Juvenile Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

1. Juvenile Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NEADCP October 2008

2. Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions How Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs How Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs • Shannon Carey, Ph.D. • Mike Finigan, Ph.D. • 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530 • Portland, OR 97239 • 503.243.2436 • May 29, 2008 NADCP May 2008

3. The Burning Questions Do juvenile drug court participants really get re-arrested/re-referred less often? How does that affect other system resources (e.g., detention)? How long does the “drug court effect” on recidivism last?

4. The Burning Questions Are juvenile drug courts cost effective (cost-beneficial)? • 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?

5. In California, Guam, Indiana, Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Nevada Oregon and Vermont 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

6. Recidivism The Burning Questions • Do juvenile drug court participants really get re-arrested less often? • If so, how long does the effect last? • Is it the same for all drug courts?

7. Recidivism • Of all the DC’s NPC has evaluated (~50), 4 have not resulted in lower recidivism for participants

8. Juvenile Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates (Clackamas) • 2 years from drug court entry Graduates 29% All Participants 44% Comparison 82% • 2nd year after drug court entry (1 year post-program) Graduates 14% All Participants 29% Comparison 50%

9. Juvenile Drug Court Participants had Fewer Re-Arrests (Clackamas) Average Number of Re-Arrests (Adult and Juvenile) Over 24 months

10. Juvenile Drug Court Participants used Fewer System Resources as Adults (Harford)

11. Recidivism Continues to be Lower for Drug Court Participants after 14 Years Percentage reduction in re-arrests • 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)

12. Costs and Benefits The Burning Questions • How much does juvenile drug court cost? • Are juvenile drug courts cost-effective? (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?

13. Transaction Transaction Unit Cost Avg. # of Program Transactions Avg. Cost per Participant DC Appearances $373.83 29.55 $11,047 CaseManagement $29.78 356.82 Days $10,626 $52.48 8.35 $438 Individual Treatment Sessions $16.33 37.88 $619 Group Treatment Sessions Family Therapy Sessions $19.99 9.12 $182 $9.54 26.41 $252 Parent Support Group $9.33 4.47 $42 Parent Education Classes Drug Tests $6.00 70.96 $426 1.19 $24 Drug Patches $20.00 $23,656 Total Drug Court Clackamas: Investment Cost (per Participant)

14. Transactions Multnomah Co. Investment cost Drug Court(n = 6,502) Investment cost BAU (n = 4,600) Cost Difference (benefit) 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 Probation time* $880 $1,355 $475 Total cost $5,168 $6,560 $1,392 Investment Cost (per Participant) * Difference is significant: p<.01 Note:Drug Court cost less than traditional court processing

15. Harford: Average Program Costs per Participant ($11,689 = $41 per day)

16. Harford: Options for High-Risk Youth

17. 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

18. Juvenile Drug Courts Show Cost Savings/Benefits • Per participant recidivism costs over 2 years in juvenile drug courts • Clackamas County Oregon Juvenile Drug Court • All Drug Court minus Comparison = $961 savings • Graduates minus Comparison = $10,958 savings • Harford County Maryland Juvenile Drug Court • All Drug Court minus Comparison = $5,702 savings • Graduates minus Comparison = $7,508 savings

19. Costs and Benefits Harford: Year 1, Year 2 and Cumulative Outcome Costs Juvenile Drug Court Participants cost $4,000 less than the comparison group

20. Community and Parent Involvement The Burning Questions • Does having parents involved really help the kids? • How important are partnerships in the community?

21. After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent Involvement There were Significantly Fewer Re-arrests Mean Number of Re-Referrals and Arrests in 3-Month “Data Check-Ins”

22. After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent Involvement Drug Use Decreased Substantially Substance Use: Percent of Positive UAs in 2 Month Increments

23. Team Involvement The Burning Questions • Does it matter if the treatment provider attends court sessions? • Is it important for the attorneys to attend team meetings (“staffings”)?

24. Courts That Required a Treatment Representative at Drug Court Sessions Had 9 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

25. Drug Courts Where the Public Defender was Expected to Attend All Drug Court Team Meetings Had 8 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

26. Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor was Expected to Attend Drug Court Team Meetings Had more than 2 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

27. Treatment The Burning Questions • 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?

28. Courts That Used a Single Treatment Agency had 10 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

29. Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Lower Investment Costs Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

30. Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of Treatment Sessions Had Greater Cost Savings Note: Difference for group is significant at p<.05

31. Jail The Burning Questions • How important is jail as a sanction?

32. Participants with the Possibility of Jail as a Sanction had Lower Recidivism • Drug court with same judge and same team had better outcomes • for participants when the option of jail as a sanction was available

33. Juvenile Drug Court Participants with Large Amounts of Detention Time were Terminated Clackamas Detention Costs Averaged per Youth *Note: Year 1 Detention time is in-program

34. The Judge The Burning Questions • 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?

35. 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

36. 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

37. The Longer the Judge Spends on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes • Different judges had different impact on recidivism • Judges did better their second time (or second year)

38. Drug Testing The Burning Questions • 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?

39. Courts That Performed Drug Testing 2 or More Times per Week in the First Phase Had Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

40. Courts that Received Drug Test Results Within 48 Hours of Sample Collection Had 3 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

41. Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days Clean Had Larger Cost Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

42. Training The Burning Questions • How important is formal training for team members? • Who should be trained? • When should team members get trained?

43. Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for All Team Members Had 5 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

44. Drug Courts That Had Training Prior to Implementation Had 15 Times Greater Cost Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

45. Monitoring and Evaluation The Burning Questions • 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?

46. Courts that Continued to Use Paper Files for Some Data (Rather Than Electronic Databases) had Less Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

47. 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

48. Summary: Practices that relate to better outcomes (lower costs, lower recidivism, greater savings): See Handout

49. Conclusion: Before DC After DC

50. Contact Information Shannon Carey, Ph.D. carey@npcresearch.com To learn more about NPC or more about drug court evaluations including cost-benefit evaluations see: www.npcresearch.com