|
Full-Text |
Department of Legislative Services 2007 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Department of Legislative Services Office of Policy Analysis Annapolis, Maryland January 2007 ii Contributing Staff Chantelle M. Green David B. Juppe Shirleen M. Pilgrim Simon G. Powell For further information concerning this document contact: Library and Information Services Office of Policy Analysis Department of Legislative Services 90 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Baltimore Area: 410- 946- 5400 ! Washington Area: 301- 970- 5400 Other Areas: 1- 800- 492- 7122, Extension 5400 TDD: 410- 946- 5401 ! 301- 970- 5401 Maryland Relay Service: 1- 800- 735- 2258 Email: libr@ mlis. state. md. us Home Page: http:// mlis. state. md. us The Department of Legislative Services does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability in the admission or access to its programs or activities. The Information Officer has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Section 35.107 of the Department of Justice regulations. Requests for assistance should be directed to the Information Officer at the telephone numbers shown above. iii January 2007 The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., President of the Senate The Honorable Michael E. Busch, Speaker of the House of Delegates Members of the Maryland General Assembly Ladies and Gentlemen: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in non- violent offenders in the United States. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, there were more than 1,500 operational drug courts across the nation as of December 2005. Many states, including Maryland, have earmarked state funding for drug court programs. The efficacy of Maryland’s adult and juvenile drug court treatment programs has become a primary concern to many of Maryland’s legislators. The 2006 Joint Chairmen’s Report directed the Maryland Judiciary to undertake an evaluation of the adult and juvenile drug court programs. In November 2006, the Judiciary submitted cost evaluations of the Harford County juvenile program and the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City adult drug court programs. This report summarizes the evaluation’s findings and provides Department of Legislative Services’ observations and recommendations. The enclosed report was prepared by the staff of the Office of Policy Analysis. The work was coordinated by David Juppe and Shirleen Pilgrim. Department of Legislative Services’ recommendations and observations were prepared by Chantelle Green and Simon Powell. I trust this report will be a useful source of information for you. If you have any questions concerning its contents, please do no hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Karl S. Aro Executive Director iv v Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1. The Second Decade: A National Look at America’s Drug Courts....................... 1 Overview of Drug Courts..................................................................................................... 1 Types of Drug Courts........................................................................................................... 2 State Drug Court Appropriations ......................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2. The First Decade of Drug Courts in Maryland: Is There a Drug Court Near You?.......................................................................................... 7 History of Drug Courts in Maryland.................................................................................... 7 Maryland Drug Court Operations: A Team Approach ....................................................... 9 Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts................................. 13 Evaluation of the Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Programs......................................................................................... 13 Evaluation of Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Program........................................... 24 Maryland’s Drug Courts: Are There Other Alternatives? ................................................ 31 Chapter 4. Conclusion and Recommendations Regarding Maryland’s Drug Court Programs............................................................................................................ 33 Appendix 1. Victimization Cost for the Maryland Drug Treatment Court Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................... 35 Appendix 2. Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Comparison of State Costs for Drug Treatment................................................................. 36 Appendix 3. Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Comparison of State Costs for Drug Treatment ................................................................. 37 vi vii Executive Summary Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in non- violent offenders in the United States. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, there were more than 1,500 operational drug courts across the nation as of December 2005. Many states, including Maryland, have earmarked state funding for drug court programs. In May 2005, the National Drug Court Institute reported that approximately $ 147.4 million was being spent on drug treatment courts nationally. The efficacy of Maryland’s adult and juvenile drug court treatment programs has become a primary concern to many of Maryland’s legislators. The 2006 Joint Chairmen’s Report directed the Maryland Judiciary to undertake an evaluation of the adult and juvenile drug court programs. In November 2006, the Judiciary submitted cost evaluations of the Harford County Juvenile program and the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City adult drug court programs. Several of the reports’ key findings and observations are below. Key Findings ! Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court ( BCDTC) and Anne Arundel County District Court Drug Treatment Court ( AA- DC) participants experienced fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison group. ! BCDTC circuit court and District Court participants ( combined) experienced fewer days of incarceration associated with recidivist episodes than the comparison sample. ! The BCDTC and AA- DC programs generate a positive return on investment. ! Harford County Juvenile Drug Court participants experienced reduced levels of drug use while in the program. ! Graduates of the Harford County program experienced fewer re- arrests than the comparison group. ! For youth that successfully completed the program, Harford County program costs were offset by the beneficial outcome costs. Recommendations As the level of State funding and the number of operational drug court programs continue to grow, there is a continued need to evaluate the efficacy of Maryland’s drug court programs. Based on a review of the adult and juvenile drug court evaluations, drug court literature, and conversations with officials involved in the implementation of Maryland’s drug court programs, the Department of Legislative Services ( DLS) made several recommendations and observations for consideration. Several of these observations are highlighted below. ! Drug Court Program Retention and Graduation: The Harford County Juvenile Evaluation and the BCDTC evaluations reflected low viii graduation rates among program participants. More study is needed in this area. ! Substance Abuse Treatment: The adult drug court evaluations failed to provide any data regarding substance abuse treatment and urinalysis results during participants’ tenure in the program. Additional data is warranted in this area. ! Post- Program Recidivism: The adult and juvenile analyses provide very little data regarding long- term recidivism trends among drug court participants and the comparison group. More trend data is needed in this area. ! Improved Outcome Data: Both the BCDTC and AA- DC reports provide recidivism data on crimes against person charges. Considering that drug court participants are generally classified as “ non- violent” offenders, further assessment as to the adequacy of this measure is needed going forward. ! Drug Offense Recidivism: Unlike the BCDTC evaluation, the AA- DC report failed to provide detailed data and information regarding drug offense recidivism. A more thorough analysis and uniform approach to reporting drug offense recidivism data should be utilized in the future. ! Cost Analysis Data: In order to provide a more balanced picture of the net return on investment of drug court participants, future cost analyses should calculate the net return on investment based solely on hard costs. Additionally, the business as usual costs for each agency should only reflect the variable costs associated with providing services for drug court participants. Lastly, income tax savings should be calculated based on Maryland treatment data. ! Evaluation of Other Drug Court Alternatives: Research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be an effective method of decreasing drug use and related crime. However, the drug court model is not the only method of providing drug treatment through the criminal justice system. Further study is warranted to determine if the drug court model is the most effective drug treatment alternative in Maryland. 1 Chapter 1. The Second Decade: A National Look at America’s Drug Courts Overview of Drug Courts Drug courts emerged in the late 1980s in response to the increasing number of drug- related caseloads across the nation. The first drug court was established in Miami, Florida in 1989 to reduce substance abuse and criminal behavior while freeing the court and corrections systems to handle other types of cases. As illustrated in Exhibit 1.1, there were over 1,600 drug court operations in the United States as of December 2004. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, there were more than 1,500 operational drug courts with an additional 391 in the planning phase as of December 2005. Exhibit 1.1 Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States 75 1 347 847 1,621 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Calendar Years Source: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts, Final Report, National Drug Court Institute, May 2005 2 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation A drug court is a specialized docket responsible for handling drug- and dependency- related cases through judicial intervention, intensive monitoring, and continuous substance abuse treatment. Defendants targeted for drug court are generally non- violent offenders whose current involvement with the criminal justice system is due, primarily, to their substance addiction. Offenders eligible for drug court are identified as soon as possible after arrest and, if accepted into the drug court program, are referred immediately to an out- patient treatment program entailing frequent contact with a treatment provider for counseling, therapy and education; frequent urinalysis; frequent status hearings before the drug court judge; and a rehabilitation program entailing vocational, educational, family, medical, and other supportive services. Types of Drug Courts Nationally, the types of drug courts vary by locality. Communities shape their drug court programs to fit local circumstances such as the prevailing drug- use and drug- arrest patterns and the availability of treatment services. Courts may be based on diversion, pre- trial/ presentence, postadjudication, or probation revocation strategies, where a judge exercises authority to defer case disposition if an offender agrees to participate in drug court. Upon successful completion of the program, case processing may end with dismissed charges, vacated or reduced sentences, or rescinded probation. Exhibit 1.2 provides a summary of the various types of drug court treatment programs. Chapter 1. The Second Decade: A National Look at America’s Drug Courts 3 Exhibit 1.2 Types of Drug Court Treatment Programs • Family Dependency Treatment Court: A juvenile or family court docket of which selected abuse, neglect, and dependency cases are identified where parental substance abuse is a primary factor. Judges, attorneys, child protection services, and treatment services work to provide parents with the necessary support and services to become drug and alcohol abstinent. • Juvenile Drug Court: A docket within a juvenile court to which selected delinquency cases, and in some instances, status offenders, are referred for handling by a designated judge. Youth referred to this docket are identified as having problems with alcohol and/ or other drugs. The judge leads a team of representatives including treatment services, juvenile justice, social and mental health services, school and vocational training programs, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. • Campus Drug Courts: Quasi- judicial drug court programs, within the construct of a university disciplinary process, that focuses on students with substance abuse- related disciplinary cases that would otherwise result in expulsion from college. Similar to traditional drug courts, campus drug courts provide a structured accountability while rehabilitating the student. • Adult Drug Court: A specially designed court calendar or docket, the purposes of which are to achieve a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse among non- violent substance abusing offenders and to increase the offender’s likelihood of rehabilitation through intense judicially supervised treatment, mandatory periodic drug testing, community supervision and use of appropriate sanctions. • DWI Court: A distinct court system dedicated to changing the behavior of the alcohol/ drug dependent offender arrested for Driving While Impaired ( DWI). The goal of this court is to protect public safety by using the drug court model to address the root cause of impaired driving: alcohol and other substance abuse. Variants of DWI courts include drug courts that also take DWI offenders, which are commonly known as “ hybrid” DWI courts or DWI/ drug courts. • Reentry Drug Court: Reentry drug courts utilize the drug court model to facilitate reintegration of drug- involved offenders into communities upon their release from correctional facilities. The offender is involved in regular judicial monitoring, intensive treatment, community supervision, and regular drug testing. • Tribal Healing to Wellness Court: A tribal court that is a component of the tribal justice system that provides members of the Native American community with an opportunity to address alcohol and other drug abuse by more structure for these types of cases and offenders through a system of comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services, immediate sanctions and incentives, and community support. Source: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts, Final Report, National Drug Court Institute, May 2005 As illustrated in Exhibit 1.3, adult, juvenile, family, and Driving While Impaired ( DWI) programs account for the majority of operational drug court programs in the United States. According to the National Drug Institute, there were a reported 1,497 adult, juvenile, family, and DWI courts across the nation in 2004, a 37.6 percent increase from 2003. As shown in Exhibit 1.4, these four types of cases represented 92 percent of the drug court caseload in 2004. 4 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 1.3 Drug Court Types by Year 1,183 1,620 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Adult Juvenile Family DWI Reentry Tribal Campus Total Type of Court # of Drug Court Programs 12/ 31/ 2003 12/ 31/ 2004 Source: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts, Final Report, National Drug Court Institute, May 2005 Chapter 1. The Second Decade: A National Look at America’s Drug Courts 5 Exhibit 1.4 Percent of Drug Court Types As of December 31, 2004 Adult 50% Juvenile 22% Family 9% DWI 11% Other 8% Other: Reentry ( 68), Tribal ( 54), and Campus Drug Courts ( 1) Source: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts, Final Report, National Drug Court Institute, May 2005 State Drug Court Appropriations Approximately 67 percent of states, including Maryland and the District of Columbia, have earmarked state funding for drug courts. In May 2005, states reported that approximately $ 147.4 million was being spent on drug treatment courts nationally. New Jersey ($ 27 million), Florida ($ 22.4 million), California ($ 21 million), Louisiana ($ 11.8 million), and New York ($ 9.4 million) were reported as having the largest state appropriations earmarked for drug courts. These five states accounted for approximately 62 percent of the $ 147.4 million spent on drug courts nationally. 6 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation 7 Chapter 2. The First Decade of Drug Courts in Maryland: Is There a Drug Court Near You? History of Drug Courts in Maryland Maryland’s first two drug courts were established in Baltimore City in spring 1994. Since that time, drug courts have expanded to include 33 operational drug courts located at various District and circuit court locations throughout the State. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates whether a particular jurisdiction has an adult and/ or juvenile drug court. While adult and juvenile drug courts comprise approximately 85 percent of the operational drug court programs, it is important to note that approximately 5 ( 15.2 percent) of Maryland’s drug court treatment programs consist of Family/ Dependency and Driving Under the Influence ( DUI)/ Drug Court Programs. In addition to the aforementioned programs, 8 additional drug courts, currently in the planning phase, are expected to open by the end of fiscal 2008. 8 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 2.1 Drug Courts in Maryland Note: Drug court programs are currently being planned in Allegany, Carroll, Queen Anne’s, and Washington counties. Source: Maryland Judiciary; Department of Legislative Services Chapter 2. The First Decade of Drug Courts in Maryland: Is There a Drug Court Near You? 9 Although Maryland’s first drug court opened in 1994, as shown in Exhibit 2.2, over 50 percent of the State’s drug court programs were opened a decade later in 2004 and 2005. To date, 6 drug courts programs, or approximately 18.2 percent of the current number of operational drug court programs were opened in 2006. Currently, Baltimore City and Anne Arundel and Harford counties are the only jurisdictions that contain all four types ( adult, juvenile, DUI, and family) of drug court programs. Allegany, Carroll, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, and Washington counties do not have drug court programs at this time. Exhibit 2.2 Annual Distribution of Drug Court Openings Calendar 1994- 2006 30.3% 6.1% 6.1% 21.2% 18.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 9.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1994 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 2 1 1 3 1 7 10 6 Note: The number inside each bar represents the actual number of drug court openings that year. Source: Maryland Judiciary; Department of Legislative Services Maryland Drug Court Operations: A Team Approach In Maryland, drug court operations vary by locality. Each local drug court is responsible for establishing its own goals and eligibility criteria for participation in the program. In October 2001, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals issued an Administrative Order establishing the Drug Treatment Court Commission to assist in the development of drug treatment court programs in circuit and District courts throughout Maryland. The commission, which is comprised of judicial and non- judicial members as well as legislators, provides 10 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation collaborative planning, implementation, and fiscal oversight of drug court operations and funding in conjunction with the Administrative Office of the Courts. While every drug court’s operation is unique, some general characteristics can be found across all drug court programs based upon the type of drug court program. Adult Drug Court In general, the referral process for adult drug court treatment begins at the time an individual is sentenced to probation and simultaneously begins the screening process to enter the drug court program. While participants are typically referred into the drug court program by the judge, Assistant State’s Attorney ( ASA), private counsel, or the Office of the Public Defender ( OPD), it is important to note that participation in the drug court program is voluntary. Once someone is referred to the drug court program, he/ she must undergo both a clinical and legal screening to determine eligibility to enter the program. During each of these screenings, the potential candidate is assessed based upon the eligibility criteria developed by each local court. Several common factors for adult eligibility include whether the resident resides in the same jurisdiction as the sentencing court; whether the drug- or alcohol- related offense was non- violent; and whether the candidate was diagnosed as having a drug- or alcohol- related condition. If the candidate passes both of these screenings, he/ she is then referred to the drug court team. The drug court team ( judge, ASA, OPD, drug court coordinator, and the Division of Parole and Probation) makes a final determination on whether to admit the candidate. Once admitted into the program, participants’ progression in the program occurs in phases. Drug courts use a phase system to provide structure and allow program participants to measure individual success in the drug court program. Juvenile Drug Court Typically, the referral process for juvenile drug court treatment begins at the time the Department of Juvenile Services completes an intake on a youth and he/ she is deemed as a possible candidate for drug court. Once a candidate is flagged for possible induction into the drug court program, similar to the adult drug court program, he/ she must undergo both a clinical and legal screening to determine eligibility to enter the program. Several common factors for juvenile eligibility include whether the resident resides in the same jurisdiction as the sentencing court; whether the drug- or alcohol- related offense was non- violent; and whether the candidate was diagnosed as having a drug- or alcohol- related condition. If the candidate passes both of these screenings, he/ she is then referred to the drug court team. Generally, the youth is then found delinquent of the offense, and the sentence is deferred until completion of the drug court program. In other cases, the youth is sentenced to probation and enters the drug court program as a condition of probation. The juvenile drug court team comprises the same members as the adult program but also includes the Department of Juvenile Services and the County Board of Education. The drug court team is responsible for making a final determination on whether to Chapter 2. The First Decade of Drug Courts in Maryland: Is There a Drug Court Near You? 11 admit the candidate. Similar to the adult drug court program, participants have to complete several phases of drug court treatment prior to graduation. DUI/ Drug Court Similar to the adult drug court program, the referral process for the DUI/ drug court begins at the time an individual is sentenced to probation and simultaneously begins the screening process to enter the drug court program. While program participation is voluntary, participants are usually referred into the program by the same parties as listed under the adult drug court program, including the Division of Parole and Probation’s Drinking Driver Monitor Program. Participants are then screened to determine eligibility into the program. In order to enter the program, candidates must be charged with DUI or a related offense. Eligibility criteria that is specific to the DUI program includes whether the prospective candidate has been previously charged with a DUI offense. Generally, first- time DUI offenders are ineligible to enter the program unless the candidate’s Blood Alcohol Continent ( BAC) exceeds 0.15. Additionally, all prospective candidates must be diagnosed as having a drug- or alcohol- related condition. The drug court team, which includes the Division of Parole and Probation’s Drinking Driver Monitor Program, makes the final determination of candidate eligibility. Similar to the other types of drug court programs, participants must complete several phases of drug court treatment prior to graduation. Family/ Dependency Drug Court In general, most family drug court cases are deemed as Child in Need of Assistance ( CINA) cases where substance abuse appears to be a contributing factor to parental abuse and/ or neglect. Unlike the other types of drug court programs, the screening process is generally conducted by the Local Department of Social Services, which is responsible for assessing the family’s needs. Referrals into the program can be voluntary at shelter hearings or at adjudication hearings; however, participation in the program is ordered at case disposition. Before entry into the program, candidates must undergo a clinical and legal screening. During these screenings, the potential candidate is assessed based upon the eligibility criteria developed by each local court. A common factor for adult eligibility into the program is whether the parent expresses the desire to reunite with his/ her child. After passing both screenings, candidates are referred to the drug court team ( judge, drug court coordinator, ASA, OPD, Local Department of Social Services, the child’s legal counsel, and court appointed special advocates) for a final determination as to admittance. The ultimate goal of family/ dependency drug courts is to promote safety and permanency of children. 12 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation 13 Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts The efficacy of Maryland’s adult and juvenile drug court treatment programs has become a primary concern to many of Maryland’s legislators. For most of the first decade, many of Maryland’s drug courts received local and/ or federal funding to maintain their ongoing operations. Fiscal 2007 marked the first year that the Maryland State budget included a significant increase in State funding for drug courts. As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1, the fiscal 2007 working appropriation includes approximately $ 11 million for drug court funding, a $ 6.9 increase above fiscal 2006 actual expenditures. Approximately $ 3.3 million of this increase reflects the need to backfill for federal dollars that are no longer available. The remaining funds will be used to sustain ongoing drug court operations and to expand drug services, including the total number of drug courts. The 2006 Joint Chairmen’s Report directed the Judiciary to undertake an evaluation of the adult and juvenile drug court programs to determine if the significant level of investment provided in the State budget is justified. In November 2006, the Maryland Judiciary submitted cost- benefit analyses for the Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County adult drug court programs and the Harford County juvenile drug court program. Several key findings and observations from these reports are mentioned below. Evaluation of the Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Programs Background on the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court ( BCDTC) was established in 1994. BCDTC participants, which include both circuit and District court participants, are referred to the program post- conviction as a condition of probation. Participants are required to receive drug treatment from a treatment provider and must remain in treatment until they successfully graduate from the program. While in the program, participants are under intensive supervision and are required to attend progress hearings before a BCDTC Judge. The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Division of Parole and Probation ( Parole and Probation) provides general supervision for the BCDTC program. Supervision standards used by Parole and Probation include face- to- face contacts, home visits, employment verification, and regularly scheduled urinalysis. Program participants progress throughout the program in phases. Upon satisfactory completion of the program, participants become eligible for graduation. 14 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 3.1 Annual State Expenditures for Drug Court Programs Fiscal 2003- 2007 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,000 $ 9,000 $ 10,000 $ 11,000 $ 12,000 $ in Thousands Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration - - - - $ 1,000 Office of the Public Defender $ 281 $ 282 $ 282 $ 282 $ 282 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services $ 1,726 $ 1,492 $ 1,507 $ 1,521 $ 2,108 Department of Juvenile Services $ 350 $ 365 $ 949 $ 1,632 $ 2,170 Judiciary $ 86 $ 326 $ 1,144 $ 667 $ 5,435 Total ($ in Thousands) $ 2,444 $ 2,465 $ 3,882 $ 4,103 $ 10,995 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Working Appropriation Source: Maryland Judiciary; Department of Juvenile Services; Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Office of the Pubic Defender; Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 15 Background on the Anne Arundel District Court Drug Treatment Court The Anne Arundel County District Court Drug Treatment Court ( AA- DC) was established in 1997. AA- DC is a pre- sentencing drug court where individuals who chose not to enter the program or those who enter but fail to meet the requirements of the program, are sentenced by the judge. By contrast, those participants who successfully complete the AA- DC program are given a suspended sentence or a probation before judgment is entered on their criminal record. Prospective AA- DC participants who are on parole or probation prior to entering drug treatment may be referred to the program only upon the recommendation of his/ her probation agent and the judge responsible for the probation sentence. Major elements of the AA- DC program include regular participant monitoring sessions before the judge, scheduled and random urinalysis, participation in a treatment program, and sanctions for failure to meet program requirements. AA- DC participants are eligible for graduation upon the completion of a treatment plan in accordance with AA- DC guidelines. Outcomes/ Cost Results The Judiciary contracted with Northwest Professional Consortium ( NPC Research), an Oregon- based consulting firm, to perform a cost- benefit analysis of BCDTC and AA- DC programs in fall 2002. The adult evaluations discuss the rate of recidivism for program participants and drug court program participation return on investment. BCDTC The evaluation compared the drug court participants to the non- drug court participants ( comparison group). To formulate a sample and comparison group, NPC Research compared the three- year prior criminal history, basic demographics ( gender, race, age), and the proximate charge of arrests ( at the time of BCDTC eligibility) of the sample and comparison group members. The findings below reflect the combined BCDTC sample of 60 ( 25 District Court and 35 circuit court) participants and the comparison group of 63 ( 28 District Court and 35 circuit court) people. AA- DC Similar to the BCDTC program, in order to formulate a sample and comparison group, NPC Research compared the three- year prior criminal history, basic demographics, and the proximate charge of arrests ( at the time of AA- DC eligibility) of the sample and comparison group members. Both the sample and the comparison group contained 53 people. Recidivism The number of recidivist episodes is one of several outcomes used to determine the efficacy of a drug court program. NPC Research examined the three- year criminal arrest history 16 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation of the members of BCDTC and the comparison sample of individuals who did not enter the drug court program. The three- year period examined by NPC Research began at the date of the qualifying arrest which would have entitled both samples to enter the drug court program. By contrast, NPC Research examined the four- year criminal arrest history of AA- DC participants and the comparison group. The four- year period examined for the AA- DC program began at the point of entry into the program. Cumulative Re- arrests As illustrated in Exhibit 3.2, NPC Research found that BCDTC participants had fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison sample at 12, 24, and 36 months. At 36 months, BCDTC sample members were re- arrested an average of 1.20 times as compared to 1.75 times for the comparison sample. Exhibit 3.2 Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Comparative Re- arrests 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 12 24 36 Months of Recidivist Experience Cumulative Re- arrests BCDTC Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Comparison Sample Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Source: Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 17 As illustrated in Exhibit 3.3, NPC Research found that AA- DC participants had fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison sample at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. At 48 months, AA- DC sample members were re- arrested an average of 1.21 times as compared to 1.38 for the comparison group. Exhibit 3.3 Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Comparative Re- arrests 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 6 12 24 36 48 Months of Recidivist Experience Cumulative Re- arrests AA- DC Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Comparison Sample Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Source: Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research Re- arrests for Property- related Offenses Another recidivist outcome used to assess the effectiveness of the BCDTC and AA- DC programs was the number of re- arrests for property- related offenses. This outcome is based on the theory that if the BCDTC and AA- DC programs are successful in reducing drug abuse, illicit activities associated with the support of drug abuse should be reduced for program participants. As shown in Exhibit 3.4, BCDTC sample members had fewer average cumulative re- arrests on property- related offenses at 12, 24, and 36 months. At 36 months, BCDTC sample members were re- arrested an average of 0.15 times as compared to 0.48 for the comparison sample. 18 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 3.4 BCDTC and AA- DC Comparative Re- arrests on Property Charges 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 6 12 24 36 48 Months Cumulative Re- arrests BCDTC BCDTC – Comparison AA- DC AA- DC – Comparison Source: Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluations, Final Report, NPC Research By contrast, the results for property- related re- arrests for the AA- DC program are mixed. The average number of re- arrests for AA- DC members exceeded the comparison group during months 12 through 24. During the time period analyzed, AA- DC participants spent an average of 8 months in the program. Therefore, AA- DC participants experienced greater recidivism than the comparison group immediately following the first year of treatment. Re- arrests on Crimes Against Person Charges Re- arrests on crimes against person charges ( such as assault) is another dimension used to assess the effectiveness of the BCDTC and AA- DC programs. According to the evaluation, if the BCDTC and AA- DC programs are successful in dealing with drug abuse problems, there should be long- term improvements in personal responsibility and behavior. As shown in Exhibit 3.5, BCDTC participants experienced fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison sample at 12, 24, and 36 months. At 36 months, BCDTC sample members were re- arrested an average of 0.13 times as compared to 0.24 times for the comparison sample. Likewise, AA- DC participants had fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison sample at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. At 48 months, AA- DC sample members were re- arrested an average of 0.09 times as compared to 0.36 for the comparison group. Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 19 Exhibit 3.5 BCDTC and AA- DC Comparative Re- arrests on Crimes Against Person Charges 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 6 12 24 36 48 Months Cumulative Re- arrests BCDTC BCDTC – Comparison AA- DC AA- DC – Comparison Source: Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluations, Final Report, NPC Research Drug- related Re- arrests Perhaps the most important measure, given the substance abuse abatement mission of the BCDTC and AA- DC programs, is the drug offense recidivism of the sample and comparison groups. As illustrated in Exhibit 3.6, NPC Research found that BCDTC participants had fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison sample at 12, 24, and 36 months. At 36 months, BCDTC participants were re- arrested on drug charges an average of 0.75 times as compared to 1.16 times for the comparison sample. By contrast, NPC Research found that AA- DC participants were re- arrested more times on drug charges than the comparison sample. According to the evaluation, AA- DC participant averages were higher due to the recidivism episodes of those who did not graduate from the program. 20 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 3.6 Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Comparative Re- arrests on Drug Charges 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 12 24 36 Months of Recidivist Experience Cumulative Re- arrests BCDTC Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Comparison Sample Avg. Cumulative Re- arrests Source: Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluations, Final Report, NPC Research Cost Evaluation NPC Research conducted a cost- benefit analysis of the BCDTC and AA- DC programs. The analysis calculated the program costs based on 2003 dollar values. To assess the financial benefits of the BCDTC and AA- DC programs, the cost analysis identified the following types of costs, savings, and/ or benefits: ! Investment Costs: These are the costs required to operate the BCDTC and AA- DC programs. They include costs associated with a number of State agencies and the Baltimore City and Anne Arundel local governments. ! Business as Usual Costs: These costs represent all criminal justice system costs of the comparison sample and the criminal justice system costs of the BCDTC and AA- DC sample members after their tenure in the program. ! Victimization Cost Savings: These are savings in victimization costs that result from avoided crime due to drug court participation. ! Increased Maryland and Local Tax Returns: This benefit is calculated based on the increase in income tax payments made by those participants who completed treatment. Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 21 As illustrated in Exhibit 3.7, the cost- benefit analysis indicated that the BCDTC program generated a net return on investment of 36.2 percent. BCDTC participants generated a gross benefit of $ 14,271 per participant as compared to the $ 10,480 invested in drug treatment per participant. Exhibit 3.7 Cost Benefit Summary of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Criminal Justice System Costs Savings $ 2,571,894 Victimization Cost Savings 7,442,044 Increased State, Local Income Tax 125,426 Other State and Local Public Systems Savings 677,695 Gross Benefit $ 10,817,059 Amount “ Invested” in BCDTC during BCDTC Sample Tenure $ 7,943,753 Net Benefit ( Gross Benefit Minus Amount “ Invested”) $ 2,873,306 Net Benefit Per BCDTC Participant $ 3,791 Next Financial Benefit “ Return” on BCDTC “ Investment” 36.2% Source: Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research Similarly, as shown in Exhibit 3.8, the AA- DC cost benefit analysis indicated that the program generated a net return on investment of 73.1 percent. AA- DC participants generated a gross benefit of $ 3,610 per AA- DC participant as compared to the $ 2,085 invested in drug treatment. Exhibit 3.8 Cost Benefit Summary for the Anne Arundel Drug Treatment Court Criminal Justice System Costs -$ 53,148 Victimization Cost Savings 521,676 Increased State, Local Income Tax 159,528 Gross Benefit $ 628,056 Amount “ Invested” in AA- DC during AA- DC Sample Tenure $ 362,748 Net Benefit ( Gross Benefit Minus Amount “ Invested”) $ 265,308 Net Benefit Per BCDTC Participant $ 1,525 Next Financial Benefit “ Return” on BCDTC “ Investment” 73.1% Source: NPC Cost Analysis of Anne Arundel County, Maryland Drug Treatment Court 22 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Observations Based on a review of the data provided in the BCDTC and AA- DC programs, participation in these programs has yielded the following positive results: ! BCDTC and AA- DC participants experienced fewer cumulative re- arrests than the comparison group. Additionally, BCDTC and AA- DC participants had fewer cumulative re- arrests on crimes against person offenses than the comparison group. ! BCDTC participants experienced fewer cumulative re- arrests on drug and property- related offenses than the comparison group. ! BCDTC circuit court and District Court participants ( combined) experienced fewer days of incarceration associated with recidivist episodes than the comparison sample. ! BCDTC participants spent more days in substance abuse treatment than the comparison sample. ! AA- DC participant graduation rate ( 54.7 percent) exceeded the national average ( 48 percent). ! The evaluation concludes that both the BCDTC and AA- DC programs generate a positive return on investment. The Department of Legislative Services ( DLS) would also note the following: ! The BCDTC and AA- DC reports were based on relatively small sample sizes as compared to actual population. In the case of the BCDTC program, 35 percent of the BCDTC sample participants were female as compared to 24 percent for the comparison group. This difference could impact recidivism rates as female offenders constitute only 5 percent of the prison population. ! In the first year following treatment, AA- DC participants experienced higher cumulative recidivism rates for property- related offenses. ! While the combined number of incarceration days experienced by BCDTC circuit court and District Court participants were lower than the comparison group, the report indicates that BCDTC District Court participants experienced more days of incarceration than the District Court comparison group. The report does not provide an explanation as to this finding. ! AA- DC members experienced higher cumulative re- arrests for drug- related offenses. The report does not expound on this finding. Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 23 ! BCDTC participant graduation rate ( 28 percent) is below the national average ( 48 percent). The report does not discuss this finding. ! The Business as Usual Costs appear to be overstated. The BCDTC and AA- DC reports calculate the Business as Usual costs by dividing the total budgets of various State agencies by the number of hours worked on drug court cases. This calculation fails to account for fixed costs, which would be incurred by agencies irrespective of drug court participation. ! Victimization Savings Costs are intangible ( soft costs). While the report indicates a positive net return on investment for BCDTC and AA- DC members, it is important to note that a significant portion of the overall “ gross benefit” reported consist of victimization costs. Victimization costs include tangible costs such as property damage and lost wages as well as intangible or “ soft costs” such as pain and suffering of victims and/ or their families. As illustrated in Appendix 1, approximately 78 percent of the 2003 victimization costs used by NPC Research constituted soft costs, which are subject to the most uncertainty. Approximately $ 7.4 million or 69 percent of the overall gross benefit reported for the BCDTC program consisted of soft victimization costs. By contrast, $ 521,676, or 83 percent of the gross benefit reported for the AA- DC program consisted of intangible victimization costs. ! Victimization Savings Costs appear to be overstated. To calculate victimization cost savings, NPC Research considered the financial benefits of savings in victimization costs resulting from avoided crime. However, the report calculated these savings based on the entire drug court population during the study period, including participants that failed to graduate for the BCDTC and AA- DC programs. ! The income tax earnings calculation included in the report was not based on alcohol and drug treatment participation in Maryland. ! Total costs for BCDTC and AA- DC participants exceed the comparison group. As shown in Appendix 2, a dollar- for- dollar comparison of the costs for BCDTC participants and the comparison group indicates that it costs an additional $ 6,907 for drug court treatment participants than those of the comparison group. This is important to note given that the evaluation indicates there was only a 0.55 difference between the average number of cumulative re- arrests over the three- year period for BCDTC participants and the comparison group. Likewise, Appendix 3 shows that expenses associated with AA- DC participants exceeded those of the comparison group by $ 2,394. Again, this figure is worth noting given the fact that the evaluation indicates there is only a 0.17 difference in the average number of cumulative re- arrests between the AA- DC and comparison group participants over the four- year study period. 24 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Evaluation of Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Program Background Established in 2000 as an unfunded pilot project, Harford County’s Juvenile Drug Court formally began in October 2001 supported by a federal grant. The federal grant funding has since been replaced with State and local funds. The Drug Court Team is a multi- disciplinary, multi- agency that includes a judge, a drug court coordinator ( funded by the county), treatment counselors ( funded by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with treatment resources funded through the county), Department of Juvenile Services ( DJS) probation officer, Assistant Public Defender, Assistant State’s Attorney, Harford County Sheriff’s Deputies ( a minimal role primarily as bailiffs), the county Office of Drug Control Policy, a Harford County school employee acting as a drug county school liaison, life skills specialist, and an alcohol and drug trainee ( also fully funded by the county). The drug court has established goals, for example, abstinence from alcohol and drugs, no further arrests, school achievement, and improved family relationships. The court has a maximum capacity of 30 youth and unlike other juvenile drug courts is operating at or near capacity. Indeed, the county hopes to extend participation to an additional 20 youth. Program eligibility criteria include being adjudicated as a delinquent, aged between 13 and 17 years old, a repeat offender, and a user of alcohol or other drugs. The program does not accept violent offenders or sex offenders ( unless the youth is determined not to present a danger to others in the program). Technically, the program is considered voluntary. However, over time it has been presented as a requirement associated with probation, and a youth may be ordered into drug court ( mirroring a trend in drug courts generally). The program is structured into three phases, each of 90 days, although actual length in each phase is determined by a youth progress. The average length of time in the program is 9.7 months. Program requirements ( drug screenings, group sessions, attendance at court, and so forth) are more intensive in the initial phase and lessen as the youth progresses. The program employs both rewards ( in addition to progress through the program there may be other tangible rewards such as pizza parties and movie passes) and sanctions ( for example, delay in moving through the program, increased monitoring, work service, community and secure detention). Evaluation Components The evaluation of the Harford County Juvenile Drug Court was funded by the Judiciary and undertaken by NPC Research. The evaluation was broken down into two parts: ! a process evaluation of the specific operation and practice of the Harford County Juvenile Drug Court. Specifically, NPC judged the program against 10 key components of drug courts as developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 25 ( a membership organization for drug courts) and 16 juvenile drug court strategies as developed by the National Drug Court Institute ( a division of the national association established by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy); and ! an outcomes/ cost evaluation. The value of the process evaluation should not be underestimated as it would be expected that adherence to elements of model programs should produce better outcomes. With regard to the process evaluation, the evaluation concluded that the Harford County program fulfilled many of the essential components and strategies identified for a successful program. For example, the Harford County program contains such key elements as a non- adversarial approach between agency partners, random and frequent drug testing, coordinated sanctions, a well- trained team, and good community connections. The evaluation did include, however, a number of recommendations for program improvement, for example, ensuring the engagement of partner agencies in the program, assessing the current level of judicial contact, and ensuring that the resources available to the program meet an increasingly difficult caseload. Outcomes/ Cost Results The outcomes/ cost evaluation compared drug court participants to youth similar to the drug court participants ( in terms of age, gender, race, and juvenile justice history) and eligible for the drug court but who did not enroll. Ultimately, the evaluation was based on 96 drug court participants and a control group of 99. Less well- known about the control group were such things as substance abuse status, mental health history, family history, and school performance. Reduction in Substance Abuse Use: Data from urinalysis testing for participants in the drug court program showed a drop in positive urinalyses the longer a participant was in the program ( see Exhibit 3.9). For this particular measure there was no comparable data with the control group. The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration collects data for all of its funded treatment programs and compares substance abuse use at admission ( something that is not shown in Exhibit 3.9) and discharge. In fiscal 2003 through 2005, the absolute decline in substance abuse during treatment in those programs has ranged between 25 and 31 percent, not dissimilar to the data shown in Exhibit 3.9. 26 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation Exhibit 3.9 Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Positive Urinalysis Over Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2 4 6 8 10 Months in Program % of Positive Urinalyses Source: Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Performance Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research The evaluation notes that because there is a lower level of testing for urinalysis the longer the participant is in the program, any positive urinalysis would tend to have a disproportionate impact on the data. It should also be noted, however, that participants who do not do well in the program will tend not to stay for the full program period, leaving those who have benefited from treatment, thus equally distorting the data. Recidivism: The evaluation looked at a variety of recidivism measures. These included not simply subsequent contact with the juvenile and adult justice systems but also utilization of resources such as probation, detention, and other out- of- home placements. As shown in Exhibit 3.10, in terms of re- arrests, the results are mixed: Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 27 Exhibit 3.10 Harford County Juvenile Drug Program Average Juvenile and Adult Arrests 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Average Arrests in Year 1 Average Arrests in Year 2 Average Arrests in Year 1 & 2 Graduates Discharges Total Drug Court Program Comparison Group Note: The sample size for each group varies from 37- 99 as only youth with two full years of outcome data were used to generate the year 2 outcomes. Source: Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Performance Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research ! In all three scenarios ( year 1, year 2, and years 1 and 2 combined), the data for youth who graduate from the program is promising, with the average number of arrests below that of the comparison group. ! For those youth that do not complete the drug court program, outcomes are poor. Despite the interventions received, arrests are greater than those not enrolled in the program. ! When graduates and discharges are combined, drug court participants have a higher average number of arrests in year one but lower in year two and in years one and two combined. 28 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation A caveat to this analysis is that the benefits shown in the second year may not always be present in the future. Generally, juvenile drug court evaluations have failed to demonstrate the lasting influence of the drug court intervention. Additionally, as shown in Exhibit 3.11, it is increasingly the case in the Harford County program that graduation rates are falling. This fall is attributed to tightening of program criteria and the increasingly chronic drug problems of program participants. This fall is important because the beneficial impact of the good outcomes demonstrated by program graduates will increasingly be undermined as more participants fail to graduate. Thus, for example, conclusions that are drawn from data on the earlier years of the program – the data for the year 2 analysis – are based on the relatively good graduation rates of the earlier program years and do not reflect the poorer graduation rates of 2004. Exhibit 3.11 Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Graduation Rates 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2001 2002 2003 2004 Admission Year Number 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Graduation Rate Graduates Discharges Graduation Rate Source: Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Performance Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research It should also be noted, that the recidivism data is presented in a format inconsistent with recidivism data utilized by DJS ( the rate of recidivism). This inconsistency means that there is no ready way to make a general comparison to recidivism rates of other similar drug treatment programs offered by the State. Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 29 Similar outcomes are noted when comparing the use of probation, detention, and other out- of- home placements between drug court participants and the comparison group ( see Exhibit 3.12). In the first year, participants in the drug court program show greater use of probation, detention, and out- of- home placement, a situation that reverses in year 2. When the two years are combined, drug court participants are on probation less, in detention more, and are in other out- of- home placements at the same rate as the comparison group. The explanation for this is the higher level of monitoring and consequent use of sanctions within the drug court program as well as the fact that the program appears more likely to get participants ( especially those who have failed to graduate) into higher- end drug treatment. Exhibit 3.12 Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Use of Services 50 100 150 200 250 Drug Court Comparison Drug Court Comparison Drug Court Comparison Year 1 Year 2 Years 1& 2 Combined Days Used Probation Detention Out- of- home Note: Detention combines secure and community detention. Out- of- home placements combine residential treatment, shelter care, foster care, and group home placements. Source: Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Performance Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research; Department of Legislative Services Cost Evaluation: The evaluation calculates program costs for the Harford County Program. Those costs include drug court appearances, case management, drug and alcohol treatment sessions, drug testing, mental health treatment, and job and education training sessions. On average the program costs $ 11,689 per participant ( or $ 41 per participant per day). 30 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation In order to calculate the relative benefit of the drug court program, the evaluation obtained as many outcome costs as possible for drug program participants and the comparison group, i. e., costs related to interventions in or out of the program for program participants or all interventions for the comparison group. These costs include those associated with intake, court appearances, probation, detention, other out- of- home placements, and contact with the adult system. Unsurprisingly, the costs shown in Exhibit 3.13 mirror earlier data: Exhibit 3.13 Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Outcome Costs $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 Average Outcome Costs Year 1 Average Outcome Costs Year 2 Cumulative Costs Year 1 & 2 Graduates Discharges Total Drug Court Program Comparison Group Source: Harford County Juvenile Drug Court Performance Evaluation, Final Report, NPC Research; Department of Legislative Services ! For youth that successfully complete the program relative to youth in the comparison group, program costs are offset by the beneficial outcome costs. ! The costs associated with youth discharged from the program exceed youth in the comparison group. ! Overall, year 1 outcome costs for program participants are greater than the comparison group but lower in year 2 and cumulatively. In other words, the financial benefits associated with the investment in drug courts do not begin to occur until the second year. Chapter 3. A Report on the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Drug Courts 31 ! The evaluation concludes that if year 2 financial benefits continue to play out, the investment in the drug court program will ultimately be repaid in lower future intervention costs. However, as noted earlier, there is little data on the continued long- term impact of drug courts generally. Further, in the Harford County program, specifically, the increasing number of youth who fail to graduate from the program may limit the extent of future cost savings. Observations Based on a review of the data provided in the evaluation, it is fair to note that participation in the drug court program in Harford County has yielded some positive results: reduced levels of drug use while in the program; positive outcomes for youth able to graduate from the program; and for graduates, the additional program investment appears to be readily recouped by the subsequent level of interventions required in the juvenile and adult systems. However, this positive picture is tempered by the poor results and more expensive subsequent interventions shown by those who are discharged from the program. DLS would also note that the report’s findings: ! are based on a relatively small sample size, especially the year 2 measures ( NPC did have the opportunity to evaluate a program with a greater number of participants, namely Baltimore City, but the complete absence of meaningful data from that program severely devalued that evaluation); ! were not readily replicable based on the data provided in the report; ! do not answer questions raised in other evaluations about the staying power of drug court interventions which undermines any conclusions about ultimate cost- effectiveness; and ! do not answer the question as to whether the actual judicial component of the program ( which comprise just over one- quarter of program costs) are actually worth it since there is no comparison to alternative drug treatment programs. In summary, while the State has invested heavily in juvenile drug court programs in recent years, they are not a panacea. As the Harford County experience demonstrates, for an increasing number of youth, the program does not result in a successful outcome. However, this most likely indicates the need for a wider treatment strategy in order to serve those youth for whom drug courts are not the answer. Maryland’s Drug Courts: Are There Other Alternatives? Despite the proliferation of drug courts and other mandatory treatment models, few studies have compared the different program features comprising these models to determine the 32 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation most effective drug treatment program. While research has shown that drug courts are the most universal models of justice- based treatment, further study is warranted to determine if the drug court model is the most effective drug treatment alternative in Maryland. DLS recommends further study, evaluation, and comparison in the following areas: ! Drinking Driver Monitor Program: A critical component of Maryland’s adult drug court model, including the DUI/ drug court is the supervision services provided by Parole and Probation. In addition to monitoring adult drug court participants, Parole and Probation is also responsible for overseeing the Drinking Driver Monitor Program ( Monitor Program). The Monitor Program emphasizes abstinence from alcohol and other drugs, alcohol education and treatment, and rehabilitation. Participants may be referred into the program through special conditions established by court- ordered probation or through assignment by the Motor Vehicle Administration as a condition for reinstating a motor vehicle license. Given the duplicate role of Parole and Probation as well as the overlapping treatment goals of the adult drug court and Monitor programs, further study is warranted to determine ( i) which model is the most effective treatment alternative in Maryland and ( ii) whether the least- effective treatment alternative should be discontinued. ! Parole and Probation Supervision: All adult drug court program participants are assigned to a probation officer who is responsible for supervising the participant. Unlike other programs where probation agents are assigned to various types of cases, BCDTC agents are assigned solely to drug court cases. By focusing solely on drug court cases, BCDTC agents are able to conduct a more comprehensive assessment of participants’ treatment needs and supervision requirements. Further study is warranted to determine whether Baltimore City’s methodology of assigning its agents exclusively to drug- related cases is an effective model that should be utilized in other court programs throughout the State. Additionally, further study is needed to determine whether intensive drug treatment, coupled with increased monitoring and supervision by Parole and Probation ( as in the case of BCDTC), is an effective, cost- efficient alternative to the current drug court model. ! Evaluation of Other Drug Treatment Alternatives: Research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be an effective method of decreasing drug use and related crime. However, the drug court model, which generally focuses on providing drug treatment in lieu of incarceration, is not the only method of providing drug treatment through the criminal justice system. For example, drug treatment may be provided during, after, or in lieu of incarceration. Additional research is needed to determine whether any correlation exists between the type of drug addiction, method of treatment, and the mode of supervision. In general, a more detailed analysis regarding the efficacy and utilization of all of Maryland’s criminal justice- based drug treatment programs and alternatives is needed. 33 Chapter 4. Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Maryland’s Drug Court Programs As the level of State funding and the number of operational drug court programs continue to grow, there is a continued need to evaluate the efficacy of Maryland’s drug court programs. Based on the adult and juvenile drug court evaluations, drug court literature, and conversations with officials involved in the implementation of Maryland’s drug court programs, more study is needed in the following areas: ! Drug Court Program Retention and Graduation: Both the Harford County Juvenile Evaluation and the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court ( BCDTC) evaluations reflected low graduation rates among program participants. More study is warranted to determine whether drug courts are aimed at providing drug treatment to the most appropriate drug court candidates. ! Substance Abuse Treatment: The BCDTC and Anne Arundel County District Court Drug Treatment Center ( AA- DC) reports did not provide any data regarding substance abuse treatment and urinalysis results during participants’ tenure in the program. Given the substance abuse treatment mission of the program, more data in this area is needed. ! Post Program Recidivism: The adult and juvenile analyses provide very little data regarding long- term recidivism rates of the drug court participants and comparison group. More trend data in this area is warranted. ! Improved Outcomes: The BCDTC and AA- DC programs provide recidivism data on the number of re- arrests on crimes against person charges such as assault. While long-term improvements in personal responsibility and behavior are noteworthy, the significance of this outcome appears to be minimal considering that a prerequisite to drug court admission is that an offender is classified as being “ non- violent.” ! Drug Offense Recidivism: The AA- DC report failed to provide detailed data and explanations regarding drug offense recidivism among the sample and comparison groups. A more thorough analysis of drug court recidivism in general, in addition to an analysis on whether there is any correlation between recidivism and the types of treatment provided should be conducted going forward. ! Cost Analysis: In addition to the current method of calculating the net return on investment, future evaluations should identify and calculate the net return on investment based solely on hard costs in order to provide a more balanced picture of net return on investment of drug court programs. 34 Maryland’s Drug Courts: An Evaluation ! Business as Usual Costs: The BCDTC and AA- DC reports calculate the Business as Usual costs by dividing the total budgets of various State agencies by the number of hours worked on drug court cases. These costs should be modified to include only the variable costs associated with providing services for drug court participants. ! Income Tax Earnings: Given the relatively small sample sizes used in the evaluations, NPC Research should attempt to calculate income tax savings using Maryland treatment data. ! Evaluation of Other Drug Court Alternatives: Research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be an effective method of decreasing drug use and related crime. However, the drug court model is not the only method of providing drug treatment through the criminal justice system. Further study is warranted to determine if the drug court model is the most effective drug treatment alternative in Maryland. 35 Appendix 1. Victimization Cost for the Maryland Drug Treatment Court Cost Analysis Category of Crime 2003 Quality of Life Cost 2003 Cost Child Abuse, Neglect $ 64,877 $ 74,328 Assault 9,663 11,645 Robbery 7,061 9,910 Drunk Driving 14,742 22,298 Larceny - 458 Burglary 372 1,734 Motor Vehicle Theft 372 4,584 Averages 13,869 17,851 Quality of Life Cost as a Percentage of 2003 Victimization Costs 78% Source: NPC Cost Analysis of Baltimore City, Maryland Drug Treatment Court; U. S. Department of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look ( 1996); Department of Legislative Services 36 Appendix 2. Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Comparison of State Costs for Drug Treatment $ 10,480 $ 10,461 $ 20,941 $ 14,034 $ 14,034 $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 Investment Costs Business as Usual Cost Total Costs Type of Cost Costs Per Person BCDTC Comparison Group Source: Baltimore City Adult Drug Court Evaluations, Final Report, NPC Research 37 Appendix 3. Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Comparison of State Costs for Drug Treatment $ 11,642 $ 9,557 $ 2,085 $ 9,248 $ 9,248 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,000 $ 14,000 Investment Costs Business as Usual Cost Total Costs Type of Cost Costs Per Person AA- DC Comparison Group Source: Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court Evaluations, Final Report, NPC Research |
