Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of DUI Court/Drug Court Programs PART ONE

Transcription

1 September 2002 May February January (approx.) April 16, Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of DUI PART ONE Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group Evaluation of the Bernalillo Co., Arizona Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court. Paul Guerin and Wayne J. Pitts, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico. Coconino County DUI/Drug Court Evaluation. Social Research Laboratory. Frederic I Solop et al..social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona An Analysis of Idaho s Kootenai County DUI Court. Alfred Crancer. NHTSA Data and Evaluation Contractor Recidivism in Alaska s Felony Therapeutic Courts. Alaska Judicial Council. DUI/Drug Court for Coconino County (Flagstaff), Arizona - Website for Coconino Count (Flagstaff), Arizona: t.aspx?id=5852 Georgia s DUI Court Programs Reduce Recidivism. Tammy Meredith, Ph.D. Applied Research Services, Inc. Review four years of program experience involving 560 offenders (450 served and discharged through July 31, 2001) Outcome data compiled May 1, 2001 October 31, 2002 for Drug court participants and control group with similar characteristics and processed through traditional criminal justice system Review of DUI recidivism rates for participants in DUI Court Study of recidivism of graduates of Anchorage Felony DUI and Felony Drug Courts and Bethel Therapeutic Court Reduce DWI rearrest rate for graduates by 50% to below 15% 2 years after graduation NOTE: PROGRAM APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY DRUG COURT PROGRAM rather than specifically DUI program; offense info (prior and current) is presented in terms of felonies and misdemeanors; no mention of DUI offenses or specific factors relevant to DUI charges (license suspension, etc.) (1) complete one year alcohol/drug treatment program (2) no new rearrest for DUI Study focused on recidivism (rearrest or reconviction within one year following program termination. Participants in DUI Drug Court during May 1, 2001-October 31, 2002 Randomly assigned eligible offenders with similar characteristics processed through traditional criminal justice system 46 graduates 20 participants terminated for noncompliance; also reported completion rates for non-court referrals 63 Graduates and 54 nongraduates of Anchorage Felony DUI Court (46%), Anchorage Felony Drug Court (23%); and Bethel Therapeutic Court (31%) [statistical summary] [rearrests if first 125 graduates] First 125 graduates of DUI/Drug Court Analysis of recidivism of offenders participating in DUI program for a minimum of 12 months since program graduation (297 of the 364 participants had requisite 12 month period of participation; 91 had at least 24 months participation;) Appears to be no new DUI charges 364 DUI Court graduates offenders from DUI court programs in Athens-Clarke County (86), Chatham County ( 152), and Hall County (126), Georgia; Graduates had accumulated 1,057 DUI arrests 97 offenders with similar characteristics (not specified as to whether they had drug or DUI charges as their principal charge) 281 offenders selected by the local courts (Athens (81), Chatham (95), and Hall (105) as a control group who met all program criteria prior to existence of the program and were subject to the Georgia multiple DUIO offender administrative

2 October March 2005 (Approx.) January Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation: Final Report. NPC Research Jones, R. K. (2005, March). Final Report: Evaluation of the DUI Court program in Maricopa County, Arizona. Winchester, MA: Mid-America Research Institute, Inc. of New England. MacDonald, J. M., Morral, A. R., Raymond, B., & Eibner, C. (). The Efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI Court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review, 31, Lapham, S.C., Kapitula, L R., &McMillan, G.P. (2006a). Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive courtbased intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, Analysis of impact of 12 Michigan DUI court participation on (1) rearrests) vs traditional court processing; (2) level of alcohol and other drug use; (3) success of program participants in completing program; (4) participant characteristics re successful outcomes; and (5) use of resources for DUI court vs. traditional probation Measurement of recidivism of participants of DWI court at two years post-entry. Measured the statistical probability of being convicted of a new alcohol-related traffic offense including DWI. Re-arrest rates for DWI and other alcohol-related crimes, as well as self-reported drunk-driving events and alcohol abuse Measure impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention called DISP. Re-arrests for DUI Presumably, no new alcoholrelated charges, including DWI. Presumably, no additional or new alcohol related crimes or events. No subsequent DWI offenses. (2.9 per person) in Georgia; Demographics: average participant is 35 yr old white male with at least 3 DUI convictions; 62% are white; 22% are Black; 13% are Hispanic; most are high school graduates; 95% are physically addicted to alcohol or other substances Participants in DUI courts in Bay, Clarkston and Ottawa Counties; Ottawa County (143 participants enrolled from April 2004-March ; Bay County (65 participants enrolled from February 2005-April ; Clarkston County (89 participants enrolled from November 2004-June Experimental study of individuals convicted of a felony DWI offense in Maricopa County. Individuals were randomly assigned to DWI court (n=387) or to the county s standard probation program (n=397). Offenders in Los Angeles County DUI Court convicted of a second or third misdemeanor DWI between May 2000 and Felony and misdemeanor DWI offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon involved in the DUI Intensive Supervision Program (DISP). licensing requirements of assessment and substance abuse treatment; offenders had accumulated 797 arrests (2.8 per person): Demographics: 71% white, 24% black, 4% Hispanic Offenders eligible for DUI court in the year prior to DUI court implementation Intent-to-treat sample, which includes all individuals who initially entered the study. Consenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the DWI Court (n=139) or to standard adjudication (n=145). 284 total participants. Felony and misdemeanor DWI offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon involved in the DISP (n=460) in comparison to DWI offenders drawn from neighboring counties (n=497), and matched on relevant baseline variables including: current age, and number of prior DWI offenses. Samples were selected on a rolling basis from the start of the program in Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 2 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015.

3 April Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group Meredith, T. (, April). Georgia s DUI Court program s reduce recidivism. Applied Research Services, Inc Breckenridge, J.F., Winfree, L.T, Maupin, J.R., & Clason, D.L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI drug court treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research & Policy, 2, DWI Court Evaluation Report (9 th Judicial District, MN: Aitkin County DWI Court, Beltrami County DWI Court, Cass County-Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Wellness Court, Crow Wing County DWI Court, Koochiching County DWI Court, Lake of Woods County DWI Court, Roseau County DWI Court). Dr. Troy Gilbertson. Bemidji State University- Criminal Justice Department Funded by the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety Howard County District Court DUI Court Program Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research (for Maryland AOC). Comparison of recidivism rates in three counties in Georgia using samples drawn prior to the founding of drug courts as well as samples from DWI Court graduates. Recidivism of first and second-time offenders who were determined by clinical staff to be alcohol dependent. Evaluate the DWI court programs of the 9 th Judicial District, MN using the four criteria for program success: Individual program Sub evaluations are also presented in this report. Three key policy questions: 1. Does the DUI Court Reduce Subsequent DUI Charges Among Program Participants? 2. Does the DUI Court Reduce Recidivism in the Criminal Justice System Overall? 3. Does the DUI Court Result in Savings of Taxpayer Dollars? Progress in the four criteria areas indicated: Recidivism, Sobriety, Community Functioning, and Jail Cost Avoidance Participants must complete all program requirements. Individuals from DWI programs in 3 different counties in Georgia. (County names not available) First and second-time offenders in Las Cruces County, New Mexico DWI court, who were determined by clinical staff to be alcohol dependent. Sample of Participants in the individual drug courts. The pooled district-wide data (n=138) -Aitkin (n=24) -Beltrami (n=21) -Cass (n=27) -Crow Wing (n=16) -Koochiching (n=23) -Lake of Woods (n=16) -Roseau (n=11) All DUI Court participants who entered the program from September 2004 to August 2008 were selected for this study. Final sample included 66 DUI Court participants. January 2008 through March Outcomes were assessed between three and six years post-entry depending on when a particular participant entered the program. Comparison samples were drawn from the same counties (n=281) prior to the founding of the DWI Court programs. Although 645 offenders initially entered the DWI Court programs, analyses were only reported on 364 (56%) graduates. First and second-time offenders were randomly assigned to the DWI Court (n=39) or to adjudication as usual (n=36). Similar criminal offenders in the traditional criminal justice system. Pooled district wide: (n=119) -Aitkin- (n=24) -Beltrami (n=21) -Cass (n=15) -Crow Wing (n=9) -Koochiching (n=23) -Lake of Woods (n=16) -Roseau (n=11) Comparison Group was adult residents of Howard County at the time of their violation, charged with a DUI/DWI, and have at least one prior DUI conviction and have had no history of violent offenses. Final sample included 55 comparison individuals. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 3 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015.

4 February 1, October 2011 Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group Anne Arundel County DUI Court Program Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research (for Maryland AOC). The Effectiveness of Idaho DUI and Misdemeanor/DUI Courts: Outcome Evaluation. Scott M. Ronan, Peter A. Collins, and Jeffrey W. Rosky. Maryland Problem-Solving Courts Evaluation, Phase III Integration of Results from Process, Outcome, and Cost Studies Conducted - Final Report. NPC Research. An Evaluation of Three Driving-Under-the-Influence Courts in Georgia. James C. Fell, A. Scott Tippetts, and J. DeCarlo Ciccel. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. October Four key policy questions: 1. Does Participation in the DUI Court Reduce Substance Use Among Program Participants? 2. Does Participation in the DUI Court Reduce Subsequent DUI Charges? 3. Does Participation in the DUI Court Reduce Recidivism in the Criminal Justice System Overall? 4. Does the DUI Court Result in Savings of Taxpayer Dollars? To ascertain if DUI courts or Misd/DUI courts reduced recidivism when compared to similar non-participants. An outcome evaluation of two DUI courts and two Misd/DUI courts in counties with ranging population sizes and geographical differences. 1.) Common and/or best practices for implementing the 10 Key Components and 16 juvenile strategies. 2.) Common challenges and recommendations. 3.) The average and range of recidivism outcomes for adult, DUI, and juvenile drug courts in Maryland. 4.) The average and range of program costs per transaction, per agency and overall. 5.) The average and range of outcome costs and benefits per transaction and overall, and the savings per agency. An outcome or impact evaluation, using a matched comparison design, was initiated when enough court participants graduated and longitudinal data became available to determine the effectiveness of the DUI Courts in reducing recidivism. Upon successful completion of all program requirements, participants become eligible for DUI court graduation. All DUI Court participants who entered the program from April 2005 to August 2008; Final sample included 41 DUI Court participants (17 graduates, 13 non-graduates, and 11 active participants). Participants in the Bannock DUI Court, Kootenai DUI Court, Bonneville Misd/DUI Court, and Bingham Misd/DUI Courts between January 2002 and September 2005 (n=216). Only those participants who had entered the courts with a primary DUI charge were included. Cohort of DUI court participants from each site (Anne Arundel County District Court and Howard County District Court). DUI Court: Offenders in Chatham, Clarke, and Hall counties, sentenced to DUI Court since its beginning in early 2003 through Graduates (N=363): 151 from Chatham, 86 from Clarke, 126 from Hall. Terminated (N= 259): 143 from Chatham, 72 from Clarke, 44 from Hall. Created for this study based on the eligibility criteria used by the program to select its participants. Comparison group was adult residents of Anne Arundel County at the time of their violation, have no more than two prior DUI offenses and have had no history of violent offenses. Final sample included 98 comparison individuals. Matched with the drug court group by age and gender. Also matched by geographical location through the abovementioned counties. Individuals who were known as potential drug court participants and had been accepted into the court (met all eligibility requirements) but declined to enter (n=200). Matched comparison group of offenders from the corresponding county who were eligible for the programs through their criminal history but who did not attend these programs. Retrospective Comparison Group: From same three counties as DUI Court. Arrested between July 2000 and June 2002, meeting same requirements as DUI Court group. Sentenced to DUI Risk Reduction and Multiple Offender Program. Offenders (N=270): 89 from Chatham, 77 from Clarke, 104 from Hall. Contemporary Comparison Group: From three matched Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 4 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015.

5 February 2, 2012 September, 2011 July 2014 November 14, 2014 Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group Drug Courts Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults. Ojmarrh Mitchell, David B. Wilson, Amy Eggers, Doris L. MacKenzie. The Campbell Collaboration. February 2, An Assessment of the Hall County [GA] DUI Court Program. Wes Clarke, Rob Gordon; Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia Minnesota DWI Courts: A Summary of Evaluation Findings in Nine DWI Court Programs. NPC Research. July Butte-Silver Bow [MT] DUI Court Program Evaluation Report. Timothy B. Conley, Clinical and Research Consulting, PLLC, Missoula, MT. The objective of this review is to systematically review quasiexperimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, including drug courts for juvenile and DWI offenders. This systematic review critically assesses drug courts effects on recidivism in the shortand long-term, the methodological soundness of the existing evidence, and the relationship between drug court features and effectiveness. To determine whether recidivism rates for Hall County DUI Court program participants particularly for those who had graduated - differed from the recidivism rates for other groups of defendants. To update and expand on the findings of a study conducted in 2008 by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. To conduct an assessment of Minnesota s DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in the programs. This report was prepared for the Butte-Silver Bow County DUI Court program (BSB) by Clinical and Research Consulting, PLLC, of Missoula, MT. It reviews/assesses BSB program processes and One hundred fifty-four independent evaluations of drug courts met eligibility criteria; 92 of these assessed adult drug courts, 34 examined juvenile drug courts, and 28 investigated DWI drug courts. 405 Hall County DUI Court Participants All nine (9) of Minnesota s DWI court programs Butte-Silver Bow County DUI Court participants over the life of the program comparison counties. Arrested for DUI in same timeframe as the DUI Court group and meeting same requirements as DUI Court group. Randomly selected. Were sentenced to attend the DUI Risk Reduction and Multiple Offender Program. Offenders (N=450): 150 from Bibb (Chatham), 150 from Bulloch (Clarke), 150 from Whitfield (Hall). 3, 647 total Hall County DUI defendants Offenders who were eligible for DWI court but did not participate (where applicable) Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 5 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015.

6 Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Criteria for program success Population Studied Comparison Group outcomes over the past 14 months. The report looks first at program standards, next at program outcomes and finally discusses the overall question: how well is the program complying with treatment court model standards? Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 6 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015.

7 PART TWO 1 September 2002 Methodology Matched drug court graduates with similar group of probation clients (criminal history ethnicity and gender and successful probation completion) Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed DUI Recidivism: Up to two years Within 6 months: DR CT: 3.6% Prob-Success: 9%; Prob. Unsuc: 9.7% Within 7-12 months: DR CT.: 5.4% Prob-Succ: 9% Prob:Unsuc: 5.8% After one year: DR CT: 6.5% Prob-Suc: 9%; Prob Uns: 13% After 2 years: DR CT: 12.5%; Prob-suc: 16.7% Prob: Unsuc: 20.8% May February Process and outcome evaluation of 57 DUI drug court participants and 42 control group randomly assigned defendants with similar characteristics whose cases were processed in the traditional process : review of post program arrest information Compiled new arrests and convictions from the Alaska Department of Public Safety for each of the offenders who participated in the Anchorage DUI Court, the Anchorage Felony Drug Court Recidivism for Violent Offense after 2 years DR Ct : 2.4%; Prob-Suc: 7.7%; Prob: Unsuc: 5.8% Recidivism for any offense after 2 years Dr Ct: 15.5%; Prob-Suc: 27%; Prob: Unsuc: 28.5% SUPPELMENTAL REPORT: 47 of 48 graduates had no DUI arrests for 2 years following program participation General findings (no findings relating to DUI offenses):.01 offenses for DUI Drug Court participants compared with.03 for control group also: number of positive drug tests: - DUI drug court participants: 4% (6.1 average taken per month) - Control group: 18% (1 average taken per month) 2 of 46 (4.3%) graduates rearrested for DUI (compared with 5 of the 20 (25%) terminated) 13% of graduates rearrested within one year after completion vs. 32% rearrest rate for comparison offenders and 38% rearrest rate of offenders charged with felonies in 1999 No participants who were reconvicted within the first year were convicted of an offense at a more serious level than the one on which they entered the therapeutic One year following program termination

8 5 January (approx.) April 16, Methodology and the Bethel Therapeutic Court for at least a one year period following program termination and, for comparison group, following service of sentence and any custody Dept. of Public Safety ran criminal history of the first 125 graduates to identify any misdemeanor or felony arrests post graduation Reviewed data in Georgia Crime Information Center automated criminal history repository as of January 15, for targeted participants; Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed courts vs. 3% of the comparison offenders and 15% for 1999 offenders No participant was convicted of a drug or sexual offense Participants in the Anchorage Felony DUI Court less likely to be rearrested than those in the Anchorage Felony Drug Court and Bethel Therapeutic Court Overall rearrest rate for participants after graduation is 38%; 62% of graduates had no arrests for any offense in Arizona Re-arrest rate higher for drug offenders (49%) than for DUI offenders (33%) Drug offenders rearrested most commonly for drug offenses and property offenses while DUI offenders were rearrested most commonly for DUI or driving on a suspended license. Measured as official arrest recorded in Georgia Crime Information Center automated criminal history repository as of January 15, ; Arrests during Program: 17% had a felony arrest; 6% had a misdemeanor arrest; 2% had a DUI arrest NA 10 months to 4.5 years after graduation (November February 2006). 12 months and 24 months following program graduation 6 After 12 months, program graduates are almost 3 times less likely than control group to have new DUI arrest (4% vs. 11%); 9% vs. 21% had new felony arrest 8% vs. 18% had new misdemeanor arrest 7 8 October March 2005 Data extracted from several sources, including site visit info, criminal history records, database maintained by the Michigan State Police and the Michigan Judicial Warehouse data entered into an Access database Individuals convicted of a felony DWI offense were randomly assigned either to the DWI Court or the county s standard probation program. Recidivism was measured as the At 24 months, DUIO participants are 4 times less likely to have a new DUI arrest (5% vs. 19%). 14% vs. 33% had new felony arrest 17% vs. 30 % had now misdemeanor arrest DUI court participants re-arrested significantly less often than comparison group (in one site: comparison group arrested 6 x more often in first year and 4 times more often in second year Significantly more comparison group offenders re-arrested than DUI court participants (3 times more likely to be rearrested for any charge and 19 times more likely to be rearrested for a DUI charge in a 2 year period DUI court participation led to more time before re-arrest 5.4% of the DWI Court participants and 7.4% of the standard probationers were convicted of a new alcohol-related traffic offense. 1 year following program termination Evaluation was performed over a 63-month period beginning at or near the founding of the program. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 2 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

9 (Approx.) January Methodology statistical probability of being convicted of a new alcohol-related traffic offense, including DWI, at two years post entry. Proportional hazards survival analysis was performed on recidivism data extracted from State Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records. Randomized experimental evaluation of individuals convicted of second and third misdemeanor DWI offenses at the Rio Hondo DWI Court in Los Angeles County, CA. Outcomes included re-arrest rates for DWI and other alcohol-related crimes in addition to selfreported drunk-driving and alcohol abuse events Outcomes from the DISP program (n=460) were compared to those of standard adjudication for DWI offenders drawn from neighboring counties (n=497) and matched on relevant baseline variables, including current age and number of prior DWI offenses. Recidivism data were extracted from the state DVM and included the proportion of subjects convicted of a new DWI offense, driving with a suspended or revoked license, or moving traffic violation. April Recidivism data were extracted from state criminal justice databases on re-arrests for any felony offenses, any misdemeanor offenses, drug offenses, and DWI offenses at 12 and 24 months post-completion. Comparison samples were drawn from the same counties (n=281) prior to the founding of the DWI courts Recidivism data were obtained from the county Municipal Court database and included new convictions for traffic offenses as well as for other serious offenses. Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed Among individuals who completed their respective programs, the re-conviction rate for DWI Court graduates (n=284) was 3.6%. For probation completers (n=284) the re-conviction rate was 6.4%, which was statistically significant after controlling for the number of prior alcohol-related traffic offenses (p<.05). Evaluation and research period occurred over two years, from May of 2000 to of The Rio Hondo DWI Court was created as an experimental program concurrently with the intention of the research study. It was not previously in existence and ceased operations upon conclusion of the research. Results revealed that DISP participants The samples were drawn on a were less likely to be convicted of a rolling basis from the start of the subsequent DWI offense (9.8% vs. 18.3%), program in January, 1998 through driving with a suspended or revoked March 2001 and outcomes were license (14.6% vs. 27.2%) or traffic evaluated through March violation (28.0% vs. 38.4%). These effects were all statistically significant (p <.01) and were in the small range (h=.22 to.31) according to Cohen s (1988) criteria. The time delay until the first recidivist event was also significantly longer for DISP participants (p<.001), suggesting they refrain from DWI contact for a longer time after leaving the program. Results revealed the DWI Court graduates had significantly fewer re-arrests in all offense categories at 12 months post-completion and in all offense categories other than drug crimes at 24 months post-completion. Approx. 15% of the DWI Court participants were convicted of an alcohol, drug or other serious offense, as compared to 22% of the control participants. A two year period with data comparisons at 12 months postcompletion and 24 months postcompletion. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 3 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

10 Methodology 2008 Sampling-Program participants non-randomly were identified for inclusion into their DWI court. Appropriate candidates are non-violent substance abusers who do not pose a risk to society. Control groups were selected nonrandomly and include non-violent, chemically addicted DWI offenders from the same locations during the same time frame. Recidivism-A series of independent t-tests are conducted in order to determine if the 2008 DWI court participants recidivated differently than a similar group of offenders experiencing traditional criminal justice sanctions. Sobriety-Descriptive statistics are presented for total sobriety tests administered and total positive tests for the 2008 DWI court participants. Community Functioning-Data was routinely collected from participants in the 2008 DWI cohort for a number of variables. Jail Cost Avoidance-Operating budget data for 2008 was used to measure DWI programmatic costs. Univariate analysis of variance was performed to compare the mean number of re-arrests for DUI Court and comparison groups. Crosstabs were run to examine differences in recidivism rates, i.e., the percentage of individuals rearrested, between DUI Court and comparison groups. Chi-square analyses were used to identify any significant differences in re-arrest rates between DUI Court and comparison groups. Univariate analysis of variance was performed to compare the mean number of re-arrests for DUI charges for the DUI Court participant and comparison groups. Crosstabs were run to examine differences in recidivism rates, i.e., the percentage of individuals re-arrested, between DUI Court participant and comparison groups. Chi-square analyses were used to identify any significant differences in re arrest rates between DUI Court and comparison groups. Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed Aitkin-0 1 year Beltrami-1 felony conviction Cass County/Leech Lake-0 Crow Wing-1 conviction Koochiching-4 convictions Lake of Woods-1 conviction Roseau-0 Almost all DUI Court participants and graduates were arrested for DUI charges in Howard County during the 2 years prior to program admission, only 13% of program participants and 7% of graduates had been rearrested for DUI charges in the 2 years after entering the DUI Court program. Five percent of the comparison group had been rearrested for a DUI charge. The DUI Court participants had significantly lower re-arrest rates in the criminal justice system overall. DUI Re-arrest Rates: Only 46% of all program participants and 29% of program graduates had been rearrested for DUI charges in the 2 years after entering the DUI Court program, compared to 59% of comparison group members. A lack of significance is likely due to small sample sizes. Criminal Justice Recidivism Rate: In the 24 months following entry to the program, none of the DUI Court participants and graduates were re-arrested, while 37% of the comparison group members were re-arrested. 2-year period. 2-year period. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 4 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

11 February 1, October 2011 Methodology Recidivism is defined as any felony or misdemeanor court filing charge resulting in a disposition of guilty that had an issue date at least 60 days post intake/action date. Intake/action date refers to the date of the potential participant s decision to enter DUI court. Only those felony or misdemeanor charges that resulted in a disposition of guilty were chosen, to further delineate recidivism. Univariate analysis of variance was performed to compare the mean number of re-arrests for DUI charges for the DUI Court participant and comparison groups. Crosstabs were run to examine differences in recidivism rates, i.e., the percentage of individuals re-arrested, between DUI Court participant and comparison groups. Chi-square analyses were used to identify any significant differences in re arrest rates between DUI Court and comparison groups at each site. The recidivism data for all these offenders were analyzed using survival analyses, namely Cox Regression models and Kaplan-Meier models, both of which account for varying exposure periods and quickness to recidivate. The term any recidivism here includes DUIs and other alcohol-related offenses, as well as habitual offender or vehicle causing injury offenses that often involve alcohol whether a DUI is charged or not, and may even be charged by police instead of DUIs for more serious offenses. Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed Of the DUI and Misd/DUI Court 4.5 years. participants (n=216), 50 (23%) recidivated, while 74 (37%) of the comparison group (n=200) recidivated. Offenders that participate in Idaho DUI or Misd/DUI courts are less likely to recidivate and when they do recidivate, it takes longer. Among DUI Court participants, re-arrest rates for DUI charges ranged from 13% to 46%, compared to the comparison group s range of 5% to 59%. The average re-arrest rate for DUI charges in 24 months for Maryland DUI Courts was 30%, compared to 32% for comparison groups. Re-arrest rates for all other criminal justice charges ranged from 0% to 10% within the programs, compared to 28% to 37% within the comparison groups. The DUI Court program showed a significant improvement of 38.2 percent lower recidivism than the Contemporary Comparisons (a 15% recidivism rate at four years for the Intent to Treat offenders (combined DUI Court Graduates and Terminated), as opposed to a 24 percent recidivism rate at 4 years for the Contemporary offenders; Wald statistic = 11.10, p<.001), and 65.0 percent lower recidivism than the Retrospective Comparisons (15% versus 36%; Wald statistic = 53.84, p<.001). At least 24 months post program entry (and a similar time period for the comparison group). The statistical estimates of risk (and the computed rates of recidivism) are probably most reliable up through about 4 years of exposure risk. 19 February 2, 2012 A multi-pronged search strategy was used to identify eligible studies. Researchers searched bibliographic databases, websites of several research organizations involved in drug court research, and the references of eligible evaluations and prior reviews. Evaluations eligible for inclusion in this review were evaluations of drug courts that used an experimental and quasi-experimental comparison group design. Studies must also have had an outcome that examined criminal or drug-use behavior (recidivism). Relative to a 50% recidivism rate in the comparison group (a typical value), the recidivism rate for DWI courts is 37.7%. 12 months. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 5 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

12 20 21 September, 2011 July 2014 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of DUI Methodology Obtained data on defendants with DUI convictions during 2005, 2006, and that included basic demographics and complete criminal histories from CourtView. Hall County DUI Court provided information on its participants. Subsequent arrest records on defendants included in this study were obtained for at least 42 months (through June 2011) following sentencing on the convictions that took place during 2005, 2006 and Analyzed the recidivism rates of all defendants as well as the rates for program participants and program graduates. Also analyzed the time to rearrest for those defendants who were convicted on a subsequent DUI charge The evaluation included a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine (9) of Minnesota s DWI Court programs and a cost-benefit evaluation in seven (7) of these programs (due to small sample sizes in two of the nine programs) Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed Key Findings for All Hall County Defendants -Recidivism for all defendants in Hall Count is 6.7% (246 of 3,647) -Data analysis revealed no differences in recidivism based on race or gender Key Findings for Hall County DUI Court Participants -Recidivism for DUI Court participants in Hall County is 24.9% (101 of 405) -Recidivism for program graduates is 19% (22 of 116) -Recidivism for those who were terminated from the program or who are AWOL or still in the program is 27.3% (79 of 210) -Graduation from the Hall County DUI Court program reduces the likelihood of a subsequent arrest by 88% compared with those who were terminated or who are AWOL or still active in the program. The recidivism rates for program graduates were substantially lower for eight of the nine programs. Percent of participants rearrested for a DWI charge ranged from 0%-4% in most programs, with a high of 10% in one site. Recidivism (re-arrest) rates for all participants (regardless of completion status) were lower for six of the nine programs two years after program entry compared to similar offenders who were eligible for DWI court but did not participate. Two of the three programs that did not demonstrate lower recidivism for all participants had process concerns including issues with DWI court team cooperation and communication, adequate drug testing, appropriateness of treatment services provided, and the availability of culturally appropriate services. All Hall County Defendants -Monetary fines seemed to reduce recidivism and extend the time to rearrest for defendants who do reoffend. The relationship is strong and statistically significant 2-years Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 6 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

13 22 November 14, 2014 Methodology Data from the Drug Court Case Management System (DCCM), in combination with data from the State of Montana s court administrated data collection system was used to prepare the descriptive statistics and reporting that follow. The timeframe under study is the life of the court. In some analysis fewer cases were included due to missing or inaccurate data, mostly from the very early days of the court Recidivism Results Re-Arrests Convictions Time Followed Over 75% of admitted participants successfully DCCM indicates that no participants were The timeframe under study is the complete the program: 1.52% Unsuccessful/ convicted of any other crime while enrolled life of the court. New Offense; 12.12% Unsuccessful/ Non- in the program. It cannot currently be Compliant; 6.06% voluntarily withdrew; 1.52% systematically determined if participants Transferred to another Jurisdiction; 3.03% were convicted of a new crime, particularly Other DUI, while in program or post-program. Anecdotal evidence indicates that some were. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 7 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated: January 20, 2015

14 September 2002 and Supplement of September 2004 May February January (approx.) Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of DUI PART THREE Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings Evaluation of the Bernalillo Co., Arizona Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court. Paul Guerin and Wayne J. Pitts, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico.(and supplement) Coconino County DUI/Drug Court Evaluation. Social Research Laboratory. Frederic I Solop et al..social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona Phase II Douglas County [Nebraska] Drug Court Evaluation Report. Thomas J. Martin, Cassia C. Spohn, R.K. Piper, and Jill Robinson Recidivism in Alaska s Felony Therapeutic Courts. Alaska Judicial Council. DUI/Drug Court for Coconino County (Flagstaff), Arizona - Website for Coconino Count (Flagstaff), Arizona: px?id=5852 Program saved $ 200,000 in combined jail costs and CCP days for drug court graduates compared with successful probation client for period: March 1, 1998-September 30, Average DUI drug court participant costs county approximately $ 534/month; average cost for traditional CJS processing is $ 758/mo. (difference in cost primarily due to increased likelihood of control group members spending time in jail ($80/day) or prison ($ 53/day); total program costs were $ 6,408 for DUI drug court (completed in 12 months) vs. $ 22,740 for traditional process( requiring 2-3 years) Program cost more than traditional processing but worth the savings of lives; participants pay $ 20/month Persons with subsequent misdemeanor DWI or other misdemeanor offense Primary Substance was: alcohol: 93.8%, cocaine: 4.2%);43% of participants had 3-4 prior DWI s; 42% had two priors) Defendants with current drug or alcohol related charges and no prior offenses and drug/alcohol dependent Kootenai Co. Resident Current DUI charge is 2 nd offense within 5 years OR DUI BAC is.20 or more No felony DUI; No prior crime of violence (including sex offense) Includes 46%( 54) participants in Anchorage Felony DUI Court (persons with felony DUI conviction or felony refusal to take blood alcohol test; also 31% (36) participants from Bethel Therapeutic Court and 23% (27) participants from Anchorage Felony rug Court; 67% (78) had DUI conviction when they entered one of the three programs studied.

15 6 April 16, Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings Georgia s DUI Court Programs Reduce Recidivism. Tammy Meredith, Ph.D. Applied Research Services, Inc. 7 October Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation. Final Report. NPC Research Ottawa County: offenders with second DUI charge or criminal charges involving drug use; residents of Ottawa County; new charge or vop that is drug or drug related; show pattern of substance abuse Bay County: second and third DUJI offenders; must live within 50 miles; be at least 17 yrs of age; diagnosed as chemically dependent and charged with DUI offense (various criminal justice charges will exclude participant) Clarkston Co: residents of the District; current DUI offense or child endangerment due to alcohol related offenses; can be first time or repeat DUI offense (excludes current probationers and other exclusion criteria applied re violent offender, INS matters, etc.) 1.also reduced illegal drug use based on decrease of positive drug (but not necessarily alcohol breathalyzer) tests over time 2.also retention and completion rates ranged from 54% - 84% 3.factors associated with lower graduation rates: illegal drug use; greater number of days spent in jail after program start; higher number of positive alcohol tests; greater numbers of sanctions imposed 4.differences between DUI court and traditional probation: DUI participants spend considerably more time in treatment; less time in jail prior to program; time enrolled in program higher; overall conclusion: DUI court is effective in reducing recidivism and reducing drug and alcohol use while using less criminal justice system resources to accomplish these goals 8 March 2005 Jones, R. K. (2005, March). Final Report: Evaluation of the DUI Court program in Maricopa County, Arizona. Winchester, MA: Mid- America Research Institute, Inc. of New England. Individuals convicted of a felony DWI offense in Maricopa County who were assigned to either the DWI Court program or to the county s standard probation program during a 63-month period beginning near the time of the founding of the program. Among graduates, outcomes were significantly better than for probation completers. However, the magnitude of this effect according to Cohen s (1988) criteria was small (h=.13) and did not hold up for the original intent-to-treat sample. Requires replication in order to place confidence in the results. It is unclear what proportion of the sample entered the program after the DWI Court had been operation long enough to develop and improve its services. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 2 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015

16 (Approx.) January Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings MacDonald, J. M., Morral, A. R., Raymond, B., & Eibner, C. (). The Efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI Court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review, 31, Lapham, S.C., Kapitula, L R., &McMillan, G.P. (2006a). Impaireddriving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, April Meredith, T. (, April). Georgia s DUI Court program s reduce recidivism. Applied Research Services, Inc. Offenders in Los Angeles County convicted of a second or third misdemeanor DWI between May 2000 and Felony and misdemeanor DWI offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon involved in the DISP (n=460) in comparison to DWI offenders drawn from neighboring counties (n=497), and matched on relevant baseline variables including: current age, and number of prior DWI offenses. Comparison samples were drawn from the same counties (n=281) prior to the founding of the DWI Court programs. Although 645 offenders initially entered the DWI Court programs, analyses were only reported on 364 (56%) graduates The Rio Hondo DWI Court was created as an experimental program concurrently with the intention of the research study. It was not previously in existence and ceased operations upon conclusion of the research. Apparently, there was no opportunity for the program to pilot-test or improve its operations, nor was the outcome evaluation preceded by a process evaluation that documented the program s fidelity to applicable professional standards. No dosage information was reported on how often the participants actually attended treatment sessions or status hearings or had been tested for substance abuse. It is difficult to know whether the operations of this court were reflective of a typical DWI Court program. Participants in the control condition received interventions that are ordinarily associated with a DWI court and not with probation as-usual. This may have represented a negligible difference in the results. While potentially supportive of the DWI Court model, it is difficult to know whether these superior effects were attributable to the courtbased elements of the program as opposed to the exhaustive regimen of the probationary interventions that were also available. The DISP program differed from standard probation on so many dimensions that it is not possible to determine which aspects may have elicited the beneficial effects. Failure to report outcomes on the entire intentto-treat sample (i.e. on all individuals who initially entered the DWI Courts) renders the comparisons of questionable utility. It is not appropriate to select out successful cases from the DWI Court group and compare them to the entire cohort of control subjects (e.g., Heck, 2006). Analyses should have been conducted on the intent-to-treat sample, or at a minimum the Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 3 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015

17 Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings 2000 Breckenridge, J.F., Winfree, L.T, Maupin, J.R., & Clason, D.L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI drug court treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research & Policy, 2, DWI Court Evaluation Report (Minnesota) (9 th Judicial District, MN: Aitkin County DWI Court, Beltrami County DWI Court, Cass County-Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Wellness Court, Crow Wing County DWI Court, Koochiching County DWI Court, Lake of Woods County DWI Court, Roseau County DWI Court). Dr. Troy Gilbertson. Bemidji State University-Criminal Justice Department Funded by the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety Howard County, Md., District Court DUI Court Program Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research (for Maryland AOC). Total Cost Avoidance: Aitkin-$107,640 Beltrami-$56,091 Cass County/Leech Lake-$110,520 Crow Wing-$53,092 Koochiching-$119,439 Lake of Woods-$6,592 Roseau-$8,009 The cost due to recidivism over 24 months from program entry was $4,056 per DUI Court participant compared to $5,438 per comparison individual, resulting in a savings of $1,382 per participant (regardless of whether they graduate). The vast majority of the cost in outcomes for DUI Court participants over the 24 months from DUI Court entry was due to time in jail ($3,848), mostly for participants who were unsuccessful in completing the program. First and second-time offenders in Las Cruces County, New Mexico, were randomly assigned to the DWI Court (n=39) or to adjudication as usual (n=36). Pooled district wide data for n=138 participants. Individual county sub evaluations are also presented. Participants selected are DWI offenders in the 9 th Judicial District of MN years of age or older 2. Howard County resident 3. No pending sentencing, warrants, or detainers 4. Not currently on parole 5. Not currently on probation unless sentencing judge agrees to participation 6. Only charges pending in Howard County are eligible for inclusion in plea negotiations, unless parties involved in cases from other jurisdictions agree 7. The defendant has not previously been convicted of any crime of violence, abduction, child abuse, rape or sexual offense, kidnapping, robbery, robbery with a deadly weapon, carjacking, use of a weapon in commission of a felony or crime of violence, arson, or attempts at any of the above offenses. An exception may be made if the offense occurred comparison group should have included only successful probation completers. Otherwise there is a serious risk of biased comparison unfairly favoring the DWI Court programs. Due to small numbers in this study, there may have been insufficient statistical power to detect differences if they were present. With a larger sample size, this difference might have turned out to be statistically significant. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 4 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015 Probably due to the small numbers of nongraduates, few characteristics differentiate DUI Court graduates from nongraduates; however, graduates were more likely to be non-caucasian and have fewer preprogram DUI arrests. DUI Court participants who re-offended with a DUI charge were younger and less likely to have an arrest for a person crime in the 2 years prior to the program participation. DUI Court participants who re-offended with ANY criminal charge were also younger, though this relationship disappeared when other variables were controlled for. The graduation rate is 84%.(Participants who are not meeting program requirements and/or those who reoffend or violate conditions of probation several times may be removed from the program. )

18 February 1, Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings Anne Arundel County, Md. DUI Court Program Outcome and Cost Evaluation. NPC Research (for Maryland AOC). The Effectiveness of Idaho DUI and Misdemeanor/DUI Courts: Outcome Evaluation. Scott M. Ronan, Peter A. Collins, and Jeffrey W. Rosky. Maryland Problem-Solving Courts Evaluation, Phase III Integration of Results from Process, Outcome, and Cost Studies Conducted - Final Report. NPC Research. The cost due to recidivism over 24 months from program entry was $7,390 per DUI Court participant compared to $9,016 per comparison individual, resulting in a savings of $1,626 per participant (regardless of whether they graduate). The vast majority of the cost in outcomes for DUI Court participants over the 24 months from DUI Court entry was due to time in jail ($5,597), mostly for participants who were unsuccessful in completing the program. The results from two Maryland DUI Court Programs cost evaluations show an average 24 - month outcome cost savings of $1,505 per DUI court participant when compared to the comparison group. more than 10 years earlier. 8. Charged with a DUI/DWI and has at least one prior conviction. In order to be eligible for the DUI court, an individual must be 18 years or older, a county resident, have no history of violence and no interfering mental health issues. The eligible charge may be a prospective participant s first, second or third DUI. Individuals are ineligible if they have any pending warrants, sentences or are currently on parole. For each court, the admission process examines three key issues: 1) If the offender has committed any current or prior violent or sexual offenses they are not eligible, 2) if the offender has undergone an assessment to determine if they have a substance use disorder, and 3) if the offender has been assessed to determine their risk level for criminal behavior and are classified as mediumhigh to high risk. The graduation rate is 57%. The participant must meet with his/her case manager to ensure that all requirements have been met, including financial obligations. The graduate then has his/her case closed and no further sentence is imposed.). Graduates have significantly more days in the program than non-graduates, have more days in the community of those days in the program, and have fewer lifetime DUI charges prior to program participation. The drug court group graduated 165 (76.9%) of the participants, over half (85) from the Kootenai DUI Court (Kootenai county is the most populated county in this study) alone. Of the drug court group, the two most frequent primary charges which led to their referral and participation in DUI or Misd/DUI Court, were Driving Under the Influence, (66.7%) and Driving Under the Influence; Second Offense (22.2%). The results of this DUI Court evaluation indicate that the programs are successful in reducing participant recidivism both for DUI charges and in the criminal justice system overall and that one program has documented a decrease in substance use among participants. Both programs are above the national average for drug court graduation rates with Howard County displaying a very high graduation rate, indicating that the DUI Court program is helping most participants successfully complete program requirements. Program participant characteristics across the two sites show that most Maryland DUI Court participants are male (83%), Caucasian (77%), and in their later 30s (average age of 37.5). Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 5 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015

19 October 2011 February 2, 2012 September, 2011 July 2014 November 14, 2014 Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings An Evaluation of Three Driving- Under-the-Influence Courts in Georgia. James C. Fell, A. Scott Tippetts, and J. DeCarlo Ciccel. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. October Drug Courts Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults. Ojmarrh Mitchell, David B. Wilson, Amy Eggers, Doris L. MacKenzie. The Campbell Collaboration. February 2, An Assessment of the Hall County DUI Court Program. Wes Clarke, Rob Gordon; Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia Minnesota DWI Courts: A Summary of Evaluation Findings in Nine DWI Court Programs. NPC Research. July Butte-Silver Bow [MT] DUI Court Program Evaluation Report. Timothy B. Conley, Clinical and Research Consulting, PLLC, Missoula, MT. It is estimated that the DUI Courts prevented between 47 and 112 arrests for repeat DUI over the four year period of analysis. Unfortunately, costs associated with the operation of these DUI courts could not be obtained, nor could the cost savings of these DUI courts be estimated. Neither could costs associated with more traditional courts that deal with DUI offenders be obtained, nor could any estimated cost savings due to these operations be estimated for comparison purposes. This rendered a comprehensive costbenefit analysis impossible to conduct in this study. According to the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, the average daily cost per drug court participant is $13.54 per day, 70% to 80% less than the average daily cost of most traditional sentencing. The average cost savings over the 2-year follow-up period to the local agencies and state in six of the seven programs ranged from $1,694 to $11,386 per participant. The combined savings associated with all seven DWI courts totaled over $1.4 million in a two-year period. case was eventually dismissed. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 6 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015 The other factors that might be expected to contribute to the likelihood to recidivate - namely, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and number of prior DUI offenses - were also examined to ensure that the group effect found was not an artifact of some other factor on which the groups might have been differently composed - although it was already known that the two comparison groups had been composed via stratified random sampling to match the Intervention group on these factors. (Differences among counties were also examined; this effect is discussed separately herein.) From these other variables tested, only age and prior DUIs were significant predictors of recidivism for all four groups of the offenders we examined. DUI defendants -Chatham County graduates had a 10% recidivism rate (nonparticipant rate of 27%) -Clarke County graduates had an 11% recidivism rate (nonparticipant rate of 19%) Returns on investment varied from $1.12 to $3.19 for every $1.00 invested in the program. Conditional upon completion of the entire program, most participants reported a change in charges of sentence: 40.91% reported a sentence reduction; 12% reported both a sentence and charge reduction; 34.85% reported no sentence reduction; 1.52% (1 case) reported a charge reduction only; 4.55% indicated the

20 Bibliographic Information System Impact/Cost Savings Target Population Other Findings Heading into treatment, the insurance breakdown is as follows: 66.13% had no insurance; 20.97% had privade insurance; 6.45% Medicaid; 1.61% (1 case) Medicare; 4.84% Other Between start and completion, 50% improved employment status by moving either from unemployment to employment or from part time to full time. Also, educational level improved for 34% of court participants. Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Adult Drug Court Programs Published present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. 7 School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated January 20, 2015