The Verdicts on Adult &
Juvenile Drug Courts
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.
National Association of Drug Court
Professionals
Adult Drug Courts
Citation
Institution(s)
No. Drug Courts Crime Reduced
Mitchell et al. (2012)
U.S.F., G.M.U.
& Penn. State
92
12%
Rempel et al. (2012)
Urban Institute,
CCI & RTI
23
13%
Wilson et al. (2006)
Campbell
Collaborative
55
14%
Latimer et al. (2006)
Canada Dept. of
Justice
66
9%
Shaffer (2010)
University of
Nevada
76
9%
Lowenkamp et al.
(2005)
University of
Cincinnati
22
8%
Aos et al. (2006)
Washington State Inst.
for Public Policy
57
8%
Saliva Test Results at 18 Months
50%
46%
Drug Court (N = 764)
Comparison Group (N = 383)
40%
30%
29%**
27%
20%
21%
21%
20%
15%
12%+
10%
6% 7%
1% 2%
0%**
2%
0%
Any Drug Any Serious Drug Marijuana
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
Cocaine
Opiates
Amphetamines
PCP
Family Relationships
Family Relationships at 18 Months (1-5 Scales)
5.00
4.00
Drug Court (n = 951)
Comparison (n = 523)
4.27+
4.12
4.04
3.96
3.00
2.24*
2.44
2.00
1.00
0.00
Family Conflict (3-item
Family Emotional
Family Instrumental
index)
Support (5-item index) Support (7-item index)
+ p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
Cost Effectiveness
Citation
# Drug Courts
Avg. Benefit Per
$1 Invested
Avg. Cost Saving
Per Client
Rossman et al. (2011)
N = 23
(National Sample)
$2.00
$5,680
Bhati et al. (2008)
National Data
$2.21
N/A
Aos et al. (2006)
National Data
N/A
$4,767
Carey et al. (2006)
N=9
(California)
$3.50
$11,000
Barnoski & Aos
(2003)
N=5
(Washington State)
$1.74
$2,888
Variable Effects
Some are harmful
Some don’t work
6%-9%
Let’s do the math:
2,559 drug courts (as of 12/31/10)
x .06
8% - 16%
= 154 harmful drug courts
Decrease crime
No effect on crime
Increase crime
72% - 88%
another
205
ineffective drug courts
Most +drug
courts
work
(Carey et al., 2012; Downey & Roman, 2010; GAO, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2012; Shaffer, 2010)
Best Practices Research
Carey et al. (2012). What works? The 10 Key Components of Drug Courts: Research
based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8, 6-42.
Zweig et al. (2012). Drug ourt policies and practices: How program implementation
affects offender substance use and criminal behavior outcomes. Drug Court Review, 8,
43-79.
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.
Carey et al. (2008). Drug courts and state mandated drug treatment programs: Outcomes,
costs and consequences. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Finigan et al. (2007). The impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation:
Recidivism and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Shaffer (2010). Looking inside the black box of Drug Courts: A meta-analytic review.
Justice Quarterly, 28 (3), 493-521.
Best Practices Research
Practices Presented Show Either:

Significant reductions in recidivism

Significant increases in cost savings

or both
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”)?
Drug Courts That Required a Treatment
Representative at Status Hearings had
Twice the Reduction in Recidivism
% reduction in # of rearrests
40%
A Representative from Treatment Attends Court Hearings
38%
35%
30%
25%
19%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Yes
N=57
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.10
No
N=10
Drug Courts That Expected Defense Counsel to
Attend Team Meetings Had Twice the Cost Savings
Note 1: 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 Included Law Enforcement on the
Team Had Nearly Twice the Reduction in Recidivism
Law Enforcement is a Member of Drug Court Team
0.50
0.45
0.45
% reduction in # of rearrests
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.24
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Yes
N=20
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
No
N=29
Drug Courts That Required All Team Members to Attend
Staffings Had Twice the Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Note 2: “Team Members” = Judge, Both Attorneys, Treatment Provider, Coordinator
Key Component #3
“Eligible participants are identified
early and promptly placed in the
drug court program.”
Prompt Treatment
• Is it really important
to get participants
into the program
quickly? And what is
quickly?
Percent reductions in recidivism
Drug Courts In Which Participants Entered the
Program Within 50 Days of Arrest Had
Greater Reductions in Recidivism
50%
39%
40%
24%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Participants enter
program within
50 days of arrest
N=15
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
do not enter
Participants enter
program within
50 days of arrest
N=26
Program Caseload
How many participants
can you treat
effectively?
Drug Courts With Less than 125 Active Participants
Had Greater Reductions in Recidivism
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Key Component #4
Drug courts provide access to a
continuum of alcohol, drug, and other
related treatment and rehabilitation
services.
Effective Treatment
• Is it better to have
a single treatment
agency or to have
multiple treatment
options?
• How important
is relapse
prevention?
Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment
Agencies Had Greater Reductions in Recidivism
Fewer treatment providers is related to greater
reductions in recidivism
0.7
0.6
% reduction in recidivism
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
2
3
4
4 - 10
Number of agencies
> 10
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Included a Phase Focusing on
Relapse Prevention Had Over 3 Times Greater
Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Key Component #7
“Ongoing judicial interaction with
each drug court participant is
essential.”
The Judge
• How often should participants appear before the
judge?
• How long should the judge
stay on the drug court
bench? Is longevity better
or is it better to rotate
regularly?
Drug Courts That Held Status Hearings Every 2
Weeks During Phase 1 Had More Than 2 Times
Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court
Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes
% improvement in # of re-arrests
50%
45%
42%
40%
34%
35%
30%
30%
28%
27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
8%
4%
5%
0%
Judge 1A
Judge 2
Judge 3A
Judge 3B
Judge 1B
Judge 4
Judge 5
 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism
The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court
Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes
% improvement in # of re-arrests
50%
45%
42%
40%
34%
35%
30%
30%
28%
27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
8%
4%
5%
0%
Judge 1A
Judge 2
Judge 3A
Judge 3B
Judge 1B
Judge 4
 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism
 Judges did better their second time
Judge 5
The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court
Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes
% improvement in # of re-arrests
50%
45%
42%
40%
34%
35%
30%
30%
28%
27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
8%
4%
5%
0%
Judge 1A
Judge 2
Judge 3A
Judge 3B
Judge 1B
Judge 4
 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism
 Judges did better their second time
Judge 5
Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay Longer
Than Two Years Had 3 Times Greater Cost
Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Judges Who Spent at Least 3 Minutes Talking to
Each Participant in Court Had Substantially
Greater Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Key Component #5
“Abstinence is monitored by frequent
alcohol and other drug testing.”
Drug Testing
• How frequently should
participants be tested?
• How quickly should
results be available to
the team?
• How long should
participants be clean
before graduation?
Drug Courts That Performed Drug Testing Two or
More Times Per Week Had Greater Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)
Drug Courts That Received Drug Test Results
Within 48 Hours Had Greater Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Key Component #6
“Drug courts establish a coordinated
strategy, including a continuum of
responses, to continuing drug use and
other noncompliant behavior . . .
Reponses to or sanctions for
noncompliance might include . . .
escalating periods of jail confinement”
Sanction and Incentive Guidelines
and Prompt Responses
• Do your guidelines
on team
responses to
client behavior
really need to be in
writing?
• How important are
swift responses?
• How much jail is effective?
Drug Courts That Had Written Rules for Team
Responses Had Greater Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)
Drug Courts That Tend to Impose Jail Sanctions
Longer Than 6 Days Had Higher Recidivism
Key Component #9
“Continuing interdisciplinary education
promotes effective drug court planning,
implementation, and operations.”
Training
• How important is
formal training
for team
members?
• Who should be
trained?
• When should team members get trained?
Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for All
Team Members Had 5 Times Greater Savings
Percent Improvement in Outcome
Costs*
All Drug Court Team Members Get Formal Training
50%
41%
40%
30%
20%
8%
10%
0%
Yes
N=6
No
N=7
* "Percent improvement in outcome costs" refers to the percent savings for
drug court compared to business-as-usual
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Received Training Prior to
Implementation Had 15 Times Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Key Component #8
“Monitoring and evaluation measure the
achievement of program goals and gauge
effectiveness.”
Monitoring and Evaluation
• Does it matter
whether data are
kept in paper files or
in a database?
• Does keeping program stats make a difference?
• Do you really need an evaluation? What do you
get out of it?
Drug Courts That Reviewed Their Data and
Implemented Modifications Had More than Twice the
Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Juvenile Drug Courts
Juvenile Drug Courts
Positive Results
Null Results
Rodriguez & Webb (2004) Wright & Clymer (2001)
Latessa et al. (2002)
Shaffer (2006)
Thompson (2002)
Wilson et al. (2006)
Mitchell et al. (2012)
*Denotes Meta-Analyses
Negative Results
Hartmann & Rhineberger
(2003)
Utah JDTC Evaluation
• Four large JDTC’s (n = 622)
• Matched AOD probationers (n = 596)
• Both adult and juvenile arrest records
• 30-month follow-up
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests
JDTCs (n = 622)
60%
Probationers (n = 596)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. 24 mos. 30 mos.
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests
JDTCs (n = 622)
60%
Probationers (n = 596)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. 24 mos. 30 mos.
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests
JDTCs (n = 622)
60%
Probationers (n = 596)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. 24 mos. 30 mos.
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests
JDTCs (n = 622)
60%
Probationers (n = 596)
50%
*
*p < .05
40%
*
*
*
30%
*
20%
10%
*
*
0%
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. 24 mos. 30 mos.
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Adult & Juvenile Re-arrests
JDTCs (n = 622)
60%
Probationers (n = 596)
Approx. 1 year later until first recidivism event
*
*
*p < .05
50%
40%
}
*
34% v. 48%
*
30%
*
20%
10%
*
*
0%
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. 24 mos. 30 mos.
(Hickert et al., 2010)
Status Hearings
• Three JDTC’s (n = 105)
• Two community panels (n = 66; 62%)
• Matched comparison sample (n = 104)
• Referred comparison sample (n = 52)
• Both adult and juvenile arrest records
• 4½ year follow-up
(Cook et al., 2009)
Re-Arrests
JDTC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Re-Arrests
JDTC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
35%
32% 33%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Re-Arrests
JDTC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
80%
60%
52%
52%52%
40%
20%
35%
32% 33%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Re-Arrests
JDTC (n = 105)
Matched (n = 104)
Referred (n = 52)
100%
80%
p = n.s.
75%
60%
72%
52%
52%52%
40%
20%
69%
35%
32% 33%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Graduates
100%
Graduates
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Terminated
Graduates
100%
Graduates
80%
60%
*
40%
20%
41%
27%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Terminated
Graduates
100%
Graduates
80%
60%
*
40%
20%
52% 52%
41%
27%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Terminated
Graduates
100%
Graduates
Minimal effect of completing the programs
80%
p = n.s.
73%
78%
60%
*
40%
20%
52% 52%
41%
27%
0%
12 mos.
(Cook et al., 2009)
24 mos.
54 mos.
Terminated
Family at Hearings
• Philadelphia JDTC
• Observational study of status hearings
• N = 51; 272 appearances
• 4-month assessment interval
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Family at Hearings
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
Family at Hearings
Family at approx. half of hearings
50%
49%
40%
39%
30%
20%
11%
10%
12%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
Family at Hearings
50%
49%
40%
39%
30%
20%
11%
10%
12%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
Family at Hearings
50%
49%
40%
39%
30%
20%
11%
10%
12%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
NONE
ALL
Percent cases
Family at Hearings
50%
49%
40%
No family for approx. fifth of juveniles
39%
30%
26%
21%
20%
11%
10%
12%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
NONE
ALL
Percent cases
Family at Hearings
50%
49%
40%
39%
Regular involvement for approx. quarter of juveniles
30%
26%
21%
20%
11%
10%
12%
0%
Any
family
Mother
Father
Avg. attendance
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Other
NONE
ALL
Percent cases
Family and Outcomes
Juvenile outcomes
Family attendance
Absent from treatment
- .38**
Late to treatment
- .33*
Absent from school
- .21
Late to school
- .31*
Positive drug screen
- .26†
Received a sanction
- .38**
†p
< .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
(Salvatore et al., 2010)
Family-Based Treatment
20
Days of Substance Use Per Month at
12-Month Follow-Up
15
10
5
0
Family Ct.
n=32
Henggeler et al., 2006
JDTC
n=29
JDCT +
MST/CM
n=37
Family-Based Treatment
6
Days of Substance Use Per Month at
12-Month Follow-Up
4
*
2
2.70
1.32
0.19
0
Family Ct.
n=33
Henggeler et al., 2006
JDTC
n=31
JDCT +
MST/CM
n=37
p < .05