Transcript Slide 1

Research on Drugs
and Crime:
Where We’ve Been and
Where We’re Going
Thomas E. Feucht, Ph.D.
Acting Assistant Director
National Institute of Justice
[email protected]
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
California ACJR Meeting
Sacramento, CA, March 17, 2005
Presentation Overview
• Overview of NIJ
• Where we’ve been in D&C research
– What we think we know
– What we actually know from research
• Where we ought to be going – and why
NIJ Overview
• NIJ’s mission: Enhance justice and public safety
through research, development, and evaluation
• NIJ’s research focus: Aid state and local CJ
practitioners and policymakers
• NIJ’s research agenda:
– Broad, national perspective
– Established by the NIJ Director
– guided by the needs of CJ professionals, policymakers, and
researchers
National Institute of Justice
Sarah V. Hart, Director
Office of the Director
Office of Research
And Evaluation
Office of Science
And Technology
Evaluation Division
Research and Technology
Development Division
Crime Control and Prevention
Research Division
Investigative and Forensic
Sciences Division
Violence and Victimization
Research Division
Technology Assistance
Division
Justice Systems
Research Division
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Office of Research and Evaluation
Acting Assistant Director
for Research and Evaluation
Thomas Feucht
Deputy Assistant Dir
Ed Zedlewski
Justice Systems
Research Division
Chris Innes
Crime Control and Prevention
Research Division
Bryan Vila
InternationalResearch Center
Jay Albanese
Evaluations
Division
Betty Chemers
Violence and Victimization
Research Division
Angela Moore Parmley
NIJ Funding, 1993-2005 ($M)
2005 (est)
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
0
50
100
Direct Approp'n
150
200
Separate Approp'n
250
300
Transfers
350
FY 03-05 Base Appropriations
Social Science
Discretionary
Violence Against
Women Research
Technology
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
$22
$8.3
$11.0
$5.2
$5.0
$4.9
$32.8
$38.0
$43.3
Research on Drugs and Crime:
Where We’ve Been…
Drug Court Research
NIJ Research on Drug Courts
•
•
•
•
•
•
Active portfolio since mid-1990s
More than $5 million invested to date
More than 25 different courts
Range of topics, issues
Investments in research improvement
On-going longitudinal drug court evaluation
NIJ Research on Drug Courts, cont’d
• DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program
evaluation (1997)
• Clark Cty (NV) and Multnomah Cty (OR)
evaluations (2001)
• Kansas City (MO) and Pensacola (FL) evaluations
(2001)
• Treatment modalities study (2002)
• Multnomah (OR) cost study (2004)
• NY State six-court evaluation (OJP, 2003)
Drug Court Research:
What We Know and What We Don’t Know
ASSERTIONS ( “testable hypotheses”):
H1: Treatment Works
H2: Length of Treatment Matters
H3: The Judge Matters
H4: Sanctions and Incentives Make a Difference
H5: Drug Courts Achieve Results
H4: Sanctions and Incentives
Make a Difference
• Evidence:
– Treatment research has provided evidence
– Evaluation of NIJ’s “Breaking the Cycle”
program provided evidence of the importance
of sanctions and incentives
– DC Superior Court test of “graduated
sanctions”
Sanctions and Incentives:
What We Don’t Know
• Question of balance
• Tied to the role of the judge
• Theoretical model of a drug court
H5: Drug Courts Achieve Results
Outcomes:
• Reduced drug use
• Reduced recidivism
• Cost Effectiveness
Reducing Recidivism
• NIJ national study of 2,020 graduates from
95 drug courts (Urban/Caliber 2003)
– Indicates 16.4% recidivism one year after
graduation
– 27.5% after two years
• Compared to what?
Reducing Recidivism (cont’d)
• Randomized Control Trials
– DC Superior Court
– Baltimore City
– Maricopa County
• Matched samples, other designs
Reducing Recidivism (cont’d):
Randomized: Enrolled vs Control Group
• Re-arrest at 12 months post-admission
– 48% vs 66% (Baltimore City)
– 66% vs 81% at 24 months post-adm (Balt. City)
• Re-arrest at 12 months post-sentencing
– 19% vs 27% (DC Superior)
• Re-arrest at 36 months post-treatment
– 33% vs 47%
Reducing Recidivism (cont’d):
Problems and Dilemmas
• Measuring recidivism
– Arrest vs conviction
– Drug offense? Technical violation? Other?
– Cachment of offending?
• Time frame
– Starting point: admission, completion, other?
– Offending during period of treatment?
Cost-Benefit of Drug Courts
• Multnomah County study shows system
savings
• Washington State Institute for Public Policy
• New York (CCI) study show cost
effectiveness
• NIDA “Measuring and Improving Costs of
Tx Programs” (1999)
Cost-Benefit of Drug Courts (cont’d):
Multnomah Costs and Benefits
• Up-front costs: $5927 for DC client vs $7369
for “business-as-usual” offenders
– Drug court costs $1441 less up front
– Due largely in jail and probation savings
• Benefits (later costs avoided)
– First year: drug court avoids $3597 in later costs
– 30 months: drug court avoids $5071
• x 300 clients/yr = $1,521,471 system savings
Cost-Benefit of Drug Courts:
Problems and Dilemmas
• How to capture marginal costs, savings
• Savings in other parts of CJ system
• Savings to victim
“If drug courts were required to undergo the same
type of approval process as new medications, they
would probably be labeled as ‘experimental’ and
might not be approved for specific uses. This is
because we do not yet understand their mechanism of
action, do not know their contraindications, and do not
know their proper dosage…. [But] there is ample
scientific support to warrant further research on them
and to make them available to desperate clients who
have not responded favorably to currently available
treatments.”
Marlowe (2003)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM) Program
Arrestee Drug Test Results for Methamphetamine,
2000-2002
Percent Positive
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
00Q1 00Q2
00Q3 00Q4 01Q1 01Q2 01Q3
Overall
Pacific Rim
01Q4 02Q1
Other Sites
9
The percent of arrestees who use a phone to
buy drugs has been increasing, in general
50
40
Marijuana
Crack Cocaine
Powder Cocaine
Heroin
Methamphetamine
30
20
10
0
00Q1 00Q2 00Q3 00Q4 01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4
Recent Developments on ADAM
• ADAM program terminated at the end of
FY 2003 due to NIJ budget constraints
• 2003 Annual report and data forthcoming
• Plans underway at BJS for new national
felony arrestee drug use monitoring sample
ADAM , concluded
• Contracting funding, competing objectives
(national v. local)
• How to understand local drug patterns,
problems? To what end?
Other Important Research on
Drugs and Crime
• Re-entry (including NIJ’s SVORI
evaluation)
• Prescription drugs (Rogers PDDP)
• Meth labs and public safety
• Campus Drug Courts (Colo St Univ)
… and where does all this lead us?
Principles and Lessons Thus Far
• Test the hypothesis (RCTs)
• Research is a long-term endeavor
• Budget limitations are real
• Value of studying drugs in the CJ context
One Other Lesson
• Danger of “intervening events:”
– new drugs (like ecstasy)
– New Policies (like Prop 36)
Ecstasy Sellers
Sheigla Murphy, Inst. For Sci. Anal, SF, CA
• “Friends selling to friends”
• Use largely limited to “social situations”
• 54% of sellers wanted “out”
• Transition to selling powder cocaine?
California SACPA (Prop 36)
• UCLA 2nd year report
• Tx referrals
– 44,000 in Year 1, 50,000 in Year 2
– About ½ for methamphetamine
– Many entering Tx for first time ever
• About 70 percent of those referred show up for Tx
– Of these, about 1/3 completed Tx
www.uclaisap.org
Okla Pseudoeph Law (2003)
• Pseudoephedrine tables Schedule V
– Requires photo ID, signature
– Sold from a “secure” location (behind counter)
• Monthly lab seizures:
– 14.5/mo in 2003
– 5.3/mo since April 2004
Research on Drugs and Crime:
Where We’re Going…
“Signposts”
1. All crime is local.
• Crime “hotspots”
• Mapping and GIS
• Local problem-solving is efficacious.
2. “S____ Happens.”
The rate of change in offending and in the
CJS sometimes (often?) outstrips the
knowledge-gathering tools we use to study,
understand, and respond to crime.
– Technological innovation
– Policy changes
– Offenders, drug markets, cybercrime, etc.
3. Researchers need to be antagonistic.
• Look for commonalities where others see
only uniqueness.
• Recognize the unique where others want to
generalize.
Recommendation #1:
Measurement
• Improvement and consistency needed in
measuring:
– treatment compliance/attendance/retention
– Sanctions and incentives
– recidivism
Recommendation #2:
Research Designs
• The value of RCTs: “research-led policy”
• Alternatives: local problem-solving, action
research
• Liberman on “Research-generating policy”
• Kleiman on “imperfect rationality”
Recommendation #3:
Tempered Expectations
• Addiction is a chronic disease.
• Understand addiction in a context of personal
dysfunction.
• Relapse requires an array of available responses.
• System changes will occur.
• Isolating effects is difficult in a complex
environment.
So… Where are We Headed?
• CJ program evaluation, but only with
rigorous designs
• “Cost-Benefit/Effectiveness Analysis
• Examining drug policy
• Testing/proving the value-added of
research, especially for local problemsolving
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
National Institute of Justice
www.ncjrs.org
National Criminal Justice Research Service
(Publications clearinghouse)
[email protected]
Thomas E. Feucht
Office of Research and Evaluation
NIJ