A Dose of Evaluation: Using Results of Minnesota's Statewide Drug Court Evaluation to Understand Differences in Jail, Prison, and Recidivism 2013 National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference Jim Eberspacher & Katie Schurrer Minnesota Judicial Branch State Court Administrator s Office August 5, 2013 1
Presentation Outline Drug Court 101 & MN Evaluation Background Methodology & Research Design Evaluation Findings Judicial Branch Response to Recommendations Questions & Discussion 2
Background & History: Drug Court 101 A drug court is a non-adversarial, treatment-based court program that utilizes justice-system partners to closely monitor a defendant s progress toward recovery through ongoing treatment, frequent drug testing, regular court appearances, strict supervision and the use of immediate sanctions and incentives to foster behavior change. 3
Drug Court Development: National & MN First Drug Court 1989 - Miami-Dade County Drug Court created. 10 Key Components 1997 - NADCP publishes the 10 Key Components the foundation for modern drug courts. Chemical Dependency Task Force Report 2006 Supreme Court Chemical Dependency Task Force Report recommends expanded use of Drug Courts 1989 1996 2002 2005 2007 Hennepin County Drug Court 1996 - Hennepin County starts first drug court in MN (revises program in 2007). Over 1,000 Drug Courts 2002 Over 1,000 drug courts operational across the nation 2002 2 operational courts in Minnesota Drug Court Standards 2007 First State appropriation for drug courts 2007 Statewide Drug Court Standards are adopted as MJB Policy 4
Drug Court 101: Policy in MN MN Statewide Drug Court Standards 3 Goals of Drug Courts Enhancing Public Safety Ensuring Participant Accountability Reducing Costs to Society Based on 10 Key Components Drug Court Team Criminal Justice Partners Chemical Dependency Expert Coordinator Defense Attorney (PD) Law Enforcement Rep. Probation/Case Manager Prosecutor Judge Tribal Representative (when applicable) 5
Evaluation Background: Oversight Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Committee Multi-Disciplinary Group of Professionals Dept. of Human Services Dept. of Corrections Dept. of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety Independent Drug Court Evaluator Drug Court Evaluators within MJB Drug Court Coordinator SCAO program and research staff Sentencing Guidelines Commission MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation 6
Evaluation Background: Timeline Big E 2006 Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Committee formed Comparison Group Jan. 2007 Dec. 2008 Comparison Group cases disposed. Preliminary Results 2011 Preliminary results on use of costeffective practices by MN drug courts Final Report May 2012 - Statewide Evaluation Complete. 2006 2007 2008 2011 2012 Drug Court Cohort July 2007 Dec. 2008 Drug Court Cohort enters drug court. Evaluation Plan 2008 - DCI approves MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Plan Evaluation Period Ends June 2011 Follow-up for participant outcomes ends 7
Evaluation Background: Scope Evaluation in MJB FY 2012-2013 Strategic Plan Measuring 3 Goals of MN Drug Courts (from Standards) Process Are drug courts in compliance with the Drug Court Standards and cost-effective practices? Outcomes Are drug court participants meeting the stated goals? 24 Research Questions Today, focusing only on Outcomes See Report for process measures 8
Presentation Outline Drug Court 101 & MN Evaluation Background Methodology & Research Design Evaluation Findings Judicial Branch Response to Recommendations Questions & Discussion 9
Methodology & Design: Terminology Drug Court Cohort: drug court participants Discharged participants: drug court participants discharged from drug court Completers: drug court graduates Non-Completers: drug court participants terminated Comparison Group: comparison group participants (did not receive drug court) Post-Adjudication Participants: Participants entering drug court at sentencing 10
Methodology & Design: Statewide Statewide Approach Cohort - all operational adult drug/hybrid courts Combining 16 courts Statewide Comparison Group Similar on key characteristics (CD status, offense, criminal history, etc.) Stratified random sample of felony offenders in MN Matched through a Propensity Score Matching process 11
Background & History: Data Sources Data Sources Nature of Data Organization Source DAANES Treatment admission/discharge information Department of Human Services DOC Treatment Treatment information for participants in prison Department of Corrections DOC Prison Prison admissions and discharges Department of Corrections DOC LSI-R TM Risk assessment results for Comparison Group Department of Corrections Probation/DOC Files MNCIS/MNJAD MSGC Worksheet Extract Chemical health assessments, PSI's, criminal history, personal demographics, etc. New charges and convictions (recidivism); primary offense characteristics for all participants Criminal history worksheets and results Department of Corrections/County Probation Offices Judicial Branch Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission Offender Drug Court Tracking Sheet Drug court participant data Judicial Branch Statewide Supervision System Jail admissions and discharges Department of Corrections RANT Risk/Need assessment results Judicial Branch - Hennepin County Drug Court Policies Policy & Procedure Manuals Judicial Branch - Drug Courts Policies & Practices Survey Survey of drug court practices Judicial Branch Drug Court Team Member Survey Survey of drug court team members Judicial Branch 12
Presentation Outline Drug Court 101 & MN Evaluation Background Methodology & Research Design Evaluation Findings Judicial Branch Response to Recommendations Questions & Discussion 13
Findings: Profile of Participants Comparison Group 644 participants from 71 counties 85% felony drug offenders Comparison Group (Criminal History Score) 4 6% 3 2 8% 10% 1 17% 5 4% 6+ 6% 0 49% Drug Court Cohort 535 participants from 16 courts (23 counties) 40% Hennepin County 80% felony drug offenders 6+ 8% Cohort (Criminal History Score) 4 5% 3 7% 2 10% 5 4% 0 47% 1 19% 14
Findings: Personal Demographics Demographic Comparison Group Drug Court Cohort Gender - Male 70% 63% Race Afr. Amer./Black 22% 28% Caucasian/White 68% 63% Other Races 11% 9% Average Age 32 (Range 18-58) 32 (Range 18-72) Avg. Criminal History Score 1 1 Marital Status Single (Never Married) 63% 66% Divorced/Separated 16% 18% Partnered (Cohabitating) 10% 6% Married 11% 9% Veteran 6% 5% 15
Guidelines Data Used for Evaluation Criminal History Score Including sub-parts Presumptive disposition type Stay, Commit Not all felony postadjudication cases SCAO Staff mapped CHS and presumptive disposition for some participants 16
Findings: Guidelines & Risk Demographics Demographic Drug Court Cohort All Drug Court Cohort Other Entry Methods Post Adjudication* Gender - Male 57% 67% Race Afr. Amer./Black 11% 39% Caucasian/White 80% 52% Other Races 9% 9% Average Age 32 (Range 18-57) 34 (Range 18 72) Avg. Criminal History Score 1 2 Custody Point 32% 36% Presumptive Commit 13% 31% Risk Assessments Used LSI-R TM 94% 29% LSI-R TM & RANT 0% 4% RANT 0% 62% Wisconsin 3% 5% None 3% 0% * Hennepin County is 62% of this group 17
Findings: Analysis Approach for Outcomes Descriptive Statistics Rates - % Averages, Medians, Counts Percent Reduction/Increase More Sophisticated Statistical Techniques Logistic and Linear Regression Models Is there a difference? Is the difference meaningful, i.e. statistically significant? 18
Findings: Recidivism Lower for Cohort Drug court has a significant impact on reducing recidivism both new charges and new convictions for 2 ½ years after acceptance in drug court. 50% 25% 0% 16% 12% Recidivism Rate - Charges Comparison Group 26% 20% Drug Court Cohort 38% 41% 31% 25% 26% 26% 6 months 1 year 1 ½ years 2 years 2 ½ years Results Statistically Significant 19
Findings: Lower Recidivism for Completers Completers perform better than non-completers One in ten completers have a new conviction in 2 ½ yrs 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Four in ten non-completers Completer 20% Recidivism Rate - Convictions Non-Completer 34% 43% 43% 42% 3% 5% 7% 9% 11% Results Statistically Significant 6 months 1 year 1 ½ years 2 years 2 1/2 years 20
Findings: Recidivism Related to Guidelines Information What factors are related to new conviction in 2 ½ years? Not receiving drug court (Comparison Group) A Custody Point More misdemeanor convictions More days in jail, within 18 months of entry Presumptive Stay Most predictors are Guidelines data New Convictions (%) Comparison Group Cohort Presumptive Stay 33% 18% Presumptive Commit 27% 12% 21
Findings: Reducing Costs to Society Not a Cost Benefit Incarceration Costs Only Not costs saved, avoided, or a cost/benefit ratio No benefits analyzed (e.g. taxes, medical costs avoided) Includes all days incarcerated in evaluation period Original sentence Sanctions/probation violations Prior, concurrent & subsequent offenses Jail & Prison Costs provided by DOC 22
Findings: Fewer Prison & Overall Incarceration, More Jail for Cohort Wide variation in jail use by drug court Prison & All Incar. Statistically Significant Drug Court Cohort Costs Prison (52 Days) = $3,961 Jail (74 Days) = $4,062 Total (126 Days) = $7,049 Comparison Group Costs Prison (121 Days) = $6,948 Jail (60 Days) = $3,291 Total (181 Days) = $10,238 23
Findings: What Impacts Jail Served? What factors are related to more days in jail (in 2 ½ years)? Being male Being non-white Non-drug offense More Juvenile adjudications More felony priors Fewer from Guidelines data, but still related 24
Findings: What Impacts Prison Served? What factors are related to more days in prison (in 2 ½ years)? Not receiving drug court Being male Being non-white Non-drug offense More Juvenile adjudications More felony priors No treatment Presumptive Commit to Prison Fewer from Guidelines data, but still related Comparison Group Cohort Prison w/in 2 ½ yrs 38% 30% 25
Findings: What Impacts Overall Incarceration? What factors are related to more days in prison (in 2 ½ years)? Not receiving drug court Being male Being non-white More Juvenile adjudications More felony priors No treatment Presumptive Commit to Prison Total Days Incarcerated Presumptive Stay Presumptive Commit Comparison Group Cohort 123 104 391 195 26
Findings: Jail use varies Jail time varies by drug court & completion status 150 Avg. Jail Days During Drug Court Discharged Participants 125 100 75 50 25 * Aitkin, Dakota, and Koochiching do not have sufficient participants to be reported separately MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation 27
Other Findings: Risk Assessment Use & Relevance Unclear Unclear definition & use of various tools results in varied participant risk levels 6% drug court participants High on LSI-R TM Additional 26% Medium/High 32% two or more prior felony convictions 47% two or more convictions any level 26% under 24 years old Not all participants (Comparison Group & Cohort) were assessed Unable to include in regression models 28
Other Findings: Social engagement improvements Participants in non-metro counties more likely to have a valid license at discharge 21% increased highest level of education All completers have at least 90 days sobriety 100% 75% 50% 25% Entry & Discharge All Discharged Participants 35% 63% 78% 70% 66% 49% Entry Discharge 55% 52% 32% 29% 0% Employed With Diploma/GED Rent/Own Valid License Paying Child Support 29
Other Findings: Treatment Treatment 94% receive treatment during drug court 80% complete at least one treatment episode Drug Court Cohort receives twice as many episodes as Comparison Group Primary Substance Problem at Treatment Admission 26% Marijuana, 19% Meth, 19% Alcohol, 16% Heroin, 17% Cocaine/Crack Highest completion rates for Meth (76%), Cocaine powder (68%) 30
Other Findings: Completers Perform Better Drug Court Completers perform better than non-completers on virtually all measures Lower recidivism rates Lower incarceration rates More likely to make personal improvements More time in treatment Clay-Becker Far.-Mar.-Jack. Br.-Nic.-Wat. Graduation Rate by Court State Itasca Hennepin Range Crow Wing Wabasha Blue Earth Dodge 39% 54% 50% 58% 57% 61% 58% 65% 64% 70% 89% Ramsey 54% Stearns Duluth 70% 65% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% * Aitkin, Dakota, and Koochiching do not have sufficient participants to be reported separately MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation 31
Presentation Outline Drug Court 101 & MN Evaluation Background Methodology & Research Design Evaluation Findings Judicial Branch Response to Recommendations Questions & Discussion 32
Judicial Branch Response Judicial Council received report Drug Court Initiative Advisory Committee (DCI) accepted all recommendations of report Part of 2013 Work Plan Report findings presented to MN Legislature Judicial Branch received expanded funding for FY14-15 33
Judicial Branch Response Press Release & Publication of the Report Presentation of Results Partner Agencies Local drug court teams & Steering committees 2013 National Association of Drug Court Professionals Annual Conference 2013 Statewide Drug & Mental Health Court Conference 2013 MARRCH Conference 34
Judicial Branch Response Statewide Efforts Re-writing Standards Training Statewide implementation plan Local Efforts Teams discussing data & analyzing practices 35
Presentation Outline Drug Court 101 & Evaluation Background Methodology & Research Design Evaluation Findings Judicial Branch Response to Recommendations Questions & Discussion 36
Questions & Discussion What impact this could have on sentencing? Have any states incorporated drug courts in their sentencing guidelines policies? What are the barriers? How does this fit into the EBP concept? How could this be used to inform policy? For Further Information: Jim Eberspacher State Drug Court Coordinator Jim.eberspacher@courts.state.mn. us Katie Schurrer Research Analyst Katie.schurrer@courts.state.mn.us Public website http://www.mncourts.gov/?page= 1884 37