California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising

Practices

An Overview of Phase II Study Results

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

Research Advisory Team: Elizabeth Deschenes, Ph.DSusan 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

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?

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

Project Phases

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

Costs and Benefits (Opportunity Resources)

Cost to taxpayer approach (Public Funds)

Transactional Cost Analysis

Research Strategies

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

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% Graduates29% All Participants41% Comparison Group

Drug Court Participants had lower recidivism rates.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1 2 3 4Years

Num

ber o

f Arr

ests

Drug Court

Comparison

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 TransactionPortland, 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 $192.91 $0

Booking (1) $284.34 $284.34 $0Court 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)

$0.00

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

$7,000.00

$8,000.00

Drug Court Comparison

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

Average Net Investment Cost per Participant in 9 CA sites

$1392

Net Investment by AgencyCalifornia

AgencyAverage Net

InvestmentPer 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 $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

Net Outcome Benefits by AgencyCalifornia

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)

Overall Benefits

Combined net benefit per year for all

nine sites (including program costs)

$9,032,626

• 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

Promising Practices

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).

Results

Cost and Drug Court Context Average Income of DC Service Area

Per Capita Income

$18,259

$11,242

$20,295

$15,078

$37,349

$12,152

$15,459 $16,369

$22,711

$14,745

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

North CentralValley

South Metro1

SouthSuburban

South Metro2

Central Coast South Coast2

South Coast1

CentralValley

South CentralValley

State ofCalifornia

Beyond Phase III

Similar studies should be conducted:

Domestic Violence CourtsMental Health Courts

Self assessment tool can be applied to other collaborative justice courts