Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court Enhancement Evaluation (OR) NPC Research Outcome and Cost Evaluation Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MISSION: To protect the public and reduce crime by and reduce crime by holding youth offenders accountable and holding youth offenders accountable and.
Advertisements

JUVENILE JUSTICE TREATMENT CONTINUUM Joining with Youth and Families in Equality, Respect, and Belief in the Potential to Change.
Improving The Lives of Maryland’s Dually Involved Girls June 11, 2014 A project generously funded by the Abell Foundation & the Jewish Women’s Giving.
Crisis Shelter Program GOALS To stabilize youth and families in crisis To develop stable living conditions for youth To engage families in the resolution.
Increasing Parent Involvement Through Student Led Conferences.
Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012 Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians.
Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute Integrated Data Systems and Program Evaluation University of South Florida Diane Haynes.
Assess, Inform, and Measure (AIM) Court: An Evaluation of an Alternative to Incarceration By: Megan A. Buysse in collaboration with Dr. Donald D. Mowry,
A Framework for Minnesota
Yamhill County: Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM)
An Introduction To Grayson County’s Juvenile Problem Solving Court Honorable Brian Gary 397 th District Court.
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 2008 How Drug Court Practices Impact Recidivism and Costs Shannon Carey, Ph.D. August 2014.
Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission. Risk Assessment Instrument And the Development of Detention Alternatives Primary.
Wraparound Milwaukee was created in 1994 to provide coordinated community-based services and supports to families of youth with complex emotional, behavioral.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Michael Thompson, Director Council of State Governments Justice Center July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C. Measuring.
Promoting Increased School Stability & Permanence
1 Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2  Provide information on how Pierce County established a DMC reduction agenda  Review lessons learned  Report.
Reentry Services Project Shelley Ford, MN Department of Corrections Sally Dandurand, Reentry Services Project June 2008, Connecting Youth to Success 1.
DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE’RE DOING. March 10, 2014 Anchorage Youth Development Coalition JPO Lee Post.
A Case Study of the Intersection Between the Child Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. Parental Incarceration, Termination.
Juvenile Delinquency November 14, Daily Agenda  Review Section 2 Assessment  Section 16-3 Juvenile Delinquency  Chapter Review on page 380. 
400 Employees 1,300 Offenders under supervision 400 Employees 1,300 Offenders under supervision.
PRESENTED BY: LORI ALBIN, DIRECTOR FISCAL POLICY CENTER NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE NETWORK How Much Does it Cost to Put Johnny in Jail?
WRAPAROUND MILWAUKEE “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” Margaret.
Cuyahoga County Strengthening Communities – Youth (SCY) Project: Findings & Implications for Juvenile Justice David L. Hussey, Ph.D. Associate Professor.
C OUNTY S OLUTIONS FOR K IDS IN T ROUBLE Benet Magnuson, J.D. Policy Attorney Texas Criminal Justice Coalition
Recovery Oriented System Indicators (ROSI) Survey FY 2011 ROSI Survey Results Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services September,
Front End Juvenile Justice System Reform Population of Focus Offenders ages 7 through 15 who come into contact with the juvenile justice system through.
Presentation Outline Why we need a prisoner reentry program What is happening with MPRI statewide What is happening locally How you can help Questions.
Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections October 13, 2011.
Population Parameters  Youth in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System About 2.1 million youth under 18 were arrested in 2008 Over 600,000 youth a year.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief.
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 2008.
NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission RECIDIVISM OF 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS: FINDINGS FROM TWO STUDIES Presented to Youth Accountability.
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530 Portland, OR Informing policy, improving programs Implementation of the Ten Key Components: Variations.
Improving The Odds for Kids: Tracking The Success Of An Early Delinquency Intervention Program Jeffry A. Will, The Florida Center, University of North.
CEBP Learning Institute Fall 2009 Evaluation Report A collaborative Partnership between Indiana Department of Corrections & Indiana University November.
TREATMENT COURTS Inns of Court Presentation By John Markson & Elliott Levine October 17, 2012.
Testing The Waters or... A Mental Health Court In Marin.
A Systems Approach to Improving Substance Abuse Treatment for Latino Youth: Latino Caucus of the APHA Annual Meeting November 6, 2006 URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER.
CEBP Research Institute: Past and current studies: Overview and findings CEBP Learning Institute May 27, 2010 Corinne Datchi-Phillips, Ph.D. Jeremy Kinser,
History and Background Formed in 2006 as a joint collaboration of San Mateo County Courts, Probation Department, District Attorney Office, Sheriff’s Office,
 Performance assessments can:  help identify potential problems in the program  help identify areas where streamlining the process could be useful.
Michigan’s Child Welfare System Why is Overrepresentation a Critical Issue?
2001 COLLABORATIVE REPORT LCTS LOCAL COLLABORATIVE TIME STUDY.
Mike Fitzgerald and Desiree Maldonado California’s Juvenile Justice System.
Sanction Treatment Opportunity Progress(S.T.O.P.): Drug Diversion Division Program.
TECBD, 2003 Financial and Human Costs of Treatment or Failure to Provide Treatment Mary Quinn Jeffrey Poirier American Institutes for Research National.
Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (AB 900) Implementation and Impact on County Mental Health Robin Dezember Chief Deputy Secretary.
Child Welfare, Education, and The Courts: A Collaboration to Strengthen Educational Successes of Children and Youth in Foster Care Conference November.
Drug Courts Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008.
HN 299 Welcome to our second Seminar. Review Review of first week Review of first week Second week Second week Projects ahead Projects ahead Discussion.
Population, Alternatives to Incarceration and Budget Information Population, Alternatives to Incarceration and Budget Information.
Oregon Youth Authority Meeting the Challenge through Collaboration and Partnerships Oregon´s juvenile justice system is composed of a network of local.
Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) Creating safer neighborhoods and better citizens.
Douglas County, KS Criminal Justice Intercept Practices
Introduction to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Juvenile Justice Reform in Kentucky
Summit County Probation Services
Using Observation to Enhance Supervision CIMH Symposium Supervisor Track Oakland, California April 27, 2012.
EBP Symposium April 27, 2012 Cricket Mitchell, PhD
Eighth Judicial District Court Mental Health Court Program
Community Justice Services a Division of the
TRIAD Prevention Program
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions
Wraparound Oregon Designing a coordinated service system for children, youth and their families.
October 2005 Kim Pascual Research & Evaluation
Presentation transcript:

Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court Enhancement Evaluation (OR) NPC Research Outcome and Cost Evaluation Results

Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court -Oregon City, OR - Part of the tri-county area near Portland - Implemented in Highly Family Centered -Only take juveniles who have an adult who will sign up for the program with them

What are the main goals of Drug Court? -Reduce recidivism -Reduce substance use -Improve family/community/individual functioning

Enhancements Increased family support resources and enhanced family treatment Strengthened links to sustainable community resources Process, outcome, and cost evaluation

Enhancements Addition of Community Resource Liaison position -Find and create new community resources including community service opportunities -Work to link youth to community resources Family Therapist almost at full-time -Already required family therapy -More home visits -Required parenting class instituted

Relationships/connections with community agencies Community Resource Liaison  Added a Family Representative  Oregon Youth Authority  Developed connections with residential treatment programs  Trained community guides  Strong relationships with local agencies and community leaders

CCJDC Enhancement Evaluation Outcome Results

CCJDC Enhancement Evaluation Choosing a comparison group * Juvenile Department Counselor assistance (filled out one page survey on youth they had not referred)

Drug Court and Comparison Group Drug Court N = 53 Comparison N = 60 Gender 46 males 7 females 48 males 12 females Ethnicity 48 White 2 Hispanic 1 African Am. 1 Other 54 White 3 Hispanic 3 Other Average age at time of first referral Average number of referrals prior to DC entry date Average number of detention episodes in juvenile detention facility Average number of episodes in residential placement Average Risk Score

RECIDIVISM

RECIDIVISM: Average Number of Re-Arrests Over 24 months

Re-Arrest Rate 2 years from drug court entry Graduates 29% All Participants 44% Comparison 82% 2 nd year after drug court entry (1 year post-program) Graduates 14% All Participants 29% Comparison 50%

Mean Number of Re-Referrals and Arrests in 3-Month Increments (non-cumulative)

SUBSTANCE USE

Substance Use: Percent of Positive UAs in 2 Month Increments

Mean Number of Drug Related Re-Arrests in 3-Month Blocks

PROGRAM COST RESULTS

Program Transactions Transaction Transaction Unit Cost Avg. # of Program Transactions Avg. Cost per Participant DC Appearances$ $11,047 Case Management$ Days$10,626 Individual Treatment Sessions $ $438 Group Treatment Sessions $ $619 Family Therapy Sessions $ $182 Parent Support Group $ $252 Parent Education Classes $ $42 Drug Tests (UAs)$ $426 Drug Patches$ $24 Total Drug Court $23,656 [1][1] Average costs per participant for this column have been rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount. [2][2] Case management is calculated by number of days in drug court, so the average number of transactions in this case is the average number of days spent in the drug court program.

Agency Average Agency Cost per Participant Circuit Court $1,413 District Attorney $1,234 Defense Attorney $600 Juvenile Department $12,974 Clackamas County Mental Health $6,299 Oregon Youth Authority $855 C-TEC Youth Services $281 Total$23,656 Program Investment by Agency

Placement OptionsCost Per Day CCJDC Program$66.26 Residential Treatment$ Shelter Care$ Short-term Detention$187 Long-term Detention$ Adult Jail$96.77 Program/Placement Costs per Day

OUTCOME COST RESULTS

Transaction Unit Cost All Drug Court Participants Comparison Group Re-arrests/Referrals$200.72$171$406 Formal Hearings$89.80$40$61 Hearings$44.90 $34 $53 Felony Cases$390.00$12$148 Misdemeanor Cases$280.00$59$92 Probation Violation Cases$150.00$48$68 Residential Tx Days$134.19$4,046$7,592 Foster Care Days$29.78$448$390 Shelter Care Days$115.57$7$529 Juvenile Probation Days$1.70$256$363 Sub-Total ---- $5,121$9,702 Jail Bookings$20.59$13$4 Jail Bed Days$96.77$102$19 Detention Days$183.65$2,577$1,827 Youth Correctional Facility Days $171.00$5,340$2,562 Total $13,153$14,114 [1][1] Formal hearings do not include the cost of the contracted defense attorney. Those costs are accounted for in the case transactions. [2][2] Preliminary/Review/Probation Violation hearings do not include the cost of the contracted defense attorney. Those costs are accounted for in the case transactions. [3][3] Felony case costs only include the cost of the contracted defense attorney. [4][4] Misdemeanor case costs only include the cost of the contracted defense attorney. [5][5] Probation Violation case costs only include the cost of the contracted defense attorney.

Cost Difference (Savings) (Savings over 2 years) All Drug Court minus Comparison = $961 (Overall savings) Graduates minus Comparison = $10,958 (Grad savings) Terminated minus Comparison = - $6,037 (loss)

Detention Costs Averaged per Youth

Program Response Community Liaison: (Paradigm Shift)  Arranges for (reserves) community service slots each week and brings to team at client progress meetings  Increased the variety of community service options Youth can choose a service that is meaningful to them Youth that don’t do well together can be sent to different service options  Attends end of court session to sign kids up

CONCLUSION Results provide evidence that the CCJDC Program:  Reduced recidivism  Reduced drug use  Resulted in savings in outcome costs

FAMILY FUNCTIONING

Family Functioning Family Communication (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) “We tell each other about things that bother us” 2.73 “We take the time to listen to each other” 2.74 “We are free to say what we think in our family” 2.97 *Scores increased from time 1 to time 2

Family Functioning Problem Solving (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) “We spend too much time arguing about what our problems are” 2.28 “When problems come up, we try different ways of solving them” 2.81 *Scores increased from time 1 to time 2 (Significantly)

Family Functioning Family Rules and Expectations (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) *Scores increased from time 1 to time 2 “When you do something wrong in our family, you don’t know what to expect” 2.20 “It’s hard to tell what the rules are in our family” 2.09 “The rules in our family don’t make sense” 2.05

Family Functioning Family Treatment Sessions Graduates = 6.2 Sessions Terminated = 3.9 Sessions

COST RESULTS

 Cost to taxpayer approach (Public Funds)  Costs and Benefits (opportunity resources)  Transactional Cost Analysis Research Strategies

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

TICA Methods Step 1: Determine the flow/process DC program and “business-as-usual”  Interviews  Observation  Document review

TICA Methods Step 2: Identify the transactions Examine the process description from Step 1 Examples of transactions:  Drug court hearings  Treatment sessions  Drug Tests  Re-arrests  Jail Time

TICA Methods Step 3: Identify the agencies involved Interviews and Observations

TICA Methods Step 4: Determine the resources used Interviews, Observations, Admin Data, Files Do this for each transaction – example court hearings  Time spent in court  Time spent preparing  How many court hearings for each participant

TICA Methods Step 5: Identify costs associated Interviews and Budget Reviews  Direct Costs  Support Costs (% of direct costs)  Institutional Overhead Costs (% direct costs)

TICA Methods Step 6: Calculate cost results  Investment Cost  Net Investment  Outcome Costs  Net Outcome Costs  Total Difference (Savings – or not)