1. Evidence Best Practices & Latest Research Presented by: Dr. Cary Heck University of Wyoming National Association of Drug Court Professionals 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 1.Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) 2.Urban Institute Bayesian Cost Meta- Analysis (Downey & Roman, 2010) 3.NPC Research best-practice updates

4. Recidivism Revisited

5. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 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 Review of NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

6. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center MADCE Research Design n 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. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Official Recidivism: Re-Arrests Over 24 Monthsn.s.

8. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Criminal Behavior: Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

9. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Criminal Behavior: Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

10. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Criminal Behavior: Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

11. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Criminal Behavior: Year Prior to 18-Month Interview

12. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Saliva Test Results at 18 Months

13. Cost-Effectiveness Revisited

14. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center MADCE Cost Outcomes Hierarchical Results (over the full follow-up) Drug CourtControlNet Benefits Social Productivity $20,355 $18,361$1,994 Criminal Justice - $4,869 - $5,863$994 Crime/Victimization - $6,665 - $18,231$11,566** Service Use - $15,326 - $7,191- $8,135** Financial Support - $4,579 - $3,744- $835 Total - $11,206 - $16,886 $5,680 n.s.

15. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Cost Details #1: Program Investments Hierarchical Results (over full follow-up) Drug CourtControlNet Costs Time with probation officer4.7 hours5 hours$6 Drug tests65.4 tests12.3 tests- $410*** Electronic monitoring3 days1.6 days- $6 Status hearings20.6 hearings1.5 hearings- $288*** Time with case manager12.9 hours1.1 hours- $306*** Months in program12.2 months1.2 months- $800*** Residential drug treatment37.8 days14.4 days- $4,431 Medicinal treatment6.5 sessions3.3 sessions- $73 Individual counseling15.6 sessions2.4 sessions- $1,070*** Group counseling63.1 sessions13.5 session- $514***

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)  Be st Drug Courts netted $23,000 per participant (Downey & Roman, 2010)

17. Service Delivery & Participant Satisfaction

18. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Nature of the Intervention: Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites

19. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Nature of the Intervention: Drug Court vs. Comparison Sites

20. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 18-Month Retention Rates: All 23 Sites in MADCE Study

21. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Procedural and Distributive Justice: Six-Month Interview Results   

22. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Perceptions of Interim Sanctions: Six-Month Interview Results

23. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Explanatory Model: Reduced Days of Drug Use (N = 1,297)

24. Found over 50 practices that were related to significantly lower recidivism, lower costs, or both What are the best Drug Courts doing? Best Practices Trying to make the 10KC understandable in a much more specific way – through specific practices

25. Drug Court Top 10 *Recidivism*

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

29. Drug Court Top 10 *Recidivism*

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

35. Drug Court Top 10 *Recidivism*

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

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

39. Drug Court Top 10 *Cost Savings*

45. Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05 5.Drug Courts Where in Order to Graduate Participants Must Have a Job or be in School had a 83% Increase in Cost Savings

46. Drug Court Top 10 *Cost Savings*

50. Drug Court Top 10 Significant for both recidivism and cost

51. *Other practices of particular interest Courts that typically impose jail longer than 6 days have worse (higher) recidivism

52. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment Agencies Had 76% Reductions in Recidivism Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment Agencies Had 76% Reductions in Recidivism Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

53. Conclusions  Target high-risk / high-need cases (including non-drug offenses)  Evaluate, Evaluate, Evaluate (including participant perceptions)  Centrality of the judge  Integration of treatment in court  Involvement of law enforcement  Drug testing & structured consequences  Ramp up services as you go to scale

54. Sponsor’s Note This project was supported by Grant No. 2012-DC-BX-K004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice