Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

1. The Verdicts Are In National Association of Drug Court Professionals Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

2. Adult Drug Courts Crime Reduced on Avg. by . . . Institution Number of Drug Courts Citation Wilson et al. (2006) Campbell Collaborative 14% to 26% Latimer et al. (2006) 55 Canada Dept. of Justice 14% 66 Shaffer (2006) University of Nevada 9% 76 Lowenkamp et al. (2005) University of Cincinnati 8% Washington State Inst. for Public Policy 22 Aos et al. (2006) 8% 57

3. Cost Analyses No. Drug Courts Avg. Cost Saving Per Client Avg. Benefit Per $1 Invested Citation $2,615 to $7,707 1 (St. Louis) $2.80 to $6.32 Loman (2004) 1 (Portland, OR) Finigan et al. (2006) $6,744 to $12,218 $2.63 Carey et al. (2006) 9 (California) $11,000 $3.50 5 (Washington St.) Barnoski & Aos (2003) $2,888 $1.74 Aos et al. (2006) National Data $4,767 Bhati et al. (2008) N/A National Data $2.21 N/A

4. Other Outcomes

5. Other Outcomes } Unfinished business

6. Do Drug Courts Reduce Crime and Produce Psychosocial Benefits? Methodology and Results From the MADCE Michael Rempel and Mia Green Center for Court Innovation Presented at the ASC 2009 Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, November 5, 2009 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

7. MADCE Research Design • Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites • Drug Court: 23 sites in 7 clusters (n = 1,156) • Comparison: 6 sites in 4 clusters (n = 625) • Repeated Measures • Interviews at baseline, 6 months & 18 months • Oral fluids drug test at 18 months • Official recidivism records up to 24 months

8. Drug Use at 18 Months

9. Drug Use at 18 Months **p < .01

10. Saliva Test Results at 18 Months

11. Family Relationships

12. Annual Income n.s.

13. Variable Effects (Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

14. Variable Effects 6% 16% Most drug courts work 78% (Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

15. Variable Effects Some don’t work 6% 16% 78% (Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

16. Variable Effects Some are harmful! 6% 16% 78% (Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

17. Target Population • High Risk Offenders • < 25 years of age • Prior felony convictions • Prior treatment failures • Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) • High Needs Offenders • Addicted to drugs or alcohol ( ≠ abusers or mis-users) • Lack of job skills or illiteracy ( ≠ unemployed) • Major Axis I psychiatric disorder (co-occurring tracks only)

18. Fidelity to Model If the following practices are removed or watered down, the effects degrade: * For high-risk or high-needs offenders • Judicial status hearings(Carey et al., 2008; Festinger et al., 2002; Marlowe et al., 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) • Team presence at staffings(Carey et al., 2008; Shaffer, 2006) • Treatment • Prosecution • Defense counsel • Law enforcement • Twice-weekly, random drug testing (Carey et al., 2008)

19. Fidelity to Model • If the following practices are removed or watered down, the effects degrade: • Evidence-based treatments • Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) (Heck, 2008; Kirchner & Goodman, 2007) • MATRIX Model (Marinelli-Casey et al., 2008; Rawson et al., 2004) • Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)(Henggeler et al., 2006) • Culturally proficient services (Vito & Tewksbury, 1998) • Graduated sanctions (Hawkin & Kleiman, 2009; Harrell et al., 1999) • Thinning rewards (Marlowe et al., 2008) • * For high-risk or high-needs offenders

20. Juvenile Drug Courts

21. Juvenile Drug Courts Negative Results Positive Results Null Results Rodriguez & Webb (2004) Hartmann & Rhineberger (2003) Wright & Clymer (2001) Latessa et al. (2002) Shaffer (2006) Wilson et al. (2006) Thompson (2002) *Denotes Meta-Analyses

22. Experimental JDTC Study n=32 n=29 n=37 Henggeler et al., 2006

23. Experimental JDTC Study Status Offenses in Past 90 Days at 12-Month Follow-Up * 16.8 3.5 1.4 *p < .01 n=32 n=29 n=37 Henggeler et al., 2006

24. Experimental JDTC Study Days of Heavy Alcohol Use Per Month at 12-Month Follow-Up * 2.70 1.32 0.19 p < .05 n=33 n=31 n=37 Henggeler et al., 2006

25. Utah JDTC Evaluation • Four large JDTC’s (n = 622) • Matched AOD probationers (n = 596) • Both adult and juvenile arrest records • 30-month follow-up (Hickert et al., 2010)

26. Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests (Hickert et al., 2010)

27. Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests (Hickert et al., 2010)

28. Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests (Hickert et al., 2010)

29. Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests * * * *p < .05 * * * * (Hickert et al., 2010)

30. Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests } Approx. 1 year later until first recidivism event * * * *p < .05 34% v. 48% * * * * (Hickert et al., 2010)

31. JDTC Best Practices • Require guardians at status hearings • Judge presides over status hearings • Reduce associations with delinquent peers • Enhance guardian supervision of teens • Model consistent disciplinary practices • Avoid over-reliance on detention (sops up cost savings)

32. DWI Courts • Systematic review thru April 30, 2007 • Published & unpublished reports • Trained independent raters • Mesa Grande coding system • RESULTS INCONCLUSIVE

33. Waukesha DWI Court • DWI Court (n = 118) • 3rd-time DWI • 94% diagnosed alcohol dependent • Documented adherence to 10 Key Components • Wait-list comparison sample (n = 79) • 24-month follow-up (Hiller et al., 2009)

34. Waukesha Recidivism (Hiller et al., 2009)

35. Waukesha Recidivism *p = .05 * (Hiller et al., 2009)

36. Michigan DWI Courts • Multi-Site Quasi-Experimental Study • 3 counties in MI, matched comparisons, small samples DWI ArrestDWI Ct.ProbationES Ottawa 1% 14% .57* Bay County 1% 6% .29 Clarkston 2% 10% .36 Any ArrestDWI Ct.ProbationES Ottawa 8% 24% .45* Bay County 18% 31% .30* Clarkston 5% 14% .32 DWI ArrestDWI Ct.ProbationES Ottawa 1% 14% .57* Bay County 1% 6% .29 Clarkston 2% 10% .36 Any ArrestDWI Ct.ProbationES Ottawa 8% 24% .45* Bay County 18% 31% .30* Clarkston 5% 14% .32

37. Hybrid DWI/Drug Courts • Two hybrid DWI / Drug Courts • Matched parolee samples • Graduates vs. parole completers (revocations returned to prison) • No specialized programming for alcoholism or DWI offending • Avg. 4 year follow-up (Bouffard et al., 2010; see also Bouffard & Richardson, 2007)

38. Hybrid Court Re-arrests (Bouffard et al., 2010) n = 28 n = 38 n = 30 n = 56

39. Hybrid Court Re-arrests *p < .01 (Bouffard et al., 2010) n = 28 n = 38 n = 30 n = 56

40. Hybrid Court Re-arrests Lesser effects for the DWI offenders p = n.s. *p < .01 (Bouffard et al., 2010) n = 28 n = 38 n = 30 n = 56

41. Family Drug Treatment Courts • Multi-Site Quasi-Experimental Study • Matched comparison samples • 4 counties in CA, NY and NV • Parental Outcomes • More likely to enter and remain in treatment • More likely to successfully complete treatment • Child Outcomes • Less time in out-of-home placements • More likely to be reunified • Longer time to permanency (1 site)

42. The Verdicts . . . • Adult Drug Courts reduce crime, substance abuse and family conflict • Juvenile Drug Courts can reduce crime and substance abuse, if they use best practices • DWI Courts can reduce recidivism, but only with specialized programming • Family Drug Treatment Courts often reduce parental substance abuse and improve child welfare