1 / 46

Research on Drugs and Crime: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

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 thomas.feucht@usdoj.gov www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij California ACJR Meeting Sacramento, CA, March 17, 2005. Presentation Overview.

Albert_Lan
Download Presentation

Research on Drugs and Crime: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 thomas.feucht@usdoj.gov www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij California ACJR Meeting Sacramento, CA, March 17, 2005

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

  5. Office of Research and Evaluation Acting Assistant Director for Research and Evaluation Thomas Feucht InternationalResearch Center Jay Albanese Deputy Assistant Dir Ed Zedlewski Justice Systems Research Division Chris Innes Crime Control and Prevention Research Division Bryan Vila Evaluations Division Betty Chemers Violence and Victimization Research Division Angela Moore Parmley

  6. NIJ Funding, 1993-2005 ($M)

  7. FY 03-05 Base Appropriations

  8. Research on Drugs and Crime:Where We’ve Been…

  9. Drug Court Research

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. 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”

  14. Sanctions and Incentives:What We Don’t Know • Question of balance • Tied to the role of the judge • Theoretical model of a drug court

  15. H5: Drug Courts Achieve Results Outcomes: • Reduced drug use • Reduced recidivism • Cost Effectiveness

  16. 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?

  17. Reducing Recidivism (cont’d) • Randomized Control Trials • DC Superior Court • Baltimore City • Maricopa County • Matched samples, other designs

  18. 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%

  19. 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?

  20. 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)

  21. 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

  22. Cost-Benefit of Drug Courts: Problems and Dilemmas • How to capture marginal costs, savings • Savings in other parts of CJ system • Savings to victim

  23. “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)

  24. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program

  25. Arrestee Drug Test Results for Methamphetamine, 2000-2002 Percent Positive 9

  26. The percent of arrestees who use a phone to buy drugs has been increasing, in general

  27. 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

  28. ADAM , concluded • Contracting funding, competing objectives (national v. local) • How to understand local drug patterns, problems? To what end?

  29. 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?

  30. 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

  31. One Other Lesson • Danger of “intervening events:” • new drugs (like ecstasy) • New Policies (like Prop 36)

  32. 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?

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. Research on Drugs and Crime:Where We’re Going…

  36. “Signposts”

  37. 1. All crime is local. • Crime “hotspots” • Mapping and GIS • Local problem-solving is efficacious.

  38. 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.

  39. 3. Researchers need to be antagonistic. • Look for commonalities where others see only uniqueness. • Recognize the unique where others want to generalize.

  40. Recommendation #1:Measurement • Improvement and consistency needed in measuring: • treatment compliance/attendance/retention • Sanctions and incentives • recidivism

  41. 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”

  42. 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.

  43. 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 problem-solving

  44. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

  45. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nijNational Institute of Justicewww.ncjrs.orgNational Criminal Justice Research Service(Publications clearinghouse) thomas.feucht@usdoj.govThomas E. Feucht Office of Research and Evaluation NIJ

More Related