

statistics from 85 completed DATCAPs (Roebuck et al.,

Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 187193 1892003) reveal that these sections in most cases comprise

over 90% of the total annual cost of treatment. Thus, it

is unlikely that the Brief DATCAP will significantly alter

the estimated cost of addiction treatment derived from

the DATCAP.

2.5. Description of programs and clients

As noted earlier, program selection for this pilot study

was conducted purposely, based largely on the timing of

ongoing research projects. Nevertheless, the programs

represent a range of outpatient services for both adult and

adolescent treatment clients. Each of the five participating

programs is described below, but the descriptions are kept

fairly general to preserve program anonymity.

Program 1 is an intensive outpatient program for

adolescent treatment clients. It is located in the Southeastern

U.S., and its financial structure is private, not for profit. In

fiscal year (FY) 2002 it served a total of 15 adolescent

clients. The average daily census was 10.4 clients and the

median length of stay was 29.7 weeks.

Program 2 is also an intensive outpatient program for

adolescent treatment clients. It is located in the Mountain

West U.S., and its financial structure is public. In FY 2002 it

served a total of 44 adolescent clients. The average daily

census was 13.1 clients and the median length of stay was

FY 2002 it served a total of 102 clients. The average daily

census was 46 clients and the median length of stay was

15.4 weeks.

Program 4 is also an outpatient program for both adul

and adolescent treatment clients. It is located in the

Midwestern U.S., and its financial structure is private, no

for profit. In FY 2002 it served a total of 29 clients. The

average daily census was 7.6 clients and the median length

of stay was 10.8 weeks.

Program 5 is an adolescent outpatient program located in

the Southwestern U.S., and its financial structure is public

In FY 2002 it served a total of 38 clients. The average daily

census was 8.5 clients and the median length of stay was

12 weeks.

3. Results

Cost data from this pilot study provided financia

information from five separate programs, including three

programs that completed both the DATCAP and the Brief

DATCAP. Although the cost estimates are useful for

demonstrating the feasibility and precision of the Brief

DATCAP, these estimates are not necessarily representative

of all outpatient treatment in the U.S. and thus should not be

(2002

2

15.4 10.8 12.0

69 (0.

43 (0.

37 (0.

16 (0.

92 (0.

17 (0.

73 {$

61 {$

19 {$

Prog

verag

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 18719319015 weeks.

Program 3 is an outpatient program for both adult and

adolescent treatment clients. It is located in the Midwestern

U.S., and its financial structure is public, not for profit. In

Table 1

Comparison of treatment characteristics and costs from the Brief DATCAP

Program 1 Program

Treatment Program Characteristics

Modality AIOP AIOP

Financial structure Private NFP Public

Clients served 15 44

Average daily census 10.4 13.1

Median length of stay (weeks) 29.7 15.0

Treatment Program Costs1

Personnel $184,551 (0.87) $172,3

Contracted services $4,317 (0.02) $14,0

Buildings and facilities $14,021 (0.07) $5,9

Major equipment $0 (0.00) $7,9

Supplies and materials $1,905 (0.01) $13,9

Miscellaneous $7,789 (0.04) $32,5

Brief DATCAP Summary Statistics2

Total annual economic cost $212,583 {$212,583} $246,7

Weekly economic cost per client3 $391 {$391} $3

Economic cost per treatment episode4 $11,603 {$11,603} $5,4

Notes: All costs are reported in 2002 dollars.

AIOP=Adolescent Intensive Outpatient Program; OP=Standard Outpatient1 Proportions of Total Annual Economic Cost reported in parentheses.2 Summary statistics from the DATCAP are reported in braces.3 Weekly Economic Cost per Client = Total Annual Economic Cost / A

4 Economic Cost per Treatment Episode = Weekly Economic Cost per Clien70) $191,199 (0.64) $64,857 (0.81) $84,933 (0.85)

06) $41,492 (0.14) $159 (0.00) $1,472 (0.01)

02) $24,401 (0.08) $1,344 (0.02) $6,504 (0.07)

03) $5,318 (0.02) $160 (0.00) $0 (0.00)

06) $5,828 (0.02) $1,051 (0.01) $3,493 (0.04)

13) $29,560 (0.10) $12,578 (0.16) $3,221 (0.03)

242,583} $297,798 {N/A} $80,150 {N/A} $99,623 {$100,715}

355} $124 {N/A} $202 {N/A} $224 {$226}

5,327} $1,916 {N/A} $2,179 {N/A} $2,688 {$2,718}

ram; AOP=Adolescent Standard Outpatient Program.

e Daily Census / 52.14 weeks.used for any type of policy analysis in this regard. Referring

to Table 1, regardless of service delivery or client

orientation, personnel was the dominant resource category

with over 64% of total annual cost at each of these

dollars)

Program 3 Program 4 Program 5

OP OP AOP

Public Private NFP Public

102 29 38

46.0 7.6 8.5t Median Length of Stay (weeks).t

t

.

l

13.15.673.212.41

ief DA

ance0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Miscellaneous 3.66% 3.66%Supplies and Materials 0.90% 0.90%Major Equipment 0.00% 0.00%Buildings and Facilities 6.60% 6.60%

Brief DATCAP DATCAP BrProgram 1

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Substprograms. The rest of the resource categories had less

consistency in distribution of costs across programs.

Based on the Brief DATCAP data, total annual economic

cost ranged from at $80,150 at Program 4 to $297,798 at

Program 3. At the three programs that also completed the

DATCAP, total annual economic cost was almost identical.

Specifically, compared to the Brief DATCAP, DATCAP

estimates were the same at Program 1, $4,190 lower (1.7%)

at Program 2, and $1,092 higher (1.1%) at Program 5.

Visual comparisons between the DATCAP and Brief

DATCAP data at Programs 1, 2, and 5 are presented in

Fig. 1. This graphic shows the distribution of total annual

cost across the six resource categories using both the

DATCAP and Brief DATCAP instruments. Regardless of

the resource category, these distributions were very similar

for both instruments.

Not surprisingly, weekly economic cost per client was

lower at the standard outpatient programs ($124$224)

relative to the intensive outpatient programs ($361$391).

Similarly, economic cost per treatment episode ranged

between $1,916 and $2,688 for the standard outpatient

programs, and between $5,419 and $11,603 for the

intensive outpatient programs. Again, summary cost sta-

tistics from the DATCAP never displayed more than 2%

variation from the corresponding summary cost statistics

from the Brief DATCAP.

Contracted Services 2.03% 2.03% 5.69Personnel 86.81% 86.81% 69.8

Fig. 1. Comparisons of cost categories for programs com8% 13.28% 0.64% 3.20%% 5.77% 3.60% 3.47%% 1.66% 0.00% 1.08%% 2.45% 6.70% 6.46%

TCAP DATCAP Brief DATCAP DATCAPProgram 2 Program 5Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 187193 191Although the sample size was relatively small for this

pilot study, it is instructive to report some preliminary

qualitative data as well. Compared to a 23 day full-time

equivalent (FTE) investment for most programs to complete

the DATCAP, the Brief DATCAP required about a 1-day

FTE investment. Input and assistance from an economist

was not measurably different for each instrument, however.

Informal discussion with all five programs that completed

the Brief DATCAP conveyed that the instrument was well

organized and understandable, and the corresponding data

were fairly easy to assemble.

4. Discussion

The DATCAP collects resource use and cost data from

the program perspective and has been utilized in numerous

economic evaluation studies. While practical and expedient

for analyzing a small number of treatment programs with

well-organized data, the administration of the DATCAP

becomes very tedious and expensive when a larger number

of programs are under consideration and/or records are not

ideal or easily accessible. In addition, treatment adminis-

trators have revealed in recent discussions that they have

limited time for discretionary activities such as program

evaluation. For this reason, and in the interest of reducing

% 5.79% 1.52% 1.46%5% 71.06% 87.54% 84.33%

pleting both the DATCAP and the Brief DATCAP.

www.DATCAP.com. While the initial applications of and

Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 285290.

Alexandre, P. K., Salome, H. J., French, M. T., Rivers, J. E., & McCoy,

York7 Oxford University Press.French, M. T. (2002a). Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program

ancepreliminary findings from the Brief DATCAP are encourag-

ing, it is clearly necessary to administer and evaluate the

instrument in more settings, more programs and modalities,

and with different client samples. In addition to variety in

modalities and client mix, further study should make use of

programs of varying size in recognition of the compara-

tively small programs included in the present study. Indeed,

we strongly encourage other researchers to experiment with

the instrument and publish their findings. As with the

DATCAP, we would like to assemble a long list of cost

estimates from a variety of different programs so that the

Brief DATCAP can serve as both a research tool and a

policy aid (see Roebuck et al., 2003).

Given the extensive testing and application of the

DATCAP, one might question the viability of a substitute

instrument such as the Brief DATCAP. History will be the

best judge, but it is our hope and expectation that the Brief

DATCAP will make economic evaluation research more

appealing to addiction treatment programs that may have

been reluctant to complete the DATCAP.

The presence of two cost instruments on the DATCAP

web page occasionally leads respondents to inquire whether

it is best to complete the DATCAP or the Brief DATCAP. If

time and resources permit, we always direct the respondent

to the DATCAP because the methods are sound and the

information can be used for a variety of purposes. But if the

respondent has limited time, resources, and/or detailed

records, then we encourage the use of the Brief DATCAP,

especially if the sole objective is to obtain summary cost

statistics. To expedite the completion of any DATCAP

instrument in the future, we plan to add a Frequently Asked

Questions (FAQ) section to the DATCAP web page and to

have this information easily accessible through a hyperlink

on the main screen.

5. Conclusion

The dual objective of this paper was to launch Edition 1

of the Brief DATCAP and to present pilot study findings

from five addiction programs. A small sample such as this

does not definitively validate or endorse an instrument, but

the results suggest that the Brief DATCAP is easy to under-

stand, agreeable to program directors, and similar to the

DATCAP in summary cost estimates. As with the DATCAP,respondent burden, they have repeatedly expressed a desire

for a shorter version of the DATCAP instrument. Given

these time and resource constraints, the addiction research

community could clearly benefit from a version of the

DATCAP that reduced the time and effort required for its

administration without compromising the integrity of its

cost estimates.

The first edition of the Brief DATCAP is available from

the corresponding author by mail or by download at

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Subst192we hope that other analysts will join us in future appli-(DATCAP): Program version 8. Coral Gables, FL7 University of Miami.Available at www.DATCAP.com.

French, M. T. (2002b). Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program

(DATCAP): Program version 8 userTs manual. Coral Gables, FL7C. B. (2002). Consequences and costs of closing a publicly-funded

methadone maintenance clinic. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 519536.

Anderson, D. W., Bowland, B. J., Cartwright, W. S., & Bassin, G. (1998).

Service-level costing of drug abuse treatment. Journal of Substance

Abuse Treatment, 15, 201211.

Barnett, P. G., Zaric, G. S., & Brandeau, M. L. (2001). The cost-

effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy for opiate addiction

in the U.S. Addiction, 96, 12671278.

Bradley, C. J., French, M. T., & Rachal, J. V. (1994). Financing and cost of

standard and enhanced methadone treatment. Journal of Substance

Abuse Treatment, 11, 433442.

Bray, J. W., French, M. T., Bowland, B. J., & Dunlap, L. J. (1996). The

cost of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs): Findings from seven

case studies. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 11, 119.

Capital Consulting Corporation. (1998). Measuring the cost of substance

abuse treatment services: An overview. Contract for the Center for

Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA 270-91-8327.

Cisler, R., Holder, H. D., Longabaugh, R., Stout, R. L., & Zweben, A.

(1998). Actual and estimated replication costs for alcohol treatment

modalities: Case study from Project MATCH. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, 59, 503512.

Drummond, M. F., OBrien, C. P., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G.W. (1997).

Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Newcations of the Brief DATCAP so that the instrument can be

incrementally improved and widely utilized.

Acknowledgments

Financial assistance for this study was provided by the

National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant numbers 1R01

DA11506 and 3P50 DA07705) and the National Institute

on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (1R01 AA13167). We

are grateful to Jody Sindelar and Silvana Zavala for

helpful suggestions on earlier versions of the Brief

DATCAP; Mark Godley, Michael Boyle, Holly Waldron,

Paula Riggs, Michael Miller, Howard Liddle, Gayle

Dakof, Cindy Rowe, and Craig Henderson for assistance

with data collection, and William Russell and Carmen

Martinez for administrative and editorial assistance. The

authors are entirely responsible for the research conducted

in this paper and their position or opinions do not

necessarily represent those of the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcoholism and

Alcohol Abuse, the University of Miami, Caremark, or the

Treatment Research Institute.

References

Alexandre, P. K., Roebuck, M. C., French, M. T., & Barry, M. (2003). The

cost of residential addiction treatment in public housing. Journal of

Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 187193University of Miami. Available at www.DATCAP.com.

French, M. T., Bradley, C. J., Calingaert, B., Dennis, M. L., & Karuntzos,

G. T. (1994). Cost analysis of training and employment services in

methadone treatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 107120.

French, M. T., Dunlap, L. J., Galinis, D. N., Rachal, J. V., & Zarkin, G. A.

(1996). Health care reforms and managed care for substance abuse

services: findings from 11 case studies. Journal of Public Health Policy,

17, 181203.

French, M. T., Dunlap, L. J., Zarkin, G. A., & Karuntzos, G. T. (1998).

The costs of an enhanced employee assistance program (EAP)

intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning, 21, 227236.

French, M. T., Dunlap, L. J., Zarkin, G. A., McGeary, K. A., &McLellan, A.

T. (1997). A structured instrument for estimating the economic cost of

drug abuse treatment: The Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Pro-

gram (DATCAP). Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14, 445455.

French, M. T., McCollister, K. E., Cacciola, J., Durell, J., & Stephens, R. L.

(2002). Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment in Arkansas:

Specialty and standard residential programs for pregnant and parenting

women. Substance Abuse, 23, 3151.

French, M. T., McCollister, K. A., Sacks, S., McKendrick, K., & DeLeon,

G. (2002). Benefit-cost analysis of a modified therapeutic community

for mentally ill chemical abusers. Evaluation and Program Planning,

25, 137148.

French, M. T., & McGeary, K. A. (1997). Estimating the economic cost of

substance abuse treatment. Health Economics, 6, 539544.

French, M. T., Roebuck, M. C., Dennis, M. L., Diamond, G., Godley, S.,

French, M. T., Salome, H. J., Krupski, A., McKay, J. R., Donovan, D. M.,

McLellan, A. T., & Durell, J. (2000). Benefit-cost analysis of residential

and outpatient addiction treatment in the state of Washington.

Evaluation Review, 24, 609634.

French, M. T., Salome, H. J., Sindelar, J. L., & McLellan, A. T. (2002).

Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment: Methodological guidelines

and application using the DATCAP and ASI. Health Services Research,

37, 433455.

Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-

effectiveness in health and medicine. New York7 Oxford UniversityPress.

McCollister, K. E., & French, M. T. (2002). The economic cost of substance

abuse treatment in criminal justice settings. In C. G. Leukefeld, F. Tims,

& D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues

(pp. 2237). New York7 Springer Publishing Company.McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Inciardi, J. A., Butzin, C. A., Martin, S.

S., & Hooper, R. M. (2003). Post-release substance abuse treatment for

criminal offenders: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Quantita-

tive Criminology, 19, 389407.

McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., &

Hall, E. (2003). Is in-prison treatment enough? A cost-effectiveness

analysis of prison-based treatment and aftercare services for substance-

abusing offenders. Law and Policy, 25, 6382.

McGeary, K. A., French, M. T., Sacks, S., McKendrick, K., & DeLeon, G.

(2000). Service use and cost by mentally ill chemical abusers:

Differences by retention in a therapeutic community. Journal of

M.T. French et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 27 (2004) 187193 193patient marijuana treatment for adolescents: Findings from a multisite

field experiment. Addiction, 97, 8497.

French, M. T., Roebuck, M. C., Dennis, M. L., Godley, S. H., Liddle, H., &

Tims, F. M. (2003). Outpatient marijuana treatment for adolescents:

Economic evaluation of a multisite field experiment. Evaluation

Review, 27, 421459.

French, M. T., Sacks, S., DeLeon, G., Staines, G., &McKendrick, K. (1999).

Modified therapeutic community for mentally ill chemical abusers:

Outcomes and costs. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 22, 6085.

French, M. T., Salome, H. J., & Carney, M. (2002). Using the DATCAP

and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction

treatment in the state of Washington. Social Science and Medicine, 55,

22672282.Substance Abuse, 11, 115.

Roebuck, M. C., French, M. T., & McLellan, A. T. (2003). DATStats:

Summary results from 85 completed Drug Abuse Treatment Cost

Analysis Programs (DATCAPs). Journal of Substance Abuse Treat-

ment, 25, 5157.

Salome, H. J., & French, M. T. (2001). Using cost and financing

instruments for economic evaluation of substance abuse treatment

services. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alcoholism. Vol.

15: Services research in the era of managed care (Sec. III, Ch. 11, pp.

253269). New York7 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Salome, H. J., French, M. T., Miller, M., & McLellan, A. T. (2003).

Estimating the client costs of addiction treatment: First findings from

the client DATCAP. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 71, 195206.Tims, F., Webb, C., & Herrell, J. (2002). The economic cost of out-

Cost estimation when time and resources are limited: The Brief DATCAPIntroductionTreatment cost estimationDATCAP historyDATCAP administrationData assembly proceduresElements of the Brief DATCAPSection A: Program RevenueSection B: Client InformationSection C: PersonnelSection D: Contracted ServicesSection E: Buildings and FacilitiesSection F: EquipmentSection G: Supplies and MaterialsSection H: Miscellaneous Resources and CostsSection I: Resources and Costs Not Recorded Elsewhere

Description of programs and clients

ResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgmentsReferences