access code 3084342 for the audio portion of the presentation in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Please call 800-503-2899 and enter access code 3084342 for the audio portion

• f the presentation in addition

to logging in online. The webinar will begin shortly.

National Center for State Courts Outcome Evaluation

Hybrid Courts

Courts Involved in Study Hybrid Courts

There were a total of 53 courts in the Hybrid Court sample:

• 10th Circuit, Saginaw
• 10th District, Battle Creek
• 11th Circuit, Alger/Schoolcraft
• 14B District Court, Washtennaw
• 15th District, Ann Arbor
• 16th District, Livonia
• 20th Circuit, Ottawa
• 21st Circuit, Isabella
• 23rd Circuit, Alcona
• 33rd District, Woodhaven
• 35th Circuit, Shiawassee
• 36th Circuit, Van Buren
• 36th District, Detroit
• 37th Circuit, Calhoun Women's
• 37th Circuit, Calhoun Men's
• 37th District, Warren
• 3rd Circuit, Wayne
• 41B District, Clinton Twp.
• 41st Circuit, Iron
• 44th Circuit, Livingston
• 44th District, Royal Oak
• 45th Circuit, St. Joseph
• 48th Circuit, Allegan
• 4th Circuit, Jackson
• 4th District, Cass
• 37th Circuit, Calhoun Women's
• 37th Circuit, Calhoun Men's

Courts Involved in Study Hybrid Courts

There were a total of 53 courts in the Hybrid Court sample:

• 37th District, Warren
• 3rd Circuit, Wayne
• 41B District, Clinton Twp.
• 41st Circuit, Iron
• 44th Circuit, Livingston
• 44th District, Royal Oak
• 45th Circuit, St. Joseph
• 48th Circuit, Allegan
• 4th Circuit, Jackson
• 4th District, Cass
• 50th Circuit, Chippewa
• 51st District, Waterford
• 52nd 3 District, Rochester Hills
• 52nd 4 District, Troy
• 53rd Circuit, Cheboygan
• 54B District, East Lansing
• 55th District, Ingham
• 56B District Barry
• 56th Circuit, Eaton
• 58th District, Ottawa
• 5th Circuit, Barry
• 61st District, Grand Rapids
• 67th District, Genesee
• 6th Circuit, Oakland
• 7th Circuit, Genesee
• 80th District, Clare/Glan

Courts Involved in Study Hybrid Courts

There were a total of 53 courts in the Hybrid Court sample:

• 86th District, Grand Traverse
• 87th District, Otsego
• 88th District, Alpena/Montmorency
• 89th District, Cheboygan
• 8th Circuit, Ionia
• 8th District, Kalamazoo
• 92nd District, Mackinac/Luce
• 93rd District, Alger
• 93rd District, Schoolcraft
• 95B District, Iron
• R, 97th District
• UDCI 6th Circuit, Oakland
• UDCI 7th Circuit, Genesee

Participant Demographics Hybrid Courts (n=6,761)

Male, 69.1% Female, 30.9%

Gender

79.0% 14.9% 3.1% 1.9% 1.1% Caucasian African American Hispanic/L atino Other* Multi-racial

Race

*Other includes Asian American/Pacific Islander, and Native American.

Participant Demographics Hybrid Courts (n=6,761)

Age

6.8% 41.3% 23.9% 17.0% 9.1% 1.9% <21 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60 67.5% 15.2% 13.2% 3.2% 0.9% Single Divorced Married Separated Widowed

Marital Status

Education Level at Entry Hybrid Courts (n=6,753)

18.9% 10.3% 28.7% 4.4% 24.6% 4.1% 7.2% 1.7%

11th grade or less GED High school graduate Trade school Some college College graduate 2- year program College graduate 4- year program Some post graduate/advanced degree

Employment Status at Entry Hybrid Courts (n=6,751)

40.7% 37.7% 14.1% 6.3% 0.7% 0.4%

Employed full-time Unemployed Employed part-time Not in labor force Disabled Retired

Drug of Choice Hybrid Courts (n=6,761)

* Other includes barbiturates, club drugs, hallucinogens, inhalants, sedatives, amphetamines, and benzodiazepines.

60.1% 16.6% 9.8% 5.2% 3.3% 3.4% 1.6%

Alcohol Heroin/Opiates Marijuana Cocaine/Crack Cocaine Methamphetamines Poly Drug Other*

Treatment/Diagnosis Information Hybrid Courts

93.0% 65.2% 30.1% 19.7%

Current Substance Use Disorder Prior Substance Abuse Txt Current Co-Occurring Disorder Diagnosis Mental Health History

Criminal History

Prior Criminal History Hybrid Courts

Prior misdemeanor convictions, 85.1% Prior felony convictions, 29.6%

 Average number of prior misdemeanor convictions = 4.3  Average number of prior felony convictions = 2.4  Any prior conviction = 88.4%

Placement Offense

Placement Offenses Hybrid Courts

Placement Offense Severity

(n=6,759)

Placement Offense

(n=6,761)

*Other includes non-violent sex offenses. Felony, 37.7% Misdemeanor, 61.5% Other, 0.8% 62.0% 22.1% 8.4% 6.4% 0.7% 0.4% DUI/Alcohol Offense Drug Offense Property Offense Other/Unknown Offense* Traffic Offense Domestic Violence Offense

Services Received in Hybrid Court

Treatment Received Hybrid Courts

71.0% 20.5% 21.7% 0.8% 0.3% 81.3% 22.2% 14.4% 0.3% 0.3% 56.9% 18.6% 33.6% 1.7% 0.3%

Outpatient Intensive Outpatient Residential Sub-Acute Detox Outpatient Detox

All participants Graduates Non-Graduates There is a significant difference between graduates and non-graduates in outpatient treatment services received (p<.001), intensive

• utpatient treatment received (p<.001), residential treatment received (p<.001), and sub-acute detox services received (p<.001).

Treatment Services Received Treatment Services to Match ASAM Level

77% 79% 37% 58%

Level 0.5 Early Intervention (N=100) Level I Outpatient (N=3,942) Level II Intensive Outpatient/Partial Hospitilization (N=1,735) Level III Residential/Inpatient (N=940)

Program Completion Rates

Completion Status Hybrid Courts

59.4% 35.4% 5.2%

Graduates Non-Graduates Other

Unsuccessful Completion Hybrid Courts (n=2,393)

Average time to abscond = 8 months

59.6% 33.4% 7.0%

Non-Compliance Absconded New Offense

Length of Stay Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis Hybrid Courts

Graduates: Median: 473 days – 16 months Non-Graduates: Median: 238 days – 8 months All Completers: Median: 414 days – 14 months

Statistical Significance

Statistical Importance What is a statistically significant difference?

• In any analysis, there’s a possibility that a result is simply due to random chance or error, even if it

looks convincing.

• A statistically significant result tells us that a relationship is not due simply to random chance. We

can more confidently say a result is true when it is statistically significant.

• The smaller the p-value, the more confident we are that the result is reliable!

A statistically significant result tells us that a relationship is not the result of random chance.

P-value Possibility Finding is Result of Chance/Error Possibility Finding is Result of Factors Studied .05 5% 95% .01 1% 99% .001 0.1% 99.9%

Recidivism Rates: Graduates vs. Non-graduates

Michigan Definition of Recidivism

 The Michigan SCAO reports on recidivism within two years and within four years of admission.  In order to be included in the two-year recidivism study, the participant must have been admitted at least two years prior to the time the evaluation is conducted, and their comparison member had to have their case opened in the case management system at least two years prior to the evaluation.  In order to be included in the four-year recidivism study, the participant must have been admitted at least four years prior to the time the evaluation is conducted, and their comparison member had to have their case opened in the case management system at least four years prior to the evaluation.

General Recidivism Rates: Graduates vs. Non-Graduates Hybrid Courts

Graduates Non-Graduates 2-year recidivism *

*There is a significant difference between the general recidivism rates of graduates and non- graduates (p<.001).

* 5.3% 10.8% 25.1% 38.3% 4 year recidivism

Drug/Alcohol Recidivism Rates – Graduates vs. Non-Graduates Hybrid Courts

Graduates Non-Graduates 2-year recidivism *

*There is a significant difference between the drug/alcohol recidivism rates of graduates and non-graduates (p<.001).

* 3.4% 7.4% 14.2% 24.7% 4 year recidivism

Recidivism Rates: Participants vs. Comparison Group

Two-Year Recidivism Rates

2-Year Recidivism Rate Hybrid Courts (n=3,135)

Hybrid Court Participants Comparison Group All recidivism

*There is a significant difference between the two-year general recidivism rates and the drug/alcohol recidivism of hybrid court participants and the comparison group (p<.001).

* * 13% 8% 19% 12% Drug/Alcohol recidivism

Two Year Recidivism Rates – Participant Variables Hybrid Courts

Participant Variables Impact Race A hybrid court participant who is not black or white is 65% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar white hybrid court participant. Age A hybrid court participant who is between the ages of 31 and 40 is 49% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant who is between the ages of 21 and 30. Drug of choice – Other (e.g. cocaine, marijuana, and poly-substance) A hybrid court participant whose drug of choice is “other” is 39% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant whose drug of choice is opiates/heroin.

Two-Year Recidivism Rates – Participant Variables Hybrid Courts

Participant Variables Impact Treatment hours between 100 and 200 A hybrid court participant who receives between 100 and 200 hours of treatment is 60% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an

• therwise similar hybrid court participant who receives less than 100 hours
• f treatment.

Treatment hours greater than 200 A hybrid court participant who receives greater than 200 hours of treatment is 70% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant who receives less than 100 hours of treatment. Completion status A hybrid court participant who successfully completed the program is 80% less likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant who did not successfully complete the program.

Two-Year Recidivism Rates – Participant Variables Hybrid Courts

Participant Variables Impact Residential treatment

• nly

A hybrid court participant who participates in residential treatment only is 258% more likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant who does not attend residential treatment while enrolled in the court. Residential treatment and outpatient treatment A hybrid court participant who participates in residential treatment and

• utpatient treatment is 149% more likely to reoffend within two years

compared to an otherwise similar hybrid court participant who does not attend residential treatment while enrolled in the court. Over treated in relation to ASAM criteria Participants who are over treated in relation to their assessed ASAM level are 114% more likely to reoffend within two years compared to an otherwise similar participant who is treated at the level assessed by ASAM criteria.

Four-Year Recidivism Rates

4-Year Recidivism Rate Hybrid Courts (n=1,175)

*The is a significant difference between the four-year general recidivism rates and the comparison group (p<.008). There is not a significant difference in the four-year drug/alcohol recidivism of hybrid court participants and the comparison group.

Hybrid Court Participants Comparison Group All recidivism 23% 15% 28% 18% Drug/Alcohol recidivism

*

Four-Year Recidivism Rates – Participant Variables Hybrid Courts

Participant Characteristics Impact Placement charge severity A hybrid court participant whose placement charge is a felony is 77% more likely to reoffend within four years compared to an otherwise similar participant charged with misdemeanor who is placed in a hybrid court.

Summary

• f Findings

Summary of Findings Hybrid Courts

• Always try to incorporate evidence-based practices into the design and operation of

your hybrid court.

• Educate the team on the foundation of the research behind the practices. Practices

are not checkmarks on a to-do list.

• Several study specific findings:

 The number of treatment hours received is important. Strive for a minimum of 200 hours of treatment – especially if you are serving high-risk clients.  Assess both risk and need and apply appropriate interventions based on both. This means both supervision and treatment.  Examine your use of residential treatment.