top 10 drug court best practices and the national best ...€¦ · drug court top 10 recidivism...

1

Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions

Top 10 Drug Court Best Practices and the

NADCP

May 2008

How Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs

Judge Stephen Manley

Shannon Carey, Ph.D.

December 2013

Top 10 Drug Court Best Practices and the National Best Practice Standards

• The Research and Best Practices Standards

• Top 10 Best Practices for reducing

Overview

• Top 10 Best Practices for reducing costs

Top 10 Best Practices for reducing recidivism

• Themes

• Drug Courts reduce recidivism

What We Already Know

Recidivism

• Recidivism is decreased up to 14 years after participation

• Average reduction is about 10-18%

• Some courts more than 70%

2

6%6%

16%16%

Variable EffectsVariable Effects

Decrease crime

No effect on crime

Increase crime

78%78%

Most drug courts workMost drug courts work

(Carey et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2006; (Carey et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2006; LowenkampLowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

6%6%

16%16%

Some don’t workSome don’t work


Decrease crime

No effect on crime

Increase crime

78%78%

(Carey et al. 2012; Wilson et al., 2006; (Carey et al. 2012; Wilson et al., 2006; LowenkampLowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

6%6%

16%16%

Some are harmful!Some are harmful!Let’s do the math:Let’s do the math:2,734 drug courts 2,734 drug courts (as of 6/30/12)(as of 6/30/12)

x .06 x .06 = 164 harmful drug courts!= 164 harmful drug courts!


Decrease crime

No effect on crime

Increase crime

78%78%

another 437 ineffective drug courtsanother 437 ineffective drug courts

(Wilson et al., 2006; (Wilson et al., 2006; LowenkampLowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)

3

What is Working?

• In total, this study included 32,719 individuals (16,317 drug court participants and 16,402 comparison group members).

• What are the best drug courts doing?

What is Working?

Found over 50 practices that were related to significantly lower recidivism or lower costs or both

Drug Court Top 10

What is Working?

• Top 10 Best Practices for Reducing Cost (Increasing Cost Savings)

4

Drug Court Top 10*Recidivism*

10. Drug Courts that used program evaluations to make modifications in drug court operations had

85% greater reductions in recidivism

0.37

0 25

0.30

0.35

0.40

rear

rest

s

The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in drug court operations

0.20

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

YesN=21

NoN=13

% r

edu

ctio

ns

in #

of

Standard: Data and Evaluation


5

9. Drug Courts where Law Enforcement is a member of the drug court team had


0.45

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

rear

rest

s

Law Enforcement is a Member of Drug Court Team

0.24

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

YesN=20

NoN=29

% r

edu

ctio

n in

# o

f

Standard: Multidisciplinary team

8. Drug Courts That Allow Non-Drug Charges had 95% greater reductions in recidivism

0.41

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

arre

sts

Program Allows Non-Drug Charges (e.g., Theft, Forgery)

0.21

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

YesN=42

NoN=24

% r

edu

ctio

n in

# o

f re

a

Standard: Target Population


6

7. Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative Attends Court Hearings had


38%

25%

30%

35%

40%

rearrests

A Representative from Treatment Attends Court Hearings

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

YesN=57

NoN=10

% red

uction in

# of

Standard: Multidisciplinary Team


6. Drug Courts Where Review of the Data and/or Program Statistics Led to Modifications in Program Operations

had 105% greater reductions in recidivism

Standard: Data and Evaluation

7


5. Drug Courts Where a Representative From Treatment Attends Drug Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had




8

4. Drug Courts Where Treatment Communicates withthe Court via Email had




3. Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings


Standard: Roles and Responsibilities of the Judge

9

Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153%

greater reductions in recidivism

Standard: Roles and Responsibilities of the Judge


2. Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation

Had 164% greater reductions in recidivism

Standard: Incentives, Sanctions and Therapeutic Responses

10

2. Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater than 90 days clean (negative drug tests) before graduation

Had 164% greater reductions in recidivism

25%

35%

45%

Reduction in Recidivism

0-90 days cleanN=15

91-180 days cleanN=39

181-365 days cleanN=10

25%

Standard: Incentives, Sanctions and Therapeutic Responses


1. Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active Participants) of less than 125 had


Standard: Maintaining Program Fidelity

11



Standard: Maintaining Program Fidelity

In larger drug courts:



• The Judge spent less time per participant in court (nearly half the time)

• Tx and LE were less likely to attend staffings

(All team members were less likely to attend(All team members were less likely to attend staffings)

• Tx and LE was were less likely to attend court hearings

• Tx was less likely to communicate with the court through email

• Greater number of Tx agencies (8 vs 3)

• Drug tests were less frequent

• Team members were less likely to be trained

*All findings above were statistically significant (p < .05)

Themes in the Top 10

12

• Put null findings in context (10-18%)

• Disown harmful programs (6-9%)

• Prevent regression to old habits (model drift)

WhyStandards??WhyStandards??

(model drift)

• Protect “brand name” from incursions

• Define standard of care for ourselves Limit appellate review to conformance with

standards rather than creating standards

Congressional committees, agencies, etc.

• Reduce legal & constitutional errors Procedural due process requires

standards, rational basis, and notice of rights being waived

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryWhyStandards?(cont.)WhyStandards?(cont.)

rights being waived

• Reduce disparate impacts (violations of Equal Protection)

• Provide support and political cover for needed services and expenditures

• Demonstrate maturity of our profession

BASED ON THE RESEARCH

Research Quality1 Experimental / controlled

StandardsStandards

1. Experimental / controlled

2. Quasi-experimental or matched-comparison

Research in Drug Court or Related Setting

13

I. Target Population

II. Historically Disadvantaged Groups

VolumeIVolumeI

III. Roles & Responsibilities of the Judge

IV. Incentives, Sanctions, & Therapeutic Adjustments

V. Substance Abuse Treatment

TargetPopulationTargetPopulation

Eligibility & exclusion criteria are based on empirical evidence

Assessment process is evidence-based

A Obj ti li ibilit it iA. Objective eligibility criteria

B. High-risk & high-need participants

C. Validated eligibility assessments

D. Criminal history disqualifications “Barring legal prohibitions . . .”

E. Clinical disqualifications “If adequate treatment is available…”

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With Non-Drug Charges had

98% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

30%

40%

50%41%

21%

ns

in

re

cid

ivis

m

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, forgery, etc.

0%

10%

20%

Drug court accepts non-drug charges

N=42

Drug court does NOT accept non-drug

chargesN=24

Pe

rce

nt

red

uc

tio

n

14

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with Prior Violence Had Equal Reductions in Recidivism

40%

50%36% 38%

in r

ec

idiv

ism

Note: Difference is NOT significant

0%

10%

20%

30%

Drug Court accepts participants with prior

violenceN=14

Drug Court does NOT accept participants with prior

violenceN=39

Pe

rce

nt

red

uc

tio

ns

i

Equivalent opportunities to participate and succeed in Drug Court

A Equivalent access (intent &

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHxHx DisadvantagedGroupsDisadvantagedGroups

A. Equivalent access (intent & impact)

B. Equivalent retention

C. Equivalent treatment

D. Equivalent incentives & sanctions

E. Equivalent legal dispositions

F. Team training (remedial measures)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHxHx DisadvantagedGroupsDisadvantagedGroups

Graduated TerminatedStatTest

Variable Mean Mean Sig?

Gender (Percent Male) 50% 80% YesA 43 5 35 3 YAge 43.5 35.3 YesEthnicity (Percent White) 80% 40% YesPercent Married 22% 15% NoYears of Education 12.8 13.3 NoPrior Number of Felonies 1 2.4 Yes% with Prior MH Tx 11% 20% YesNumber of Sanctions 3.33 9.70 Yes

15

Contemporary knowledge; active engagement; professional demeanor; leader among equalsA. Professional training

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryRolesoftheJudgeRolesoftheJudge

B. Length of term

C. Consistent docket

D. Pre-court staff meetingsE. Frequency of status hearings

F. Length of court interactions

G. Judicial demeanor

H. Judicial decision-making

27% 28%

42%

30%

34%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

in #

of

re-a

rres

ts

The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes

Different judges had different impacts on recidivism

8%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

5%

Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5

% im

pro

vem

en

t

27% 28%

42%

30%

34%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

in #

of

re-a

rres

ts


Different judges had different impacts on recidivism Judges did better their second timeJudges did better their second time

8%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

5%


% im

pro

vem

en

t

16

27% 28%

42%

30%

34%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

in #

of

re-a

rres

ts


8%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


% im

pro

vem

en

t

Different judges had different impacts on recidivism Judges did better their second timeJudges did better their second time

Predictable, consistent, fair, and evidence-basedA. Advance notice

B. Opportunity to be heard

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives&SanctionsIncentives&Sanctions

pp y

C. Equivalent consequences

D. Professional demeanorE. Progressive sanctions

F. Licit substances

G. Therapeutic adjustments

H. Incentivizing productivity

Drug Courts Where Team Members are Given a Copy of Written Guidelines For Sanctions And Rewards Had

72% Higher Cost Savings

30%

40% 31%

18%co

st

sa

vin

gs

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)

0%

10%

20%

Team has guidelinesN=33

Team DOES NOT have guidelines

N=11

18%

Pe

rce

nt

inc

rea

se

in

17

Drug Courts Where Sanctions Are Imposed Immediately (e.g., prior to scheduled court hearing) After Non-compliant Behavior had a 100% Increase

in Cost Savings

30%

40%28%

co

st

sa

vin

gs

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05Note 2: Immediately = Before the next regular court hearing (or one week of less to court hearing)

0%

10%

20%

Sanctions are imposed immediately

N=36

Sanctions are NOT imposed immediately

N=17

14%

Pe

rce

nt

inc

rea

se

in c

Courts that use jail greater than 6 days have worse(higher) recidivism

0%

20%

40%

1 day 2 days 3-6 days 1 week 2 weeks > 2 weeks

% cost savings

More jail time is related to higher costs

Savings

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

Typical length of a jail sanction

Loss

18

Based on treatment needs and evidence-basedA. Continuum of care “if adequate care is unavailable . . .”

Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstanceAbuseTreatmentSubstanceAbuseTreatment

B. In-custody treatment

C. Team representation

D. Treatment dosage and duration

E. Treatment modalities

F. Evidence-based treatments

G. Medications

Based on treatment needs and evidence-based

. . .

Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstanceAbuseSubstanceAbuseTxTx (cont.)(cont.)

H. Provider training and credentials

I. Peer support groups

J. Continuing care

Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative Attends Court Hearings had


30%

35%

40%

38%

19%

n r

ea

rre

sts


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Treatment attends court hearings

N=57

Treatment does NOT attend court hearings

N=10

Pe

rce

nt

red

uc

tio

n i

n

19

Drug Courts Where Treatment Communicates with the Court via Email



Drug Courts Where a Representative From Treatment Attends Staffings had



Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment Agencies Had 76% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

0 5

0.6

0.7

Fewer treatment providers is related to greater reductions in recidivism

% reduction in recidivism

Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1 2 3 4 4 - 10 > 10 Number of agencies

20

Conclusion:

58

Before DC After DC

Questions?

Contact Information

Judge Stephen ManleyContact Info?

Shannon Carey, [email protected]

60

21

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the judges, coordinators and

staff at numerous drug courts who welcomed

us to their program, answered our un-ending us to their program, answered our un ending

questions and helped us find and collect

mountains of data!

top 10 drug court best practices and the national best ...€¦ · drug court top 10 *recidivism*...

Documents

top 10 drug court best practices and the national best ...€¦ · drug court top 10 recidivism...