Best Practices – 2016

download report

Transcript Best Practices – 2016

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Center for DWI Courts
DWI Court Training
DWI Courts Best Practices &
Latest Research
Developed by: Shannon Carey, Ph.D. , NPC Research
References include: Defining Drug Courts: The Key
Components; The 10 Guiding Principles of DWI
Courts; Adult Drug Courts Best Practice Standards
Vol. 1
NCDC: A Professional Services Division of NADCP
Overview
• What’s the difference between a DWI Court and a
Drug Court?
• Are DWI court participants really that different
from adult drug court participants?
• What evidence do we have that DWI Courts truly
reduce recidivism and protect public safety?
• Top 10 best practices
Are DWI Offenders really
different from drug offenders?
• What’s special about DWI offenders?
DWI Offenders engage in behavior that is
dangerous and frequently causes serious injury or
fatalities
Drinking alcohol is not illegal
Are DWI offenders really that
different from drug offenders?


DWI
Offenders engage
engage in
DWI Offenders
in behavior
behavior
that
that is
is dangerous
dangerous and
and frequently
frequently
causes
serious injury
injury or
or fatal
fatalities
causes serious
• Repeat DWI offenders are over represented in fatal
crashes, and have a greater risk to kill another
person.
Are DWI offenders really that
different from drug offenders?
 Alcohol-impaired-driving is one of America’s most-oftencommitted and deadliest crimes.
 In 2013, there were 10,076 fatal crashes involving a driver
with a BAC of .08 or higher – 31% of the total traffic
fatalities.
 In 2013, hardcore drinking drivers (those with BACs of .15
or greater) were involved in a minimum of 6,860 alcoholrelated fatalities – 68% of the alcohol-impaired fatalities.
 Alcohol-impaired-driving carries an estimated economic
cost of $49.8 billion (2010).
Are DWI offenders really that
different from drug offenders?
DWI offenders are different than drug

offenders
DWI offenders
in are
that
different
they
thanare
drug offenders
moreinlikely
that theyto
are be
more
likely to be high functioning in other areas of their lives (with higher
higheducation
functioning
in other areas of their lives
levels and jobs)
t if we add:
(with higher education levels and jobs)

DWI offenders are different than drug offenders in that they are more
likely to be high functioning in other areas of their lives (with higher
education levels and jobs)
Is this true?
(Anecdotal – but little research)
Are DWI offenders really that
different from drug offenders?
 What does the data say?
 Recent statewide study in Colorado
 Included all adult drug courts (24) and DWI courts (9)
 Compared ADC participants and DWI participants
DWI offenders are more likely
to be male
Percent Male
74%
68%
Drug Court
DWI Court
DWI offenders are more likely
to be white
Percent White
68%
82%
Drug Court
DWI Court
DWI offenders are more likely
to be older
Avg. Age
40
32
Drug Court
DWI Court
DWI offenders are more likely
to have higher education
Colorado
Study
29%
Drug Court
DWI Court
15%
12%
4%
Less than 12th grade
College Graduate
DWI offenders are more likely to
be employed
Colorado
Study
Drug Court
59%
DWI Court
19%
Unemployed
65%
21%
Employed full-time
DWI offenders are more likely to be higher
income
Colorado
Study
Income per Quarter
64%
Drug Court
DWI Court
30%
25%
9%
Less than $2000
$4000-$7000
DWI offenders are less likely to score as
high risk
Colorado
Study
Scored at medium to high risk (LSI)
70%
33%
Drug Court
DWI Court
Are DWI offenders really that
different from drug offenders?
Colorado
Study
It looks like it!
Are DWI Courts Effective?
Are DWI Courts Effective?
YES! (Colorado)
2
24 Months Prior to Program Entry
Average # of Re-Arrests
24 Months After Program Entry
1.5
1.1
1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.06
0
Drug
0.0 0.02
Property
0.1
0.05
Person
0.03
DWI
0.08
Felony
Are DWI Courts Effective?
A study of 3 DWI Courts in Michigan
 3 Counties - Ottawa, Bay, Oakland
(Clarkston)
 Comparison group of eligible DWI
offenders prior to DWI Court
implementation
 Examined recidivism, length of time to
re-arrest, and the use of CJ system
resources
DUI Court participants were 19 times
less likely to be re-arrested on a DWI
charge
Percent of People Re-Arrested
DUI Court
Comparison Group
24.2
15.2
4.3
% Arrested-First Year
DUI N=143
Comparison N=66
13.6
7.7
0.7
% Arrested-Two Years
DUI N=72
Comparison N =66
% Arrested for DUI - Two
Years
DUI N=72
Comparison n=66
DUI Court Participants:
 Were over 3 times less likely to be re-arrested on any charges
Ottawa
CountyDUI
DUI Court,
Court, MIMI
Ottawa
County
DWI Court
Participants also
used less criminal
justice system
resources (which
means lower costs
and more savings)
Ottawa County DUI Court, MI
DWI Court Participants Spent
More Time in Treatment
Days in Treatment
Comparison
N=66
156
Drug Court Participants
N=143
224
0
50
100
150
200
250
Ottawa
MI
OttawaCounty
CountyDUI
DUI Court,
Court, MI
DWI Court Participants
Spent Almost Half the Time in Jail
Before Entering the Program
Days in Jail Before Entry
Comparison
N=66
8
Drug Court Participants
N=143
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
Ottawa
MI
OttawaCounty
CountyDUI
DUI Court,
Court, MI
DWI Court Participants
Spent Almost Half the Time in Jail
After Entering the Program
Days in Jail After Entry
Comparison
N=66
70
Drug Court Participants
N=143
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ottawa
MI
OttawaCounty
CountyDUI
DUI Court,
Court, MI
Minnesota Study in 9 DWI Courts
 Completed September 2014
 Process
10 Key Components
10 Guiding Principles
 Outcomes
Cost-Benefit
Ottawa County DUI Court, MI
DWI Court Participants Had Fewer
Rearrests Over 3 Years From Entry
Example:
St. Louis
County
DWI Court
Average Number of Rearrests
Graduates
DWI Court
Comparison
0.83
1.00
0.62
0.75
0.50
0.34
0.28
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.11
0.25
0.10
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
OttawaEntry
County DUI Court, MI
Number of Years from DWI Court
Recidivism Costs per Person:
DWI Court Resulted in a Savings of
$4,814 per Participant
A Savings of $1.8 Million over 5 Years
Graduates
Example:
St. Louis
County
DWI Court
DWI Court
$4,814
$20,000
$15,000
$9,797
$10,000
$16,206
$11,392
$10,015
$5,000
$-
Comparison
$2,633
$1,527
1 Year
2 Years
Ottawa County DUI Court, MI
Number of Years from DWI Court Entry
Are DWI Courts Effective?
So far, there is good
evidence that DWI
Courts are more
efficient and more
effective for treating
DWI offenders than
traditional probation
Who Does it Work For?
Participants (regardless of graduation status) at the majority of MN’s 9
DWI Courts had lower re-arrest rates but not all of them
Graduates
0.87
All Participants
Comparison
0.81
0.75
0.70
Number of Re-Arrests
0.65
0.65
0.54
0.46
0.31
0.62
0.59
0.57
0.36
0.29
0.20
0.52
0.53
0.47
0.30
0.34
0.21
0.30
0.44
0.28
0.25
0.19
0.14
DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court DWI Court
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
County
n = 51
n = 48
n = 46
n = 273
n = 33
n = 43
n = Ottawa
140
n = 30 DUI Court,
n = 74 MI
Who Does it Work For?
Average Number of Rearrests by Number of Prior Arrests at 2 Years
MN DWI
Court
Study
9 Sites
Average Number of Rearrests
Comparison (n=81)
1.50
1.25
1.00
p<.01
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1
2
3
Average Number of Prior Arrests
4
Ottawa County DUI Court, MI
Who Does it Work For?
Average Number of Rearrests by Number of Prior Arrests at 2 Years
MN DWI
Court
Study
9 Sites
Average Number of Rearrests
DWI Court (n=48)
Comparison (n=81)
1.50
1.25
1.00
p<.01
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1
2
3
Average Number of Prior Arrests
4
Ottawa County DUI Court, MI
Top 10 Best Practices
• DWI Court Guidelines
What is Working?
Drug Court Top 10
• Top 10 Best Practices for Reducing
Cost (Increasing Cost Savings)
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
10. Drug Courts Where the Judge Was Assigned Voluntary had 84%
greater reductions in recidivism
Judge volunteered for Drug/DWI Court
Reduction in Re-Arrests
35%
19%
Yes
N=27
No
N=11
GP #6: Take a Judicial Leadership Role
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
9. Drug Courts that used program evaluations to make
modifications in drug court operations had
85% greater reductions in recidivism
The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in
drug court operations
% reductions in # of rearrests
0.40
0.37
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Yes
N=21
GP #9: Evaluate the Program
No
N=13
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
8. Drug Courts where Law Enforcement is a member
of the drug court team had
88% greater reductions in recidivism
Law Enforcement is a Member of Drug Court Team
0.50
0.45
0.45
% reduction in # of rearrests
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.24
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Yes
N=20
No
N=29
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
7. Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative Attends
Court Hearings had
100% greater reductions in recidivism
A Representative from Treatment Attends Court Hearings
% reduction in # of rearrests
40%
38%
35%
30%
25%
19%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Yes
N=57
No
N=10
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
6. Drug Courts Where Review of the Data and/or Program
Statistics Led to Modifications in Program Operations had
105% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #9: Evaluate the Program
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
5. Drug Courts Where a Representative From Treatment
Attends Drug Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had
105% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
4. Drug Courts Where Treatment Communicates with
the Court via Email had
119% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
3. Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3
Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings
had 153% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #6: Take a Judicial Leadership Role
Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3
Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court
Hearings had 153% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #6: Take a Judicial Leadership Role
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
2. Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater
than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation
Had 164% greater reductions in recidivism
GP #7: Develop Case Management Strategies
GP #3: Develop the Treatment Plan
2. Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater
than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation
Had 164% greater reductions in recidivism
Reduction in Recidivism
45%
35%
25%
0-90 days clean
N=15
91-180 days clean
N=39
181-365 days clean
N=10
Drug Court Top 10
*Recidivism*
1. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active
Participants) of less than 125 had
567% greater reductions in recidivism
Fidelity to the model: All Guidelines apply
1. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active
Participants) of less than 125 had
567% greater reductions in recidivism
1. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active
Participants) of less than 125 had
567% greater reductions in recidivism
In larger drug courts:
• The Judge spent less time per participant in court (nearly half the
time)
• Tx and LE were less likely to attend staffings
(All team members were less likely to attend staffings)
• Tx and LE was were less likely to attend court hearings
• Tx was less likely to communicate with the court through email
• Greater number of Tx agencies (8 vs 3)
• Drug tests were less frequent
• Team members were less likely to be trained
*All findings above were statistically significant (p < .05)
Drug Court Top
10*Cost Savings*
10. Drug Courts Where Law Enforcement attends
court sessions had
64% Higher Cost Savings
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
9. Drug Courts Where Drug Tests are Collected at Least Two
Times per Week In the First Phase had
68% Higher Cost Savings
GP #4: Supervise the Offender
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
8. Drug Courts Where Drug Test Results are Back in 48 Hours or
Less had
68% Higher Cost Savings
GP #4: Supervise the Offender
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
7. Drug Courts Where Team Members are Given a Copy of the
Guidelines for Sanctions had
72% Higher Cost Savings
GP #7: Develop Case Management Strategies
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
6. Drug Courts Where a Representative from Treatment Attends
Court Sessions had
81% Higher Cost Savings
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
5.
Drug Courts Where in Order to Graduate Participants
Must Have a Job or be in School had
83% Higher Cost Savings
GP #7: Develop Case Management Strategies
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
4. Drug Courts Where the Defense Attorney Attends Drug
Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had
93% Higher Cost Savings
GP #5: Forge Agency, Organization, and Community
Partnerships
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
3. Drug Courts Where Sanctions Are Imposed Immediately
After Non-compliant Behavior had
100% Higher Cost Savings
GP #7: Develop Case Management Strategies
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
2. Drug Courts Where The Results Of Program Evaluations
Have Led to Modifications In Drug Court Operations had
100% Higher Cost Savings
GP #9: Evaluate the Program
Drug Court Top 10
*Cost Savings*
1. Drug Courts Where Review of The Data and Stats Has Led to
Modifications in Drug Court Operations had
131% Higher Cost Savings
GP #9: Evaluate the Program
Additional Best Practices
of Particular Interest
Courts that use jail greater than 6 days have
worse (higher) recidivism
GP #7: Develop Case Management Strategies
More jail time is related to
higher costs
40%
Savings
% cost savings
20%
0%
1 day
2 days
3-6 days
1 week
-20%
-40%
-60%
Loss
-80%
-100%
Typical length of a jail sanction
2 weeks
> 2 weeks
Themes in the Top 10
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the judges, coordinators and staff at
numerous drug courts who welcomed us to their
program, answered our un-ending questions and
helped us find and collect mountains of data!