Transcript Powerpoint - NPC Research

Drug Courts:
Some Answers to Our Burning
Questions
NADCP
May 2008
Drug Courts: Some Answers to
Our Burning Questions
How Drug Court Practices Impact
Recidivism
and
Costs
How Drug
Court
Practices Impact
Shannon Carey, Ph.D.
Recidivism and Costs Mike Finigan, Ph.D.
Juliette Mackin, Ph.D.
NADCP
May 2008
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530
Portland, OR 97239
503.243.2436
May 29, 2008
The Burning Questions
Do drug court participants really get rearrested less often?
How long does the “drug court effect” on
recidivism last?
Are drug courts cost effective (costbeneficial)?
The Burning Questions
What 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?
The Research
• In the past 5 years NPC has completed
over 50 drug court evaluations and
research studies
• Adult, Juvenile and Family Treatment
(Dependency) Drug Courts
• In California, Guam, Indiana, Michigan,
Maryland, Missouri, New York, Nevada
Oregon and Vermont
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
The Burning Questions
Recidivism
• Do drug court
participants really
get re-arrested
less often than
offenders who
don’t go through
drug court?
• If so, how long does the effect last?
• Is it the same for all drug courts?
Recidivism
• 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
9 California Adult Drug Courts
Drug Court Participants had lower
recidivism rates
After
17%
29%
41%
2 years:
Graduates
All Participants
Comparison Group
18 drug courts in 4 states
(+ 1 territory)
Drug Court Participants had lower
recidivism rates
After
22%
38%
50%
2 years:
Graduates
All Participants
Comparison Group
Recidivism after 14 Years
Percentage reduction in re-arrests
% improvement in # of re-arrests
30%
26%
25%
25%
25%
23%
22%
20%
20%
22%
21%
19%
20%
24%
17%
17%
8
9
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
Years from Drug Court Entry
 Year 1 N = 10,907; Year 14 N = 317
 Significant difference between DC and Comparison every year up to
14 years
(Adjusted for differences in demographics and criminal history)
The Burning Questions
Costs and Benefits
• How much does drug
court cost?
• Are drug courts costeffective? (Do they save
taxpayer money?)
• Which agencies invest the most in drug
court (and which invest the least)?
• Do any agencies save money due to drug
court?
Investment Cost (per Participant)
Investment cost
Drug Court
(n = 6,502)
Investment cost
BAU
(n = 4,600)
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
$226
$880
$1,355
$475
$5,168
$6,560
$1,392
Transactions
Probation time*
Total cost
*
Cost Difference
(benefit)
Difference is significant: p<.01
Note: Drug Court cost less than traditional court processing
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
$2,243,398
Bookings*
$598
$868
$269
$1,750,566
Court time*
$569
$802
$232
$1,510,545
Jail time*
$5,198
$8,474
$3,277
$21,305,168
Treatment
$1,392
$1,779
$387
$2,514,974
Probation*
$2,185
$2,730
$545
$3,544,630
Prison*
$5,402
$7,091
$1,688
$10,977,002
$16,197
$22,941
$6,744
$43,846,283
Total outcome
costs
Outcomes showed a benefit of $6,744 per drug court participant
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
Indiana
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
$318,710
since program
implementation
$247,746 $2,962,250 $1,921,845 $1,408,840
Total savings to local agencies and state (over 2 years) = $7,183,088
The Burning Questions
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
Drug Courts Where the Public Defender was
Expected to Attend All Drug Court Team
Meetings Had 8 Times Greater Savings
May 2008 NADCP
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
22
Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor was Expected
to Attend Drug Court Team Meetings Had more
than 2 Times Greater Savings
May, 2008 NADCP
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
23
The Burning Questions
Treatment
• Is it better to
have a single
treatment agency
or to have
multiple
treatment
options?
• 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
The Burning Questions
Jail
• How important is jail as a sanction?
Participants with the Possibility of Jail as a
Sanction had Lower Recidivism
6
Average number of Re-Arrests per
Participant
5.7
5
4.2
4
3
2
4
Drug Court
No Jail
N = 60
3
2.4
2
Drug Court
with Jail
N = 68
1
0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
 Drug court with same judge and same team had better outcomes
for participants when the option of jail as a sanction was available
The Burning Questions
The Judge
• How often should participants appear before the
judge?
• 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?
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
The Longer the Judge Spends on the Drug Court
Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes
% improvement in # of re-arrests
50%
45%
42%
40%
34%
35%
30%
30%
28%
27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
8%
4%
5%
0%
Judge 1A
Judge 2
Judge 3A
Judge 3B
Judge 1B
Judge 4
Judge 5
 Different judges had different impact on recidivism
 Judges did better their second time (or second year)
The Burning Questions
Drug Testing
•
How frequently should
participants be tested?
• How quickly should
results be available to
the team?
• Should there be a required length of time
participants must remain clean before
graduation? If so, how long should it be?
Courts That Performed Drug Testing 2 or More
Times per Week in the First Phase Had Savings
Note: 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
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
36
Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days
Clean Had Larger Cost Savings
May 2008 NADCP
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
37
The Burning Questions
Training
• How important is
formal training
for team
members?
• Who should be
trained?
• When should team members get trained?
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
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
The Burning Questions
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
• Does it matter
whether data are
kept in paper files or
in a database?
• 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
Conclusion:
Before DC
May 2008 NADCP
After DC
45
Contact Information
Mike Finigan, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Juliette Mackin, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Shannon Carey, Ph.D.
[email protected]
To learn more about NPC or more about drug court
evaluations including cost-benefit evaluations see:
www.npcresearch.com
46
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!