Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

1. Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 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. • Juliette Mackin, 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 drug court participants really get re-arrested less often? How long does the “drug court effect” on recidivism last? Are drug courts cost effective (cost- beneficial)?

4. The Burning Questions • 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? • What is the optimum number of drug tests?

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. 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

7. 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)

8. Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment Programs • Proposition 36 – Substance Abuse and Crime • Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA) • Built on previous study in California • Drug Court before SACPA (1998-1999) • Drug Court and SACPA participants 2002-2003 • Collected data on practices, recidivism and costs • Compared drug courts pre and post-SACPA • Compared drug courts and SACPA

9. Recidivism The Burning Questions • Do drug court participants really get re-arrested less often than offenders who don’t go through drug court? • If so, how long does the effect last? • Is it the same for all drug courts?

10. Recidivism • In the 18-site study, 16 of the 18 sites had reduced recidivism for drug court participants • Of all the DC’s NPC has evaluated (~50), 4 have not resulted in lower recidivism for participants

11. 9 California Adult Drug Courts Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates After 2 years: 17% Graduates 29% All Participants 41% Comparison Group

12. 18 drug courts in 4 states (+ 1 territory) Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates After 2 years: 22% Graduates 38% All Participants 50% Comparison Group

13. Recidivism 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)

14. Costs and Benefits The Burning Questions • How much does drug court cost? • Are 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?

15. Transactions 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

16. 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 Total outcome costs $16,197 $22,941 $6,744 $43,846,283 CJ Recidivism Costs per Participant • Outcomes showed a benefit of $6,744 per drug court participant

17. Costs and Benefits Average investment across 9 drug courts in California

18. Costs and Benefits Net savings across 9 drug courts in California

19. Costs and Benefits Indiana

20. 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”)?

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

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

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

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

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

29. 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

30. 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?

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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)

34. 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. 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?

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

43. 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

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

45. Conclusion: Before DC After DC

46. Contact Information Mike Finigan, Ph.D. finigan@npcresearch.com Juliette Mackin, Ph.D. mackin@npcresearch.com 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

47. AcknowledgementsThank 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!