California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices An Overview of Phase II Study Results This project was supported by Award No. awarded by the Drug Court Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The California Drug Court Cost Evaluation Team Shannon M Carey, Ph.D. – NPC Research Michael W Finigan, Ph.D. – NPC Research David Crumpton, M.P.P. – NPC Research Mark Waller, B.S. – NPC Research Francine Byrne, M.A. – California AOC There is a growing body of literature that provides outcome information for a number of drug courts, however, there have been few comprehensive studies conducted on an individual court, or on a statewide to determine the cost-effectiveness of drug court programs. Many drug courts are started through grant-funding –The combination of those funding streams drying up and the fiscal crisis in CA is forcing the judicial branch to look at the costs and benefits of supporting these specialized courts. Conducting a Cost study of Drug Courts is problematic- Drug courts involve many agencies that contribute varying levels of resources. In order to accurately assess the costs associated with these programs, it is necessary to create a research design that adequately accounts for the multi-jurisdictional nature and multiple funding sources that are common elements of drug courts nationwide. Research Advisory Team: Elizabeth Deschenes, Ph.D Susan Turner, Ph.D. Hon. Jean Leonard

In 1998 - California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Received a legislative mandate to perform statewide study of drug courts Obtained a grant from the DCPO at the USDOJ to perform a statewide cost study of drug courts Hired NPC Research to perform the study There is a growing body of literature that provides outcome information for a number of drug courts, however, there have been few comprehensive studies conducted on an individual court, or on a statewide to determine the cost-effectiveness of drug court programs. Many drug courts are started through grant-funding –The combination of those funding streams drying up and the fiscal crisis in CA is forcing the judicial branch to look at the costs and benefits of supporting these specialized courts. Conducting a Cost study of Drug Courts is problematic- Drug courts involve many agencies that contribute varying levels of resources. In order to accurately assess the costs associated with these programs, it is necessary to create a research design that adequately accounts for the multi-jurisdictional nature and multiple funding sources that are common elements of drug courts nationwide.

This Study Was Designed to Answer Two Key Policy Questions: Are drug courts cost-effective (cost-beneficial)? What drug court practices appear most promising and cost-beneficial? The study I will be telling you about today is to be conducted in three phases. The first focused on creating the methodology and applying it to three case study courts. This phase was complete early this year and will be the focus of this presentation. This methodological approach will be tested and validated during the second phase of the study. Currently underway. Phase III involves the creation of a preliminary tool for drug court self-evaluation that will be tested and launched. When completed, the study will produce recommendations for use by policymakers and practitioners regarding the cost-effectiveness of California adult drug courts. We have contracted with Northwest Proff Consortium research in Portland because they are a national leader in the field of DC evals. Their approach is based on a Transactional Cost Analyses. Blends transactional cost economics with concepts of organizational and institutional theory. It focuses in on identifying transactions that an individual has within the system and isolating each agencies contribution to that transaction. From there cost results can be calculated. Gathering the data involves an intensive process informed by administrative datasets and budget information, interviews and court observations.

Project Phases Phase I: Building the Cost Analysis Methodology Phase II: Validating & Revising the Methodology Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Tool for Drug Courts to Use Statewide The study I will be telling you about today is being conducted in three phases. The first focused on creating the methodology and applying it to three case study courts. This methodological approach will be tested and validated during the second phase of the study. Just completed and the focus of this presentation. Phase III involves the creation of a preliminary tool for drug court self-evaluation that will be tested and launched. When completed, the study will produce recommendations for use by policymakers and practitioners regarding the cost-effectiveness of California adult drug courts. We have contracted with Northwest Proff Consortium research in Portland because they are a national leader in the field of DC evals. Their approach is based on a Transactional Cost Analyses. Blends transactional cost economics with concepts of organizational and institutional theory. It focuses in on identifying transactions that an individual has within the system and isolating each agencies contribution to that transaction. From there cost results can be calculated. Gathering the data involves an intensive process informed by administrative datasets and budget information, interviews and court observations.

Phase II: Validating and Revising the Methodology Six additional court sites Monterey Los Angeles (El Monte) Orange County (Santa Ana) Orange (Laguna Niguel) San Joaquin Stanislaus Phase 2 just completed - 6 additional sites

Research Strategies Costs and Benefits (Opportunity Resources) Cost to taxpayer approach (Public Funds) Transactional Cost Analysis

Methods Site selection Sample/Cohort Selection TICA methods

TICA* Transactional and Institutional Cost Analysis Organizational/Institutional Analysis Transaction Cost Analysis Enhanced Cost-Benefit *Dave Crumpton

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

RESULTS

4 out of the 9 sites – greater than 65% Drug courts had good retention rates Average - 52% 4 out of the 9 sites – greater than 65%

Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates. 17% Graduates 29% All Participants 41% Comparison Group

Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates.

Investment Costs Costs for the case that led (or could have led) to participation in drug court

Investment Transactions Drug Court Sessions/Court Case Individual and Group Treatment Sessions Other Services (e.g., GED classes, life skills) Case Management Drug tests Jail Time Served (As sanction or otherwise) Probation Time

Net Investment – Cost for case that led to drug court for drug court participants subtracted by the cost for same kind of case for comparison group members.

Net Investment by Transaction Portland, Oregon CJ System Transactions DC Eligible Case Investment Cost per DC Participant (n = 594) Investment Cost Per Non-DC (n=573) Cost Benefit (O.R.) Arrest (1) $192.91 $0 Booking (1) $284.34 Court time (Stopwatches) $681.54 $678.50 $3 Treatment $2,713.32 $2,009.18 $704 Jail time $1,610.89 $2,782.55 ($1,171) Probation $513.64 $1,421.84 ($908) Total cost $5,927.80 $7,369.32 ($1,442) Investment costs are calculated as the total case processing and treatment costs of drug court clients minus the case processing costs of similar offenders who did not go through drug court Savings are calculated by subtracting the recidivism costs (re-arrests, warrants, jail and prison time served, etc.) of the non-drug court offenders from the recidivism costs of drug court offenders.

Investment costs per participant are not always much more than traditional court processing

Average Net Investment Cost per Participant in 9 CA sites $1392

Average Net Investment Net Investment by Agency California Agency Average Net Investment Per Participant Range Superior Court ($464) ($79) – ($898) District Attorney ($235) $103 – ($523) Public Defender ($279) ($76) – ($448) Probation $697 $2,143 – ($632) Treatment Agencies $1918 $706 - $3,808 Law Enforcement ($44) $1,060 – ($1,033) Corrections $0

Outcome Costs Costs that occurred after drug court entry that were not associated with the program or the “eligible” case.

Outcome/Impact Transactions Re-arrests Jail Time Served (As sanction or otherwise) Probation Time Served Prison Time Served Subsequent Court Cases Subsequent Treatment Victimizations (Employment, Social Services)

Net Outcome Benefits – Cost of drug court participants subtracted from the cost of comparison group members.

Net Outcome Benefits Averaged $11,000 per participant Range $3200 - $15,200 This does not include Monterey. The argument is that 1. Monterey was an outlier and 2. Monterey was not following 10 key components of drug court practices

Average Net Outcome Benefit Net Outcome Benefits by Agency California Agency Average Net Outcome Benefit Per Participant   Range Superior Court ($46) $342 – ($227) District Attorney ($12) $148 – ($106) Public Defender ($19) $171 – ($103) Probation ($53) $474 – ($650) Treatment Agencies $637 $336 – ($59) Law Enforcement ($1,525) $620 – ($3,619) Corrections ($3,292) ($541) – ($5,377) This does not include Monterey. The argument is that 1. Monterey was an outlier and 2. Monterey was not following 10 key components of drug court practices

Overall Benefits Combined net benefit per year for all nine sites (including program costs) $9,032,626

Promising Practices A single (or overseeing) treatment provider High drug court team attendance at staffings Court sessions start 1 every 2-3 weeks (start) Treatment 2-3 times per week (start) Drug tests 3 times per week (start) Judges voluntary with no fixed term (or at least two years) Minimum 6 months clean before graduation

Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Web-Tool for Drug Court Self-Evaluation (DC-CSET) Cost analysis tool will: Utilize cost estimates, methods and protocols validated in Phase II Assist policymakers with decisions such as the appropriate allocation of resources Enable drug courts to self evaluate programs Pilot web-tool coming this Fall

Phase III: Developing a Cost Analysis Web-Tool for Drug Court Self-Evaluation (DC-CSET) Find out more about this study and the DC-CSET at the CA AOC Booth (#204).

Extra slides if time after this

Results Cost and Drug Court Context Average Income of DC Service Area In phase 2 currently in process- 6 additional sites

Beyond Phase III Similar studies should be conducted: Domestic Violence Courts Mental Health Courts Self assessment tool can be applied to other collaborative justice courts READ- some funds secured internally BJA grant application submitted Web based tool