Transcript Powerpoint - NPC Research

Drug Courts:
Some Answers to Our Burning
Questions
MADCP
Lansing, Michigan
February 10, 2009
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
NADCP
May 2008
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530
Portland, OR 97239
503.243.2436
February 10, 2009
The Burning Questions
Do drug court participants really get rearrested less often?
How does that affect other system
resources (e.g., jail, detention)?
How long does the “drug court effect” on
recidivism last?
The Burning Questions
Are drug courts cost effective (costbeneficial)?
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?
• How important are community partners?
Who is NPC Research?
• In the past 10 years NPC has completed
evaluation and research in over 75 drug
courts
• 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
• Used stop watches
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)
Six Sites With Different FTDC Models
1.
Baltimore City: System-wide reform serving families
with at least one child that has never been involved
with child welfare
2.
Harford: Single, dedicated treatment provider for the
entire program.
3.
San Diego: System-wide reform with FTDC for noncompliant parents
4.
Santa Clara: Mostly traditional FTDC model; some
systems changes
5.
Suffolk: Neglect cases only, many children not in outof-home placements
6.
Washoe:
Traditional FTDC model
8
Juvenile Drug Courts Outcome and Cost
Evaluation in Oregon and Maryland
• JDC studies: one in Oregon, one in Maryland
• Comparison group of youth who were eligible
but were not referred
• Outcomes: Re-arrests, substance use,
detention/jail, costs/benefits
• Costs: Investment and Outcome costs to
taxpayer
Note: Will talk more about methods in the next
workshop later today – but ask questions!
9
The Burning Questions
Recidivism
Adult and Juvenile
• Do drug court
participants
really get rearrested less
often?
• If so, how long does the effect last?
• Is it the same for all drug courts?
Recidivism
(Juvenile and Adult Courts)
• Of all the DC’s NPC has evaluated
(~75), 7 have not resulted in lower
recidivism for participants
Juvenile Drug Court Participants had
lower recidivism rates (Clackamas)
2 years from drug court entry
Graduates
29%
All Participants
Comparison
44%
82%
2nd year after drug court entry (1 year postprogram)
Graduates
14%
All Participants
Comparison
29%
50%
18 drug courts in 4 states
(+ 1 U.S. territory)
Drug Court Participants had lower
recidivism rates
After
22%
38%
50%
2 years:
Graduates
All Participants
Comparison Group
Juvenile Drug Court Participants had
Fewer Re-Arrests (Clackamas)
Average Number of Re-Arrests (Adult and Juvenile) Over 24 months
Average Number of Re-arrests
2.5
2
All
Participants
1.5
Graduated
1
Comparison
0.5
0
3
6
9
12
15
Months
18
21
24
Recidivism Continues to be Lower for Drug
Court Participants 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
Family Drug Court
• Does FDC lead to
increased use of
treatment?
• Do FDC programs
decrease the use of outof-home placements?
• Does FDC lead to permanency faster and
increase successful re-unification?
Days Spent in Treatment
* Statistically significant at p<.001.
17
Percent Completing
at Least One Treatment
**Statistically significant at p<.001.
18
*Statistically significant at p<.01.
Time in Out-of-Home
Placement
Site
Drug Court
Comparison
Baltimore City
mean days*
N=200
252
N=200
346
Harford
mean days*
N=53
136
N=26
443
San Diego
mean days
N=824
226
N=463
232
Santa Clara
mean days
N=194
190
N=1,112
218
Suffolk
mean days
N=262
114
N=496
82
Washoe
mean days*
N=165
199
N=245
336
19
* Statistically significant at p<.001.
Days to Permanent Placement
20
* Statistically significant at p<.05.
Percent Reunified
21
* Statistically significant at p<.05. ** Statistically significant at p<.001.
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?
Adult Drug Court Program Investment
Big Range
$4,500 - $30,000 per participant
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
Multnomah Co.
Probation time*
Total cost
*
Cost Difference
(benefit)
Difference is significant: p<.01
Note: Drug Court cost less than traditional court processing
Clackamas Juvenile: Investment Cost (per Participant)
Transaction
Transaction
Unit Cost
DC Appearances
$373.83
Case Management
$29.78
$52.48
Individual
Treatment Sessions
Group Treatment
Sessions
Family Therapy
Sessions
Avg. # of
Program
Transactions
29.55
356.82 Days
8.35
Avg. Cost per
Participant
$11,047
$10,626
$438
$16.33
37.88
$619
$19.99
9.12
$182
Parent Support
Group
$9.54
26.41
$252
Parent Education
Classes
$9.33
4.47
$42
$6.00
$20.00
70.96
1.19
$426
$24
Drug Tests
Drug Patches
Total Drug
Court
25
$23,656
Clackamas Program/Placement Costs per Day
Placement Options
Cost Per Day
CCJDC Program
$66
Residential Treatment
$134
Shelter Care
$115
Short-term Detention
$187
Long-term Detention
$171
Adult Jail
$97
Investment in CA
Average
investment
across 9
drug courts
in California
Costs and Benefits
Benefits
Benefits in CA
Net savings
across 9
drug courts
in California
4 years
5-Year 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
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
Juvenile Drug Courts Show Cost
Savings/Benefits
Per participant recidivism costs over 2 years
in juvenile drug courts
•
Clackamas County Oregon Juvenile Drug Court
$961 savings
Graduates minus Comparison = $10,958 savings
 All Drug Court minus Comparison =

•
Harford County Maryland Juvenile Drug Court
$5,702 savings
Graduates minus Comparison = $7,508 savings
 All Drug Court minus Comparison =

The Burning Questions
Community and Parent Involvement
• How important are partnerships in the
community?
After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent
Involvement There were Significantly Fewer Re-arrests
Average # of re-arrests
Mean Number of Re-Referrals and Arrests in 3-Month “Data
Check-Ins”
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Preenhancement
Postenhancement
Comparison
3
9
Months
18
After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent
Involvement Drug Use Decreased Substantially
Substance Use: Percent of Positive UAs in 2 Month
Increments
0.3
Percent positive UAs
0.25
0.2
Preenhancement
0.15
0.1
Postenhancement
0.05
0
2
4
6
8
Months
10
12
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
38
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
39
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
Juvenile Drug Court Participants with Large
Amounts of Detention Time were Terminated
Clackamas Detention Costs Averaged per Youth
$12,000
Detention Costs
$10,000
$8,000
Year 1
$6,000
Year 2
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Graduated
Terminated
Comparison
Year 1
$747
$9,785
$2,598
Year 2
$393
$2,876
$1,791
*Note: Year 1 Detention time is in-program
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
53
Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days
Clean Had Larger Cost Savings
May 2008 NADCP
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
54
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
62
Contact Information
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
63
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!
Part IV: Harford Cost Study
Results
Non-FRC cases are more costly; most costs are child
welfare-related
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$57,355
$23,256
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$2,313,631
$1,714,141
Child Welfare Costs
$500,000
$FRC Cases
65
Criminal Justice Costs
Non-FRC
Cases
Cost Study Findings
The FRC produces savings worth more than
3.5 times the investment costs
$1,000,000.00
$633,589
$500,000.00
$173,848
$Investment
66
Savings