1 / 23

Making Effective Use of State and Local Data Sources: Drug Court Evaluations in Michigan

Making Effective Use of State and Local Data Sources: Drug Court Evaluations in Michigan. Gwen Marchand, NPC Research Shannon M. Carey, NPC Research Mark Waller, NPC Research David Crumpton, NPC Research Michael W. Finigan, NPC Research. Background.

lluvia
Download Presentation

Making Effective Use of State and Local Data Sources: Drug Court Evaluations in Michigan

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. Making Effective Use of State and Local Data Sources: Drug Court Evaluations in Michigan Gwen Marchand, NPC Research Shannon M. Carey, NPC Research Mark Waller, NPC Research David Crumpton, NPC Research Michael W. Finigan, NPC Research

  2. Background • Outcome and Cost Evaluation for the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) in Michigan • Focus on two local courts: • Barry County Drug Court • Kalamazoo Adult Drug Treatment Court

  3. Guiding Questions • 3 key policy questions guiding evaluation: • Do drug treatment court programs reduce substance abuse? • Do drug treatment court programs reduce recidivism? • Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings (in terms of avoided costs)?

  4. Court Descriptions • Barry County • Court serves about 80 individuals annually • Overall graduation rate of 44% • Emphasis on OUIL (drunk driving) offenders • Kalamazoo County • Serves approximately 260 individuals annually • Gender specific services • Overall graduation rate of 37%

  5. Evaluation Samples • Barry • Drug Court Group: • All participants from January 1, 2002 through July 1, 2004 • N = 87 • Comparison Group: • Chosen from eligible referred individuals who exceeded start-up capacity • Individuals arrested on DC eligible charges during study time period, but who did not go to DC • N = 148

  6. Evaluation Samples • Kalamazoo • Drug Treatment Court Group: • Participants enrolling between January 2002 and December 2003 • Female N = 74 • Male N = 167 • Comparison Group: • Referrals who did not enroll in KADTC • Female N = 95 • Male N = 163

  7. Evaluation Samples

  8. Data Collection Challenges • Location • Access • Format

  9. Question 1: Do drug treatment court programs reduce substance abuse? Barry County: YES

  10. Substance Abuse Reduction • Barry County Points of Interest: • Use of Sleeptime Monitor • Participants re-arrested on drug related charges significantly less than comparison group • Graduates not re-arrested at all

  11. Question 1: Do drug treatment court programs reduce substance abuse? Kalamazoo County: YES

  12. Substance Abuse Reduction • Kalamazoo Points of Interest: • After first 2 months, graduates never exceeded 5% positive tests • When using probation data, comparison group maintained consistent level of positive tests (4-6%), whereas DTC participant positive tests declined • Comparison group higher drug-related arrests than • Male KADTC participants • Female KADTC participants

  13. Question 2: Do drug treatment court programs reduce recidivism? Barry County: YES

  14. Recidivism • Barry Points of Interest: • In 24 months following drug court entry… • 4% of graduates were re-arrested • 26% of all BCADC participants were re-arrested • 50% of comparison group were re-arrested • BCADC members had significantly fewer • Misdemeanor arrests • Felony arrests • Drug-related arrests

  15. Question 2: Do drug treatment court programs reduce recidivism? Kalamazoo County: YES

  16. Recidivism • Kalamazoo Points of Interest: • KADTC participants re-arrested significantly less often than comparison group • Female KADTC significantly less likely to be re-arrested over 24 months than males • KADTC participants had significantly fewer… • Misdemeanor arrests • Property related arrests • Drug related arrests • Person related arrests

  17. Question 3: Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings? • Cost Elements: • Arrest • Jail and Booking • Probation days • Prison days • Subsequent court cases • Treatment • Victimizations • Jail Sanction Days

  18. Question 3: Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings? • Total Program Cost Savings (for outcomes over a 24-month period) $3000 x 108 = $353,160 Barry County: YES

  19. Cost • Barry County Points of Interest: • Program Costs • $7,752/participant • Investment Costs • Drug Court = $3,109 • Comparison Group = $3,949 • Outcome Costs • Graduates = $1,385 • Drug Court total = $7,584 • Comparison Group = $10,854

  20. Question 3: Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings? • Total Program Cost Savings (for outcomes over a 24-month period) $442,520 + $150,634 = $593,154 Kalamazoo County: YES Women Men

  21. Costs • Kalamazoo County Points of Interest: • Program Costs • Men = $5,767/participant • Women = $7,450/participant • Investment Costs • Men’s Drug Court = $3,134/Comp group = $3,360 • Female DC = $2,632/Comparison group = $4,979 • Outcome Costs • Male Drug Court = $21,969/Comp group = $22,871 • Female DC = $10,004/Comp group = $15,984

  22. Final Points • These two programs were: • Beneficial to participants: Functioning member of society • Beneficial to taxpayers: Cost effective • A standardized methodology: • Should act as a guide for evaluation • Should be flexible • Should be rigorous

More Related