Juvenile Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

1
Juvenile Drug Courts Some Answers to Our
Burning Questions
NEADCP October 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.
• 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530
• Portland, OR 97239
• 503.243.2436
• May 29, 2008

NADCP May 2008
3
The Burning Questions
Do juvenile drug court participants really get
re-arrested/re-referred less often? How does
that affect other system resources (e.g.,
detention)? How long does the drug court
effect on recidivism last?
4
The Burning Questions
Are juvenile 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
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
Recidivism
The Burning Questions

• Do juvenile 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?

7
Recidivism

• Of all the DCs NPC has evaluated (50), 4 have
  not resulted in lower recidivism for participants

8
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

9
Juvenile Drug Court Participants had Fewer
Re-Arrests (Clackamas)
10
Juvenile Drug Court Participants used Fewer
System Resources as Adults (Harford)
Adult System  Graduates (n37) Discharges (n38) Drug Court Sample (n75) Comparison Group (n82)
Ave arrests .1 .3 .2 .2
Ave days in jail 1 5 3 8
Ave days in prison 0 6 3 11
Ave days parole/ probation 20 78 49 65
11
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)

12
Costs and Benefits
The Burning Questions

• How much does juvenile drug court cost?
• Are juvenile 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?

13
Clackamas Investment Cost (per Participant)
14
Investment Cost (per Participant)
Difference is significant plt.01 Note Drug
Court cost less than traditional court processing
15
Harford Average Program Costs per Participant
(11,689 41 per day)
Transaction Unit Costs Ave Ave Cost
Drug Court Appearances 249.96 12.19 3,047
Case Management 11.56 283 Days 3,271
Individual DA Treatment Sessions 62.83 9.68 608
Group DA Treatment Sessions 42.01 33.63 1,413
Drug Tests (UAs) 36.85 55 2,027
16
Harford Options for High-Risk Youth
Placement Options Cost Per Day
Harford Juvenile Drug Court Program 41
Detention 296
Residential Treatment 220
Emergency Shelter Care 275
Community Detention 24


17
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


18
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

19
Costs and Benefits
Harford Year 1, Year 2 and Cumulative Outcome
Costs
Juvenile Drug Court Participants cost 4,000 less
than the comparison group
20
Community and Parent Involvement
The Burning Questions

• Does having parents involved really help the
  kids?

• How important are partnerships in the community?

21
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
22
After Adding a Community Liaison and More Parent
Involvement Drug Use Decreased Substantially
Substance Use Percent of Positive UAs in 2
Month Increments
23
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)?

24
Courts That Required a Treatment Representative
at Drug Court Sessions Had 9 Times Greater Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
25
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 plt.05
26
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 plt.05
27
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?

28
Courts That Used a Single Treatment Agency had 10
Times Greater Savings


Note Difference is significant at plt.05
29
Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of
Treatment Sessions Had Lower Investment Costs


Note Difference is significant at plt.05
30
Programs That Had Requirements for Frequency of
Treatment Sessions Had Greater Cost Savings


Note Difference for group is significant at plt.05
31
Jail
The Burning Questions

• How important is jail as a sanction?

32
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

33
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
34
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?

35
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 plt.05
36
Drug Courts That Have the Judge be the Sole
Provider of Rewards Had 2 Times Greater Cost
Savings


Note Difference is significant at plt.05
37
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)

38
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?

39
Courts That Performed Drug Testing 2 or More
Times per Week in the First Phase Had Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
40
Courts that Received Drug Test Results Within 48
Hours of Sample Collection Had 3 Times Greater
Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
41
Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days
Clean Had Larger Cost Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
42
Training
The Burning Questions

• How important is formal training for team
  members?
• Who should be trained?

• When should team members get trained?

43
Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for All
Team Members Had 5 Times Greater Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
44
Drug Courts That Had Training Prior to
Implementation Had 15 Times Greater Cost Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
45
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?

46
Courts that Continued to Use Paper Files for Some
Data (Rather Than Electronic Databases) had Less
Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
47
Courts That Used Evaluation Feedback to Make
Modifications to the Drug Court Program Had 4
Times Greater Cost Savings
Note Difference is significant at plt.05
48
Summary
Practices that relate to better outcomes (lower
costs, lower recidivism, greater savings)
See Handout
49
Conclusion

Before DC
After DC
50
Contact Information

• Shannon Carey, Ph.D.
• carey_at_npcresearch.com
• To learn more about NPC or more about drug court
  evaluations including cost-benefit evaluations
  see
• www.npcresearch.com

51
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!
52
Study Descriptions
53
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

54
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)

55
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

56
Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court and the
Harford County Juvenile Drug Court

• Two Juvenile Drug Courts
• One in Oregon, One in Maryland
• Similar participant demographics
• 85-90 white
• Marijuana primary drug of choice
• Outcomes Re-arrests, substance use,
  detention/jail, costs/benefits
• Costs Investment and Outcome costs to taxpayer

57
Costs and Benefits
Average investment across 9 drug courts in
California
58
Costs and Benefits
Net savings across 9 drug courts in California
59
CJ Recidivism Costs per Participant

• Outcomes showed a benefit of 6,744 per drug
  court participant