California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices

1. California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices An Overview of Phase II Study Results

2. The California Drug Court Cost Evaluation Team Shannon M Carey, Ph.D. – NPC Research Michael W Finigan, Ph.D. – NPC Research David Crumpton, M.P.P. – NPC Research Mark Waller, B.S. – NPC Research Francine Byrne, M.A. – California AOC Research Advisory Team: Elizabeth Deschenes, Ph.D Susan Turner, Ph.D. Hon. Jean Leonard

3. In 1998 - California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) • Received a legislative mandate to perform statewide study of drug courts • Obtained a grant from the DCPO at the USDOJ to perform a statewide cost study of drug courts • Hired NPC Research to perform the study

4. This Study Was Designed to AnswerTwo Key Policy Questions: • Are drug courts cost-effective (cost-beneficial)? • What drug court practices appear most promising and cost-beneficial?

5. Project Phases Phase I: Building the Cost Analysis Methodology Phase II: Validating & Revising the Methodology Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Tool for Drug Courts to Use Statewide

6. Phase II: Validating and Revising the Methodology • Six additional court sites • Monterey • Los Angeles (El Monte) • Orange County (Santa Ana) • Orange (Laguna Niguel) • San Joaquin • Stanislaus

7. Research Strategies • Costs and Benefits (Opportunity Resources) • Cost to taxpayer approach (Public Funds) • Transactional Cost Analysis

8. Methods • Site selection • Sample/Cohort Selection • TICA methods

9. TICA*Transactional and Institutional Cost Analysis • Organizational/Institutional Analysis • Transaction Cost Analysis • Enhanced Cost-Benefit *Dave Crumpton

10. TICA Methods Step 1: Determine the flow/process Step 2: Identify the transactions Step 3: Identify the agencies involved Step 4: Determine the resources used Step 5: Identify costs associated Step 6: Calculate cost results

11. RESULTS

12. Drug courts had good retention rates Average - 52% 4 out of the 9 sites – greater than 65%

13. Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates. 17% Graduates 29% All Participants 41% Comparison Group

14. Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates.

15. Investment Costs Costs for the case that led (or could have led) to participation in drug court

16. Investment Transactions • Drug Court Sessions/Court Case • Individual and Group Treatment Sessions • Other Services (e.g., GED classes, life skills) • Case Management • Drug tests • Jail Time Served (As sanction or otherwise) • Probation Time

17. Net Investment – Cost for case that led to drug court for drug court participants subtracted by the cost for same kind of case for comparison group members.

18. Net Investment by Transaction Portland, Oregon

19. Investment costs per participant are not always much more than traditional court processing

20. Average Net Investment Cost per Participant in 9 CA sites $1392

21. Agency Range Net Investment by Agency California Average Net Investment Per Participant Superior Court ($464) ($79) – ($898) District Attorney ($235) $103 – ($523) Public Defender ($279) ($76) – ($448) Probation $697 $2,143 – ($632) Treatment Agencies $1918 $706 - $3,808 Law Enforcement ($44) $1,060 – ($1,033) Corrections $0 $0

22. Outcome Costs Costs that occurred after drug court entry that were not associated with the program or the “eligible” case.

23. Outcome/Impact Transactions • Re-arrests • Jail Time Served (As sanction or otherwise) • Probation Time Served • Prison Time Served • Subsequent Court Cases • Subsequent Treatment • Victimizations • (Employment, Social Services)

24. Net Outcome Benefits – Cost of drug court participants subtracted from the cost of comparison group members.

25. Net Outcome Benefits Averaged $11,000 per participant Range $3200 - $15,200

26. Agency Net Outcome Benefits by Agency California Average Net Outcome Benefit Per Participant Superior Court ($46) $342 – ($227) District Attorney ($12) $148 – ($106) Range Public Defender ($19) $171 – ($103) Probation ($53) $474 – ($650) Treatment Agencies $637 $336 – ($59) Law Enforcement ($1,525) $620 – ($3,619) Corrections ($3,292) ($541) – ($5,377)

27. Overall Benefits • Combined net benefit per year for all nine sites (including program costs) $9,032,626

28. Promising Practices • A single (or overseeing) treatment provider • High drug court team attendance at staffings • Court sessions start 1 every 2-3 weeks (start) • Treatment 2-3 times per week (start) • Drug tests 3 times per week (start) • Judges voluntary with no fixed term (or at least two years) • Minimum 6 months clean before graduation

29. Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Web-Tool for Drug Court Self-Evaluation (DC-CSET) • Cost analysis tool will: • Utilize cost estimates, methods and protocols validated in Phase II • Assist policymakers with decisions such as the appropriate allocation of resources • Enable drug courts to self evaluate programs • Pilot web-tool coming this Fall

30. Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Web-Tool for Drug Court Self-Evaluation (DC-CSET) • Find out more about this study and the DC-CSET at the CA AOC Booth (#204).

32. Results Cost and Drug Court Context Average Income of DC Service Area

33. Beyond Phase III Similar studies should be conducted: Domestic Violence Courts Mental Health Courts Self assessment tool can be applied to other collaborative justice courts