Back to the Future: Best Practices in Drug Courts · Exploring the key components of drug courts: A comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes and costs. Portland,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
Presented by:
Cary Heck, Ph.D.
Citation Institution Number of
Drug Courts
Crime Reduced
on Avg. by . . .
Wilson et al. (2006) Campbell
Collaborative 55 14% to 26%
Latimer et al. (2006) Canada Dept. of
Justice 66 14%
Shaffer (2006) University of
Nevada 76 9%
Lowenkamp et al.
(2005) University of
Cincinnati 22 8%
8% Aos et al. (2006) Washington State Inst.
for Public Policy 57
Meta-Analyses
2
Cost Analyses
Citation Avg. Benefit Per
$1 Invested
Loman (2004) $2.80 to $6.32
Finigan et al. (2007)
$6,744 to $12,218 Carey et al. (2006)
$11,000
Barnoski & Aos
(2003) $1.74
Aos et al. (2006) N/A
Avg. Cost Saving
Per Client
$4,767
$2,888
$2,615 to $7,707
$3.50
$2.63
Bhati et al. (2008) $2.21
No. Drug Courts
1 (St. Louis)
1 (Portland, OR)
9 (California)
5 (Washington St.)
National Data
N/A National Data
Decrease crime
No effect on crime
Increase crime
78%
6%
16%
Most drug courts work
Variable Effects
(Wilson et al., 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)
3
Decrease crime
No effect on crime
Increase crime
78%
6%
16%
Some don’t work
Variable Effects
(Wilson et al., 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)
Decrease crime
No effect on crime
Increase crime
78%
6%
16%
Some are harmful! Let’s do the math:
2,559 drug courts (as of 12/31/10)
x .06
= 154 harmful drug courts!
another 409 ineffective drug courts
Variable Effects
(Wilson et al., 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006)
4
Best Practices Research
*Shannon Carey et al. (in process). What works? The 10 Key Components of Drug Courts: Research Based Best Practices. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*Shannon Carey et al. (2008). Exploring the key components of drug courts: A comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*Shannon Carey et al. (2008). Drug courts and state mandated drug treatment programs: Outcomes, costs and consequences. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*Michael Finigan et al. (2007). The impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Deborah Shaffer (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Las Vegas, NV: Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada.
* www.npcresearch.com
Best Practices Research
Practices Presented Show Either:
Significant reductions in recidivism
Significant increases in cost savings
or both
5
Key Component #1
“Realization of these [rehabilitation] goals requires a team approach, including
cooperation and collaboration of the judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation
authorities, other corrections personnel, law enforcement, pretrial services agencies, TASC programs, evaluators, an array of local service
providers, and the greater community.”
Team Involvement
• Is it important for the attorneys to
attend team meetings (“staffings”)?
6
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.10
Drug Courts That Required a Treatment
Representative at Status Hearings had
Twice the Reduction in Recidivism
38%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Yes N=57
No N=10
% r
ed
uct
ion
in #
of
rear
rest
s
A Representative from Treatment Attends Court Hearings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Expected Defense Counsel to
Attend Team Meetings Had Twice the Cost Savings
7
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Expected the Prosecutor to
Attend Team Meetings Had More Than Twice the
Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Expected the Prosecutor to
Attend Team Meetings Had More Than Twice the
Cost Savings
8
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Included Law Enforcement on the
Team Had Nearly Twice the Reduction in Recidivism
0.45
0.24
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Yes
N=20
No
N=29
% r
edu
ctio
n i
n #
of
rearr
ests
Law Enforcement is a Member of Drug Court Team
Drug Courts That Required All Team Members to Attend