Transcript Public policy department Report to the Board of Directors

BEST
P
RACTICES
IN
Key Moments in NADCP History
JUVENILE DRUG COURTS
DOUGLAS B.
MARLOWE, J.D.,
PH.D.
CHIEF OF SCIENCE,
N
ATIONAL
L
AW &ASSOCIATION
P
OLICYOF DRUG
COURT PROFESSIONALS
What,
if anything,
Key Moments
in NADCPworks?
History
Average Effect of Juvenile Justice Dispositions on Recidivism
10%
8%
8%
7%
6%
Irrelevant
5%
0%
0%
Detention Traditional
processing
-5%
-10%
Scared
Straight
Boot camp/
Wilderness
Challenge
0%
Slightly helpful
JUVENILE
DRUG
COURT
Diversion
Drug
to services treatment
generally generally
Probation/
Parole
-4%
-3%
-7%
-8%
-10%
Harmful
Minimum Effect (%)
Maximum Effect (%)
-15%
Sources: Aos et al (2006); Drake (2012); Drake et al. (2009); Henggeler & Schoenwald
(2011); Lipsey (2009); Mitchell et al. (2012); Petrosino et al. (2010); Petrosino et al. (2013);
Schwalbe et al. (2012); Sedlak & McPherson (2010); Shaffer (2006); Stein et al. (2012);
Stein et al. (in press); Wilson et al. (2006); Wilson & Hoge (2012).
Meta-Analysis
KeyJDC
Moments
in NADCP History
60
40
Base rate
Juvenile Drug Court
20
0
Drug-related recidivism
General recidivism
Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)
JDC Meta-Analysis
60
no effect
50%
~ 48%
40
Base rate
Juvenile Drug Court
20
0
Drug-related recidivism
General recidivism
Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)
JDC Meta-Analysis
60
no effect
small effect
Also no effect:
50%
50%
~ 48%
44% *
• Shaffer (2006)
• Wilson et al. (2006)
• Madell et al. (2012)
40
Base rate
Juvenile Drug Court
20
Small effect (8%):
• Stein et al. (2015)
0
Drug-related recidivism
General recidivism
Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)
OJJDP Multisite Study
60
40
Juvenile Drug Court
Comparison Group
20
0
New offense /"referral"
Sullivan et al., 2014
New conviction /
"adjudication"
OJJDP Multisite Study
60
60% *
49%
40
Juvenile Drug Court
Comparison Group
20
0
New offense /"referral"
Sullivan et al., 2014
New conviction /
"adjudication"
OJJDP Multisite Study
60
Increased recidivism!
60% *
49%
45% *
40
33%
Juvenile Drug Court
Comparison Group
20
0
New offense /"referral"
Sullivan et al., 2014
New conviction /
"adjudication"
Fidelity
to Best
Practices
Key Moments
in NADCP
History
60
40
20
0
0%
Highly
adherent
Somewhat
adherent
Needs
improvement
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
Ineffective
Fidelity
to Best
Practices
Key Moments
in NADCP
History
60
40
22%
20
0
0%
Highly
adherent
Somewhat
adherent
Needs
improvement
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
Ineffective
Fidelity
to Best
Practices
Key Moments
in NADCP
History
60
44%
40
22%
20
0
0%
Highly
adherent
Somewhat
adherent
Needs
improvement
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
Ineffective
Fidelity
to Best
Practices
Key Moments
in NADCP
History
60
77% deficient programs
44%
40
33%
22%
20
0
0%
Highly
adherent
Somewhat
adherent
Needs
improvement
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
Ineffective
Teen
Characteristics
Key
Moments
in NADCP History
20
0
Primarily MJ Substance use
diagnosis
Prior S.A.
treatment
Less than Prior offense
weekly drug
use
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
High risk
Teen
Characteristics
Key
Moments
in NADCP History
80
71%
Low need & variable (mixed) risk
60
51%
40%
40
32%
24%
26%
20
0
Primarily or Substance use
only MJ
diagnosis
Prior S.A.
treatment
Less than Prior offense
weekly drug
use
Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)
High risk
Community
Panels
(notHistory
judges)
Key Moments
in NADCP
Cook et al., 2009
Community Panels (not judges)
JDC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
Re-arrest rates
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
12 mos.
Cook et al., 2009
24 mos.
54 mos.
Community Panels (not judges)
JDC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
Re-arrest rates
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
12 mos.
Cook et al., 2009
24 mos.
54 mos.
Community Panels (not judges)
JDC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
Re-arrest rates
80%
60%
No effect
40%
32% 33% 35%
20%
0%
12 mos.
Cook et al., 2009
24 mos.
54 mos.
Community Panels (not judges)
JDC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
Re-arrest rates
80%
No effect
60%
52% 52% 52%
No effect
40%
32% 33% 35%
20%
0%
12 mos.
Cook et al., 2009
24 mos.
54 mos.
Community Panels (not judges)
JDC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
No effect
100%
75% 72%
Re-arrest rates
80%
No effect
60%
69%
52% 52% 52%
No effect
40%
32% 33% 35%
20%
0%
12 mos.
Cook et al., 2009
24 mos.
54 mos.
Percent Improvement in Outcome Costs*
Drug
Courts
Key Adult
Moments
in NADCP
History
Structre
Bi-weekly Status Hearings
Court Sessions are Required Every 2 Weeks or Less in the First
Phase
50%
40%
39%
}
30%
20%
Twice the cost benefit
19%
10%
0%
Yes
N=3
No
N=10
* "Percent improvement in outcome costs" refers to the percent savings for drug court
compared to business-as-usual
Carey et al. (2012)
Length
of Interactions
Key
Moments
in NADCP History
Structre
43%
}
}
Two and a half times
the the
reduction
in crime
Twice
cost benefit
Carey et al. (2012)
17%
Positive
Judicial
Qualities
Key Moments
in NADCP
History
# Crimes averted
6
5
4.2 *
4
3.6 *
3
2
1
0.7
0
Low
Medium
High
*
Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012
p < .05
KeyFamily
MomentsatinHearings
NADCP History
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Salvatore et al., 2010
Father
Other
KeyFamily
MomentsatinHearings
NADCP History
50%
49% Family at approx. half of hearings
39%
40%
30%
20%
12%
11%
Father
Other
10%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Salvatore et al., 2010
KeyFamily
MomentsatinHearings
NADCP History
50%
49%
39%
40%
30%
20%
12%
11%
Father
Other
10%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Salvatore et al., 2010
NONE
ALL
KeyFamily
MomentsatinHearings
NADCP History
50%
49%
39%
40%
No family for fifth of kids
30%
26%
21%
20%
12%
11%
Father
Other
10%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Salvatore et al., 2010
NONE
ALL
Family and Outcomes
Juvenile outcomes
Family attendance
Absent from treatment
- .38**
Late to treatment
- .33*
Absent from school
- .21
Late to school
- .31*
Positive drug screen
- .26†
Received a sanction
- .38**
†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Family-Based Treatment
20
Days of Substance Use Per Month at
12-Month Follow-Up
15
10
5
0
Family Ct.
n=32
Henggeler et al., 2006
JDC
n=29
JDC + MST/CM
n=37
Family-Based Treatment
6
Days of Substance Use Per Month at
12-Month Follow-Up
4
2.70
*
2
1.32
0.19
0
Family Ct.
n=33
Henggeler et al., 2006
JDC
n=31
JDC + MST/CM
n=37
p < .05
Mediators of FDC Success
Essential Services
Mediating Changes
Outcomes
Parental
attendance
at status
hearings
Decreased
peer
delinquency
Decreased
Delinquency
Parental
attendance
at treatment
sessions
Decreased
peer drug
activity
Decreased
Alcohol Use
Juvenile
attendance
at status
hearings
Increased
parental
supervision
Decreased
Marijuana
Use
Juvenile
attendance
at treatment
sessions
Consistent
parental
supervision
Decreased
Polydrug
Use
Schaeffer et al., 2010
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentor Training
4
2
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Always
Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors
(Miller et al., 2012)
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentor Training
4
2.77
*
2.38
2.04
2
0
1.75
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Always
Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors
(Miller et al., 2012)
* p < .05
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentoring Frequency
4
2
0
1 to 2
3 to 4
>4
No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month
(Miller et al., 2012)
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentoring Frequency
4
2.97
*
2.55
2.18
2
0
1 to 2
3 to 4
>4
No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month
(Miller et al., 2012)
* p < .05
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentoring Intensity
4
2
0
< 1 hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings
(Miller et al., 2012)
> 3 hours
Treatment Plan Goals Achieved
Mentoring Intensity
4
2.92
2.67
*
2.44
2.24
2
0
< 1 hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings
(Miller et al., 2012)
> 3 hours
* p < .05
Best Practices
• Target high-risk & high-need teens (don’t mix!)
• Judge presides over frequent status hearings
• Family attendance in treatment and court
• Reduce associations with delinquent peers
• Enhance guardian supervision of teens
• Model consistent disciplinary practices
• Reduce reliance on detention
• Professionally trained mentors