Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

1. Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions MADCP Lansing, Michigan February 10, 2009

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. • 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530 • Portland, OR 97239 • 503.243.2436 • February 10, 2009 NADCP May 2008

3. The Burning Questions Do drug court participants really get re-arrested less often? How does that affect other system resources (e.g., jail, detention)? How long does the “drug court effect” on recidivism last?

4. The Burning Questions Are drug courts cost effective (cost-beneficial)? • 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? • How important are community partners?

5. In California, Guam, Indiana, Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Nevada Oregon and Vermont Who is NPC Research? • In the past 10 years NPC has completed evaluation and research in over 75 drug courts • 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 • Used stop watches

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. Six Sites With Different FTDC Models Baltimore City: System-wide reform serving families with at least one child that has never been involved with child welfare Harford: Single, dedicated treatment provider for the entire program. San Diego: System-wide reform with FTDC for non-compliant parents Santa Clara: Mostly traditional FTDC model; some systems changes Suffolk: Neglect cases only, many children not in out-of-home placements Washoe: Traditional FTDC model

9. Juvenile Drug Courts Outcome and Cost Evaluation in Oregon and Maryland Note: Will talk more about methods in the next workshop later today – but ask questions! JDC studies: one in Oregon, one in Maryland Comparison group of youth who were eligible but were not referred Outcomes: Re-arrests, substance use, detention/jail, costs/benefits Costs: Investment and Outcome costs to taxpayer

10. Recidivism The Burning Questions Adult and Juvenile • Do drug court participants really get re-arrested less often? • If so, how long does the effect last? • Is it the same for all drug courts?

11. Recidivism (Juvenile and Adult Courts) • Of all the DC’s NPC has evaluated (~75), 7 have not resulted in lower recidivism for participants

12. Juvenile Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates (Clackamas) • 2 years from drug court entry Graduates 29% All Participants 44% Comparison 82% • 2nd year after drug court entry (1 year post-program) Graduates 14% All Participants 29% Comparison 50%

13. 18 drug courts in 4 states (+ 1 U.S. territory) Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates After 2 years: 22% Graduates 38% All Participants 50% Comparison Group

14. Juvenile Drug Court Participants had Fewer Re-Arrests (Clackamas) Average Number of Re-Arrests (Adult and Juvenile) Over 24 months

15. Recidivism Continues to be Lower for Drug Court Participants 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)

16. Family Drug Court The Burning Questions • Does FDC lead to increased use of treatment? • Do FDC programs decrease the use of out-of-home placements? • Does FDC lead to permanency faster and increase successful re-unification?

17. Days Spent in Treatment * Statistically significant at p<.001.

18. Percent Completing at Least One Treatment **Statistically significant at p<.001. *Statistically significant at p<.01.

19. Time in Out-of-Home Placement * Statistically significant at p<.001.

20. Days to Permanent Placement * Statistically significant at p<.05.

21. Percent Reunified * Statistically significant at p<.05. ** Statistically significant at p<.001.

22. 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?

23. Big Range Adult Drug Court Program Investment $4,500 - $30,000 per participant

24. Transactions Multnomah Co. 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

25. Transaction Transaction Unit Cost Avg. # of Program Transactions Avg. Cost per Participant DC Appearances $373.83 29.55 $11,047 CaseManagement $29.78 356.82 Days $10,626 $52.48 8.35 $438 Individual Treatment Sessions $16.33 37.88 $619 Group Treatment Sessions Family Therapy Sessions $19.99 9.12 $182 $9.54 26.41 $252 Parent Support Group $9.33 4.47 $42 Parent Education Classes Drug Tests $6.00 70.96 $426 1.19 $24 Drug Patches $20.00 $23,656 Total Drug Court Clackamas Juvenile: Investment Cost (per Participant)

26. Clackamas Program/Placement Costs per Day Placement Options Cost Per Day CCJDC Program $66 Residential Treatment $134 Shelter Care $115 Short-term Detention $187 Long-term Detention $171 Adult Jail $97

27. Investment in CA Average investment across 9 drug courts in California

28. Costs and Benefits Benefits

29. Benefits in CA Net savings across 9 drug courts in California 4 years

30. 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 5-Year Recidivism Costs per Participant • Outcomes showed a benefit of $6,744 per drug court participant

31. Costs and Benefits Indiana

32. Juvenile Drug Courts Show Cost Savings/Benefits • Per participant recidivism costs over 2 years in juvenile drug courts • Clackamas County Oregon Juvenile Drug Court • All Drug Court minus Comparison = $961 savings • Graduates minus Comparison = $10,958 savings • Harford County Maryland Juvenile Drug Court • All Drug Court minus Comparison = $5,702 savings • Graduates minus Comparison = $7,508 savings

33. Community and Parent Involvement The Burning Questions • Does having parents involved really help the kids? • How important are partnerships in the community?

34. After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent Involvement There were Significantly Fewer Re-arrests Mean Number of Re-Referrals and Arrests in 3-Month “Data Check-Ins”

35. After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent Involvement Drug Use Decreased Substantially Substance Use: Percent of Positive UAs in 2 Month Increments

36. 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”)?

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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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?

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

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

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

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

45. 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

46. Juvenile Drug Court Participants with Large Amounts of Detention Time were Terminated Clackamas Detention Costs Averaged per Youth *Note: Year 1 Detention time is in-program

47. 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?

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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)