drug courts: some answers to our burning questions nadcp may 2008

Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

NADCP

May 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 Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs

Shannon Carey, Ph.D.Mike Finigan, Ph.D.

Juliette Mackin, Ph.D.

4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530Portland, OR 97239

503.243.2436

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?


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


• 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

Average investment across 9 drug courts in California

Costs and Benefits

Net savings across 9 drug courts in California

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


• 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


• 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


Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Lower Investment

Costs


Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Greater Cost Savings

Note: Difference for group is significant at p<.05

• How important is jail as a sanction?

Jail


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


• 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


Drug Courts That Have the Judge be the Sole Provider of Rewards Had 2

Times Greater Cost Savings


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

• Should there be a required length of time participants must remain clean before graduation? If so, how long should it be?

Drug Testing


• 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



Courts that Received Drug Test Results Within 48 Hours of Sample Collection Had 3 Times

Greater Savings


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


• When should team members get trained?


Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for All Team Members Had 5 Times Greater Savings


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


• 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


Courts That Used Evaluation Feedback to Make Modifications to the Drug Court

Program Had 4 Times Greater Cost Savings


Summary:

Practices that relate to better outcomes (lower costs, lower recidivism, greater savings):

See Handout

Conclusion:

May 2008 NADCP 45

Before DC After DC

Contact Information

Mike Finigan, Ph.D. [email protected]

Juliette Mackin, Ph.D. [email protected]

Shannon Carey, [email protected]

To learn more about NPC or more about drug court evaluations including cost-benefit evaluations see:

www.npcresearch.com46

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the judges and staff

at numerous drug courts who

welcomed us to their program,

answered our un-ending questions

and helped us find and collect

mounds of data!

drug courts: some answers to our burning questions nadcp may 2008

Documents