Evaluation of the South St. Louis Adult Drug Court: Process and Outcomes

1. Evaluation of the South St. Louis Adult Drug Court:Process and Outcomes Jeff Maahs, PhD Katie Zafft, MA University of Minnesota Duluth Special thanks to Jared Hoy, Jane Greathouse, Jen Wright, Cheryl Harder, and Dennis Cummings.

2. Drug Court Basics • Collaborative Effort • Courts, Public Defenders, Prosecutors, Probation, Police, Local service providers... • Treatment orientation • Expect some failure early on (graduated sanctions) • Team supervision approach • Judge, prosecution, treatment staff are all involved in review of cases

3. The South St. Louis Drug Court • Inception in April of 2002 • The program takes all 3rd through 5th degree felony drug offenders, assuming other criteria are met • Primary exclusion criteria include non-residency and prior conviction for a violent crime. • Offenders get Rule 25 assessment, and appear in drug court as soon as possible • Drug treatment through outpatient and residential treatment through private vendors

4. The South St. Louis Drug Court(cont.) • Clients proceed through three phases • Restrictions, drug testing, supervision decreases at each phase • Phase four is graduation • Basic program elements • Probation supervision • Drug treatment and/or cognitive skills group treatment • UA • Court reviews

5. Study Background • Initial Process Evaluation completed in December, 2004 • Current Study Completed in November, 2007 • Update/reassess process related issues • Conduct outcome (recidivism) analysis with a comparison group • Both studies utilized data collected by ARC

6. Process Related Questions • Is the drug court enrolling appropriate clients? (Risk, Substance Abuse) • Are participants completing the program? (Retention rates, Graduation rates) • Are participants receiving the treatment and supervision outlined in the drug court protocol? • Does drug court have an impact on graduates? (Substance use, Risk for recidivism)

7. Who is in drug court? • Demographics • Risk for Recidivism • LSI • Criminal History • Substance Use • Arrest Data, LSI self-report data • LSI Alcohol/Drug problems scale • Not “A bunch of UMD students who got caught with mushrooms” • Medium risk group overall

8. Type of drug that led to “drug court” arrest

9. Current Status of Drug Court Sample

10. Time Between Arrest and Drug Court Entry • Drug court rationale = get people involved in the program while they are still “shaken up” from arrest • Median time to from arrest to first drug court appearance = roughly 4 months • Hides many “quick” entries • Primary problem appears to be bail • Is speed really critical for effectiveness?

11. Level of Supervision • Urinalysis data • Probation Supervision • ROPE checks and cognitive skills sessions not “counted” in data • Court Reviews • Overall, supervision appears up to snuff

12. Treatment • Drug Treatment • Residential = 35%, Outpatient = 34% • Total Drug Treatment Rate = 65% • The role of Rule 25 assessment • Over 80% successfully complete treatment • Cognitive Skills program • 72% attended treatment • Overall (Cog skills + drug treatment) Treatment rate for grads = 95%

13. Intermediate Outcomes • Substance use • Average of over 370 days of clean UAs prior to graduation • Given that most had at least one dirty UA, this is a reduction in use • Recidivism Risk • LSI reassessment • Reduction in total LSI • Especially apparent in Alcohol/Drug Scale

14. The relationship between drug treatment and recidivism • Expectation is that those who complete treatment should be less likely to be convicted of a new offense • No clear pattern consistent with this expectation • Controlling for risk, treatment does not predict conviction for a new offense. • Different ways of controlling for risk, different measures of recidivism

15. Outcome Study • Quasi-experimental Design • Historical Comparison Group • Would have been eligible for drug court if drug court had existed • Arrested for 3rd through 5th degree felony drug offenses between 1999-2002 • Received probation • Recidivism • BCA checks backed up by CSTS checks • Any conviction, Felony conviction, Felony drug convictions • Conviction as a conservative measure of recidivism

16. How similar are the drug court and control groups? • Differences in prior record • Control group appears to be higher risk based on: • % Male, % Nonwhite • Prior adult convictions • Prior post-conviction incarceration • LSI data questions • Control group scores higher on criminal history, but lower on less “objective” measures • Reliability Issue  We used most objective component of LSI (criminal history)

17. The Issue of Time at Risk • Control group arrested from 1999-2002 • More street time = more time for failure • One solution is “survival analysis” • Essentially, a moving (week to week, or month to month) recidivism rate • Each percentage based only on the people who are still eligible to offend • If someone is only at risk for the first three months, they are not used to calculate the recidivism rate for the fourth month • “SURVIVAL” rate = (1 - Recidivism Rate)

18. Baseline Plot—Any Conviction

19. Baseline Plot—Felony Conviction

20. Baseline Plot—Drug Conviction

21. Must still “control” for differences in groups • Ran multiple “Cox regression” models, controlling for: • Age • Race • Sex • Education • Criminal History • Does group status (drug court versus control) predict survival? • Yes, when predicting felony conviction

22. Survival plot for felony convictions, controlling for demographics and criminal history

23. Ya see Timmy... • Solid Evidence that the South St. Louis Drug Court reduces the likelihood of recidivism • Drug Treatment • Why doesn’t successful drug treatment completion predict recidivism? • Review of drug treatment providers? • Process Related Issues • Overall, process measures are good • Keep moving towards higher risk clients • Increase the drug treatment rates • LSI quality control • Keep tracking the drug court cohort