1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

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

8. Methods
Site selection
Sample/Cohort Selection
TICA methods

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

10. 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

11. RESULTS

12. 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%

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

14. Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates.

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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

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

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

21. 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

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

23. 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)

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

25. Net Outcome Benefits Averaged $11,000 per participant
Range $ $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

26. 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

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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).

31. Extra slides if time after this

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

33. 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