1 / 54

Presented by: Dr. Cary Heck University of Wyoming

Evidence Best Practices & Latest Research. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Presented by: Dr. Cary Heck University of Wyoming. Developed by: Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. . © Douglas Marlowe, May 10, 2012

topaz
Télécharger la présentation

Presented by: Dr. Cary Heck University of Wyoming

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. Evidence Best Practices & Latest Research National Association of Drug Court Professionals Presented by: Dr. Cary Heck University of Wyoming Developed by: Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. © Douglas Marlowe, May 10, 2012 The following presentation may not be copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the author or the National Drug Court Institute. Written permission will generally be given without cost, upon request.

  2. “New” Findings/Issues • Recidivism Revisited • Substance Abuse Outcomes • Cost-Effectiveness Revisited • Service Delivery & Consumer Satisfaction • Best Practices Update

  3. Sources • Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) • Urban Institute Bayesian Cost Meta-Analysis (Downey & Roman, 2010) • NPC Research best-practice updates

  4. Recidivism Revisited

  5. Review of NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation Michael Rempel Center for Court Innovation (Rempelm@courtinnovation.org) With Shelli Rossman, John Roman, Christine Lindquist, Janine Zweig, Dana Kralstein, Mia Green, Kelli Henry, P. Mitchell Downey, and Jennifer Yahner Presented to the Adult Drug Court Standards Core Working Group, National Drug Court Institute, Las Vegas, NV, December 11, 2010 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

  6. MADCE Research Design • Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites • Drug Court: 23 sites in 7 regions (n = 1,156) • Comparison: 6 sites in 4 regions (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 • Cost-effectiveness

  7. Official Recidivism:Re-Arrests Over 24 Months n.s.

  8. Criminal Behavior:Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

  9. Criminal Behavior:Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

  10. Criminal Behavior:Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

  11. Criminal Behavior:Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

  12. Saliva Test Results at 18 Months

  13. Cost-Effectiveness Revisited

  14. MADCE Cost Outcomes n.s.

  15. Cost Details #1:Program Investments

  16. Bayesian Meta-Analysis • Data from Shaffer (2006) doctoral dissertation •  > 80% of Drug Courts reduced crime •  Avg. reduction in crime = 8% to 14% •  85% of Drug Courts were cost-effective(i.e., had positive cost outcomes) •  Only 14% of Drug Courts were cost-beneficial(i.e., cost outcomes exceeded expenditures) •  60% of avoided crimes were “insignificant in nature” (i.e., drug, theft, trespassing and traffic offenses) •  Best Drug Courts netted $23,000 per participant (Downey & Roman, 2010)

  17. Service Delivery & Participant Satisfaction

  18. Nature of the Intervention:Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites

  19. Nature of the Intervention:Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites

  20. 18-Month Retention Rates:All 23 Sites in MADCE Study

  21. Procedural and Distributive Justice:Six-Month Interview Results    

  22. Perceptions of Interim Sanctions:Six-Month Interview Results

  23. Explanatory Model: Reduced Days of Drug Use (N = 1,297)

  24. Found over 50practices that were related to significantly lower recidivism, lower costs, or both Best Practices • Evaluated 101 Drug Courts around the nation (detailed process studies/10 KC) • 69 included recidivism and cost evaluations • Trying to make the 10KC understandable in a much more specific way – through specific practices • What are the best Drug Courts doing?

  25. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 10. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations

  26. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 10. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations 9. Law enforcement is a member of the Drug Court team

  27. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 10. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations 9. Law enforcement is a member of the Drug Court team 8. Drug Court allows non-drug charges

  28. 8. Drug Courts That Allow Non-Drug Charges had roughly twice the reductions in recidivism Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

  29. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 10. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations 9. Law enforcement is a member of the Drug Court team 8. Drug Court allows non-drug charges 7. A representative from treatment attends court sessions

  30. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 10. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations 9. Law enforcement is a member of the Drug Court team 8. Drug Court allows non-drug charges 7. A representative from treatment attends court sessions 6. Review of the data/program stats has led to modifications in Drug Court operations

  31. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 5. A representative from treatment attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings)

  32. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 5. A representative from treatment attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 4. Treatment communicates with court via email

  33. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 5. A representative from treatment attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 4. Treatment communicates with court via email 3. Judge spends an average of 3 minutes or greater per participant during status review hearings

  34. Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153% reductions in recidivism Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

  35. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 5. A representative from treatment attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 4. Treatment communicates with court via email 3. Judge spends an average of 3 minutes or greater per participant during status review hearings 2. Participants are expected to have greater than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation

  36. Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism* 5. A representative from treatment attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 4. Treatment communicates with court via email 3. Judge spends an average of 3 minutes or greater per participant during status review hearings 2. Participants are expected to have greater than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation 1. Program caseload (number of active participants) is less than 125

  37. 1. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active Participants) of less than 125 had 567% reductions in recidivism Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

  38. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active Participants) of less than 125 had greater reductions in recidivism Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

  39. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 10. In the first phase of Drug Court, drug tests are collected at least two times per week

  40. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 10. In the first phase of Drug Court, drug tests are collected at least two times per week 9. Law enforcement attends court sessions

  41. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 10. In the first phase of Drug Court, drug tests are collected at least two times per week 9. Law enforcement attends court sessions 8. Drug test results are back in 48 hours or less

  42. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 10. In the first phase of Drug Court, drug tests are collected at least two times per week 9. Law enforcement attends court sessions 8. Drug test results are back in 48 hours or less 7. Team members are given a copy of the guidelines for sanctions

  43. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 10. In the first phase of Drug Court, drug tests are collected at least two times per week 9. Law enforcement attends court sessions 8. Drug test results are back in 48 hours or less 7. Team members are given a copy of the guidelines for sanctions 6. A representative from treatment attends court sessions

  44. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 5. In order to graduate, participants must have a job or be in school

  45. Drug Courts Where in Order to Graduate Participants Must Have a Job or be in School had a 83% Increase in Cost Savings Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

  46. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 5. In order to graduate, participants must have a job or be in school 4. The defense attorney attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings)

  47. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 5. In order to graduate, participants must have a job or be in school 4. The defense attorney attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 3. Sanctions are imposed immediately after non-compliant behavior (e.g., in advance of a client's regularly scheduled court hearing)

  48. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 5. In order to graduate, participants must have a job or be in school 4. The defense attorney attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 3. Sanctions are imposed immediately after non-compliant behavior (e.g., in advance of a client's regularly scheduled court hearing) 2. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations

  49. Drug Court Top 10*Cost Savings* 5. In order to graduate, participants must have a job or be in school 4. The defense attorney attends Drug Court team meetings (staffings) 3. Sanctions are imposed immediately after non-compliant behavior (e.g., in advance of a client's regularly scheduled court hearing) 2. The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations 1. Review of the data and stats has led to modifications in Drug Court operations

  50. Drug Court Top 10Significant for both recidivism and cost *On both top 10 lists* • Review of the data and stats has led to modifications in Drug Court operations • The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in Drug Court operations • A representative from treatment attends Drug Court appearances

More Related