adult drug courts: some answers to our burning questions neadcp october 2008
TRANSCRIPT
Adult Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions
Adult Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions
NEADCP
October 2008
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our
Burning Questions
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our
Burning Questions
NADCP
May 2008
How Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs
How Adult Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs
Shannon Carey, Ph.D.Mike Finigan, Ph.D.
.4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530
Portland, OR 97239503.243.2436
May 29, 2008
Do drug court participants really get re-arrested less often?
How long does the “drug court effect” on recidivism last?
Are drug courts cost effective (cost- beneficial)?
The Burning Questions
The Burning QuestionsWhat drug court practices result in lower recidivism and greater cost savings?
•Does it matter how long the judge stays on the drug court bench?•Is it important for the treatment provider to attend drug court sessions?•What is the optimum number of drug tests?
• In California, Guam, Indiana, Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Nevada Oregon and Vermont
• In the past 5 years NPC has completed over 50 drug court evaluations and research studies• Adult, Juvenile and Family Treatment (Dependency) Drug Courts
The Research
The Impact of a Mature Drug Court
Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs
• Multnomah County Drug Court The STOP Court was implemented in 1990 • All offenders who were eligible from 1991-2001 (11,000)• Drug Court N = 6,500; Comparison N = 4,500• Up to 14 years of recidivism (re-arrests)• 5 different judges
Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts: A Comparative Study of 18 Adult Drug Court
Practices, Outcomes and Costs
• 18 Adult Drug Courts• California, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon and Guam• Process, Outcome and Cost Studies• 10 Key Components used as framework• Practices compared across drug courts• Examined practices in relation to outcomes (Graduation rate, investment and outcome costs)
Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug
Treatment Programs
• Proposition 36 – Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA) • Built on previous study in California• Drug Court before SACPA (1998-1999)• Drug Court and SACPA participants 2002-2003• Collected data on practices, recidivism and costs• Compared drug courts pre and post-SACPA• Compared drug courts and SACPA
• Do drug court participants really get re-arrested less often than offenders who don’t go through drug court?
The Burning Questions
Recidivism
• If so, how long does the effect last?
• Is it the same for all drug courts?
•In the 18-site study, 16 of the 18 sites had reduced recidivism for drug court participants
•Of all the DC’s NPC has evaluated (~50), 4 have not resulted in lower recidivism for participants
Recidivism
Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates
After 2 years:17% Graduates29% All Participants41% Comparison Group
9 California Adult Drug Courts
Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates
After 2 years:22% Graduates38% All Participants50% Comparison Group
18 drug courts in 4 states (+ 1 territory)
26%25%
23%22%
20% 20%21%
17% 17%19%
20%22%
25%24%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Years from Drug Court Entry
% im
pro
ve
me
nt
in #
of
re-a
rre
sts
Year 1 N = 10,907; Year 14 N = 317Significant difference between DC and Comparison every year up to 14 years (Adjusted for differences in demographics and criminal history)
Recidivism after 14 YearsPercentage reduction in re-arrests
• How much does drug court cost?
• Are drug courts cost-effective? (Do they save taxpayer money?)
Costs and Benefits
The Burning Questions
• Which agencies invest the most in drug court (and which invest the least)?
• Do any agencies save money due to drug court?
* Difference is significant: p<.01
Note: Drug Court cost less than traditional court processing
Investment Cost (per Participant)
Transaction
s
Investment cost Drug
Court(n = 6,502)
Investment costBAU
(n = 4,600)
Cost Difference (benefit)
Arrest (1) $203 $203 $0
Booking (1) $299 $299 $0
Court time $768 $714 ($54)
Treatment* $2,001 $2,746 $745
Jail time* $1,017 $1,243 $226Probation time* $880 $1,355 $475
Total cost $5,168 $6,560 $1,392
Outcomes showed a benefit of $6,744 per drug court participant
CJ Recidivism Costs per Participant Outcome transactions
Drug Court
outcome costs
BAU outcome
costs
Difference
(Benefit)
Savings over 10
years (n = 6,502)
Arrests* $852 $1,197 $345$2,243,39
8Bookings* $598 $868 $269
$1,750,566Court
time* $569 $802 $232$1,510,54
5Jail time* $5,198 $8,474 $3,277
$21,305,168
Treatment $1,392 $1,779 $387$2,514,97
4Probation* $2,185 $2,730 $545
$3,544,630
Prison* $5,402 $7,091 $1,688$10,977,0
02Total outcome costs
$16,197
$22,941
$6,744
$43,846,283
Costs and Benefits
Drug Court #1
Drug Court #2
Drug Court #3
Drug Court #4
Drug Court #5
Cost savings per drug court participant
$1,570 $314 $4,250 $4,133 $7,040
Total cost savings for all participants since program implementation
$318,710 $247,746 $2,962,250 $1,921,845 $1,408,840
Total savings to local agencies and state (over 2 years) = $7,183,088
Indiana
Team Involvement
The Burning Questions
• Is it important for the attorneys to attend team meetings (“staffings”)?
Courts That Required a Treatment Representative at Drug Court Sessions Had 9 Times Greater Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
May 2008 NADCP 22Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts Where the Public Defender was Expected to Attend All Drug Court Team Meetings Had 8 Times Greater Savings
May, 2008 NADCP 23Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor was Expected to Attend Drug Court Team Meetings Had more
than 2 Times Greater Savings
• Is it better to have a single treatment agency or to have multiple treatment options?
Treatment
The Burning Questions
• Is it better to have a required number of treatment sessions or to have treatment individualized?
Courts That Used a Single Treatment Agency had 10 Times Greater Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Lower Investment
Costs
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference for group is significant at p<.05
Drug court with same judge and same team had better outcomes for participants when the option of jail as a sanction was available
Participants with the Possibility of Jail as a Sanction had Lower Recidivism
2.4
4.2
5.7
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Ave
rag
e n
um
ber
of R
e-A
rres
ts p
er
Par
ticip
ant Drug Court
No JailN = 60
Drug Court with JailN = 68
• Is it more effective if rewards come from the judge?
• How long should the judge stay on the drug court bench? Is longevity better or is it better to rotate regularly?
The Judge
The Burning Questions
• How often should participants appear before the judge?
Drug Courts that Required a Frequency of Court Sessions of Once Every 2 Weeks or Less in the First
Phase had 2 times Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Have the Judge be the Sole Provider of Rewards Had 2
Times Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Different judges had different impact on recidivism Judges did better their second time (or second year)
8%
27%
4%
28%
42%
30%
34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5
% im
prov
emen
t in
# of
re-
arre
sts
The Longer the Judge Spends on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client
Outcomes
Drug Courts Where Judges Stay Longer than Two Years had 3 Times Greater
Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
• Should there be a required length of time participants must remain clean before graduation? If so, how long should it be?
Drug Testing
The Burning Questions
• How frequently should participants be tested?
• How quickly should results be available to the team?
Courts That Performed Drug Testing 2 or More Times per Week in the First Phase Had Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
May 2008 NADCP 37Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Courts that Received Drug Test Results Within 48 Hours of Sample Collection Had 3 Times
Greater Savings
May 2008 NADCP 38Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days Clean Had Larger Cost Savings
• How important is formal training for team members?
• Who should be trained?
Training
The Burning Questions
• When should team members get trained?
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for All Team Members Had 5 Times Greater Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Had Training Prior to Implementation Had 15 Times Greater Cost
Savings
• Does it matter whether data are kept in paper files or in a database?
Monitoring and Evaluation
The Burning Questions
• Does keeping program stats make a difference?
• Do you really need an evaluation? What do you get out of it?
Courts that Continued to Use Paper Files for Some Data (Rather Than Electronic
Databases) had Less Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Courts That Used Evaluation Feedback to Make Modifications to the Drug Court
Program Had 4 Times Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Summary:
Practices that relate to better outcomes (lower costs, lower recidivism, greater savings):
See Handout
Contact Information
Shannon Carey, [email protected]
To learn more about NPC or more about drug court evaluations including cost-benefit evaluations see:
www.npcresearch.com
47