Cowlitz County Drug Court Evaluation

Transcription

1 Cowlitz County Drug Court Evaluation Prepared by: Principal Investigator Mark Krause, Ph.D. Laurie Drapela, Ph.D. Consultants Research Assistants: Kate Wilson, Jillian Schrupp, Jen Haner Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences 5000 N. Willamette Blvd. Portland, Oregon (P) (F) July 2004 Social & Behavioral Sciences 1

2 Table of Contents A. Report Overview B. Executive Summary C. Cowlitz County Drug Court D. Research Design & Methodology E. Findings F. Implications of Findings G. References H. Appendices Social & Behavioral Sciences 2

3 A. REPORT OVERVIEW The Cowlitz County Drug Court was established by the Cowlitz County Superior Court in August The Drug Court is a diversion program for offenders charged with drug offenses or other qualifying crimes. The Drug Court team approached Dr. Nick McRee, an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Portland, to conduct an evaluation of the program. Dr. Mark Krause, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Portland, and Dr. Laurie Drapela, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Washington State University Vancouver served as consultants to this research. Dr. McRee and his research team designed an outcome evaluation for the Cowlitz County Drug Court program. This evaluation report contains several sections. An executive summary of major findings is presented in Section B. Section C presents an overview of the mission of the Cowlitz County Drug Court program and outlines program components. Section D describes the research design and methodology employed in the evaluation, including data collection and data management procedures. Section E presents findings from the evaluation. Specifically, it: (1) provides descriptive information about Drug Court participants; (2) compares clients terminated from the program with clients who graduated from the program, and focuses special attention on the disciplinary infractions each group received; and (3) investigates recidivism rates among Drug Court graduates, clients terminated from the program, and offenders who were identified as suitable for the program but declined to participate. Section F presents an analysis of key findings from this evaluation in light of past research on drug courts. It also describes several implications of this research for the future and makes recommendations for improving data collection and data management. References and appendices to the report are contained in Sections G and H, respectively. Social & Behavioral Sciences 3

4 B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1., conducted an evaluation of the Cowlitz County Drug Court. The evaluation involved clients who entered the Drug Court program between August 1999 and September The study also included offenders who declined to participate in the program and were processed through the traditional criminal justice system. 2. In most respects, Drug Court participants and the sample of offenders who declined to participate in the program were similarly constituted, according to an analysis of group demographics, living arrangements and employment history, prior drug use, and criminal history. Some important differences were discovered, however. Drug Court clients tended to be slightly younger. They were also more likely to be employed or actively seeking employment at the time they were first screened for the program, and a lower proportion of Drug Court clients received public assistance. Drug Court participants reported greater frequency of drug use in the month prior to their eligibility screening, but they were less likely to have a felony or misdemeanor criminal record. 3. The evaluation considered sanction activity among Drug Court graduates and clients who were terminated from the program. Both groups tended to receive a similar number of sanctions on average (6.59 sanctions for graduates compared to 8.29 for those terminated from the program). However, a majority of graduates remained sanction-free during the first 30 days of the program, while less than 1/3 of clients terminated from Drug Court managed to receive no sanctions during their first month in the program. Indeed, 50% of non-graduates received a sanction within the first two weeks in Drug Court. By contrast, the graduate cohort spent approximately 6 weeks in the program before 50% had received a sanction. 4. The odds that a Drug Court client would successfully complete the program were computed to be 44.4%. This is essentially the same Social & Behavioral Sciences 4

5 graduation rate that has been observed in other evaluations of drug courts around the country. The study also discovered factors that are associated with the probability of graduation. Male clients were less likely than females to graduate. Married clients were almost 3 times more likely to graduate than those who were not married. A client who was working fulltime when they began the program was over 4 times more likely to graduate than others who were unemployed or working part-time. Clients who lived alone were about 1/3 less likely to graduate. Finally, clients who received two or more sanctions within the first 30 days of entering Drug Court were only half as likely to graduate. However, no association was observed between the number of sanctions a client received and the probability they would successfully graduate from Drug Court. This suggests that the critical issue between sanctions and graduation may not be how many sanctions that offenders receive but rather how quickly clients receive them after entering the program. 5. The study examined recidivism rates (measured as a new felony arrest) among Drug Court graduates, clients who entered Drug Court but failed to graduate, and offenders who declined to participate. The analyses revealed that recidivism was significantly lower among Drug Court graduates than the other groups. Over 90% of graduates had no felony arrest one year after release, and about 75% of graduates remained felony arrest-free up to three years after completing the program. The low rate of recidivism observed among Cowlitz County Drug Court graduates is similar to results reported by other evaluations of drug courts in Washington State and across the country. Clients who failed to complete Drug Court were approximately 3 times more likely than graduates to have a new felony arrest. Offenders who declined to participate in the program were almost 5 times more likely to recidivate than graduates were. 6. In light of the evaluation results, recommendations are offered to improve program efficiency and performance. Social & Behavioral Sciences 5

6 C. COWLITZ COUNTY DRUG COURT This section of the report outlines the mission of the Cowlitz County Drug Court and defines the policies and procedures of the program. 1. Mission The Drug Court is a Cowlitz County Superior Court program that offers qualified offenders an opportunity to enter Court-supervised treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. The program is available to persons who have admitted problems with drugs and/or alcohol and have been charged with an eligible offense. Upon successful completion of the Drug Court program, offenders can have their current charge(s) dismissed. The mission of the Drug Court is to provide effective drug/alcohol treatment to eligible non-violent/non-sex offenders, thereby reducing crime and improving the quality of life in the community (Cowlitz County Drug Court Policies and Procedures Manual, 2003). The specific goals established for the program are: Reduce criminal recidivism by providing assessment, education and treatment to drug/alcohol addicted criminal offenders. Monitor treatment compliance through frequent court contact and supervision. Require strict accountability for program participants and impose immediate sanctions for unacceptable behavior. Reallocate resources to provide an effective alternative to traditional prosecution and incarceration of non-violent/non-sex offenders. Reduce costs within the County s criminal justice system. Concentrate available criminal justice resources on more violent offenders. Social & Behavioral Sciences 6

7 2. Process Agents involved in the Cowlitz County Drug Court include the Superior Court Judge assigned to the Drug Court, the Superior Court Clerk, the Prosecuting Attorney s Office and Defense Attorneys, the Drug Court Coordinator and additional members of the Department of Corrections, substance abuse and mental health treatment providers, and local law enforcement agencies. The Cowlitz County Drug Court Policies and Procedures Manual (2003) identifies eligibility requirements and disqualifying factors for Drug Court candidates. Promptly after arrest, the County Prosecutor, the Defense Attorney, or the Drug Court Coordinator may recommend an initial eligibility review to determine if offenders meet requirements to enter the Drug Court program. The County Prosecutor makes recommendations based on current charges and prior criminal history. The Drug Court Coordinator evaluates suitability of defendants for the program based on compliance and community screening factors. If these screenings suggest suitability for the Drug Court program, the Drug Court Coordinator schedules a drug/alcohol assessment with a Drug Court treatment provider. The treatment providers ensure that offenders meet addiction and mental health criteria. Absent special circumstances, application for entry into Drug Court must be made within 30 days of the date that criminal charges are filed. The Drug Court team continues to closely supervise and assist the participant throughout their time in the program. The Drug Court Judge retains full jurisdiction of the entire process and oversees client progress. In particular, the Drug Court has established specific procedures regarding courtroom behavior and decorum, the collection from clients of court-ordered restitution and mandatory participation fees, supervision fees, and other program costs. Consistent with standards established with other drug courts around the nation, the Cowlitz County Drug Court program consists of four treatment Social & Behavioral Sciences 7

8 phases: Phase I (stabilization, orientation, and assessment); Phase II (intensive outpatient treatment and assessment); Phase III (transitional, phased treatment and assessment); and Phase IV (aftercare). Each phase requires clients to attend Drug Court, keep scheduled appointments with the Drug Court Coordinator, participate in all required treatment and group therapy sessions, submit to urinalysis and other drug testing as required, and otherwise comply with all requirements established for the particular phase of treatment. Advancement of clients between phases is determined by the Drug Court Judge with the condition that the participant has satisfied the criteria established in the Cowlitz County Drug Court Policies and Procedures Manual (2003). Clients graduate from the program after successful completion of all phases of treatment. Upon successful completion of Drug Court, clients are eligible to have the current criminal charges against them dismissed. The Drug Court includes a plan for close monitoring of offender behavior and compliance with Drug Court policies. A system of progressive sanctions and rewards has been established to assist the Drug Court Judge to encourage client compliance with program requirements. Sanctions for non-compliance may include any or all of the following: Increased drug testing Increased participation in outpatient sessions Increased frequency of court appearances before the Drug Court Judge Increased attendance at community support groups Referral to other community resources Community service / Work Crew Commitment to community residential treatment Jail Electronic monitoring The Drug Court Judge may also recognize client positive behavior and compliance with program requirements. Such recognition can include: Social & Behavioral Sciences 8

9 Promotion to the next phase of the program Award of certificates marking progress in the program Award of coins to recognize continued sobriety Court Orders to waive supervision fees Gift certificates to reward certain tasks completed (e.g., gaining employment) Clients who do not comply with Drug Court requirements are subject to termination from the program by the Drug Court Judge. Clients can be expelled from the Cowlitz County Drug Court for any of several reasons: Client accumulates new criminal charges Continual failure to comply with program requirements Tampering with drug tests or testing equipment Unsuccessful discharge from treatment Extended periods of time on warrant status Participant not amenable to treatment Social & Behavioral Sciences 9

10 D. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY 1. Outcomes Evaluation Goals This section outlines the evaluation methodology used in the study. Evaluation research attempts to ascertain the impacts that an action or treatment has on society or an individual. It is also used to measure the impact of government policy or other social interventions (Schutt, 1999). A significant amount of research on drug courts in the US has demonstrated that they represent a cost-effective method for criminal justice systems to deal with offenders with drug problems. Indeed, as Marlowe, DeMatted and Festinger (2003) note, "drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug-involved offenders." However, there is a significant amount of variation around the country with respect to how particular drug courts operate. This means that evaluation research is needed that is tailored to particular programs. The research conducted for this project focuses primarily on the effectiveness of the Cowlitz County Drug Court in meeting the goal of reducing criminal behavior. This is accomplished by profiling characteristics of Drug Court participants and others that did not participate in the program. The study explores whether those who graduated from the program had different experiences, levels of treatment, recidivism, and/or drug use than those that were terminated from the program. Additional information is provided by comparing drug court clients with a sample of offenders identified as suitable candidates for the program but who declined to participate. 2. Study Design The Cowlitz County Drug Court contracted with Dr. Nick McRee, of the University of Portland s Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, to design and implement an evaluation of the Drug Court program. Because the program had been in operation for several years when the evaluation was commissioned, it was not feasible to conduct a controlled experiment wherein Social & Behavioral Sciences 10

11 offenders were randomly assigned either to participate in the Drug Court or to be processed through the traditional criminal justice system. The inability to randomly assign offenders to participate in the program poses a challenge to determining program effectiveness. For example, offenders differ in motivation and personal commitment to rehabilitation. They may also vary in other factors (such as prior participation in residential or outpatient drug treatment programs) that could be associated with program success or lower recidivism. However, the Drug Court team retained a significant amount of data on offenders to allow four groups to be drawn for comparison. One group consists of offenders who were active in the program as of September A second group includes all graduates of the Drug Court since the program began in August A third group includes all offenders who were admitted to Drug Court but later terminated from the program. A final group contains a sample of offenders that were identified as suitable candidates for Drug Court but who subsequently declined to participate. Although not as rigorous as a random assignment experimental design, the identification of these populations allows the evaluation to investigate the Drug Court program and its ability to reduce criminal recidivism. 3. Data Collection The primary source of data for this evaluation is derived from the Cowlitz County Drug Court Database. This database is maintained by the Drug Court team. The data intake process begins when the Drug Court Coordinator interviews potential candidates and evaluates their suitability for the program. A client status form in the database allows a member of the Drug Court Team to enter information about the referral process and the offender s suitability for the program. A client demographic form contains demographic information, employment and residence status, and educational achievement at the time the candidate is assessed for program eligibility. History of substance abuse and medical history at time of intake are recorded, and a criminal history form allows the Drug Court team to note Social & Behavioral Sciences 11

12 prior conviction dates and types of convictions. For offenders who decline to participate in the program, this is the extent of data that is collected. A court hearing form allows the Drug Court Coordinator to track each client s progress in the Drug Court program. The form includes information about the phase of treatment a client was in, sanctions a client may receive, and special considerations that may be noted by members of the Drug Court team. In addition, each week the Drug Court team meets to discuss the status of the clients. Clients are evaluated by the members of the team each time they are scheduled to report to the Judge in open court, and at other times when circumstances warrant (e.g., if the client violates a condition of supervision). In September 2003, deputies with the Cowlitz County Department of Corrections conducted criminal background checks on all offenders not active in the Drug Court as of September The records generated from these background checks were used to calculate criminal recidivism. This study defines criminal recidivism in terms of new felony arrests. 1 For Drug Court graduates, criminal histories were reviewed after the date of graduation. For clients who were terminated from the Drug Court, criminal histories were checked after the date that the client was released from the program (and after any time of incarceration to which they had been sentenced). For offenders who declined to participate in Drug Court, criminal histories were checked after the date the offender declined to participate, including any period of jail or incarceration that was served for the current charge(s). 4. Data Management Dr. McRee reviewed the criminal history data for each client or offender, and his research assistants input the criminal histories into a statistical analysis program. These data were then merged with data from the Cowlitz County Drug Court database. Reported totals may not equal 100% due to rounding or because some questions allow more than one answer per respondent. 1 Some offenders are arrested but not subsequently convicted or incarcerated. Recidivism rates based on measures of re-arrest will therefore be higher than recidivism measures derived from conviction rates or incarceration rates. Social & Behavioral Sciences 12

13 Additionally, two types of missing data occur in this study: 1) data was not gathered on all variables for all individuals; and, 2) information was not available for different types of clients on all variables. There were 398 unique records in the master client table when it was downloaded from the Drug Court computer system on 04 September 2003 and provided to Dr. McRee for analysis. Active clients include individuals who were participating in the program at that time. A small number of these active clients many have been in jail serving a sanction or ordered by the Drug Court Judge to a period of residential treatment. The active offender group also includes clients who may have temporarily absconded from the program, or who may have been admitted to the program but not yet started treatment. The database also contained records for successful graduates, offenders who either had been terminated from the Drug Court or who decided to withdraw before completion of the program. In addition, information was available for offenders who declined to participate in the program. Still other individuals were in the database but had temporary or unusual statuses (e.g., offenders who had absconded from the program but no final disposition on their case had yet been made). Table 1 provides a breakdown of how offenders were recoded. Of the 398 cases in the original database, 4 had unidentifiable statuses and were excluded from the analysis. Social & Behavioral Sciences 13

14 Table 1: Drug Court Sample of Participants, Aug 1999 Sept 2003 Offender Status Original Status in Drug Court Database N % 2 Active Active In Custody Inpatient Pending Warrant % Graduates Dismissal % Terminated Terminated/Neutral Terminated/Unsuccessful Participant Requested % Declined Declined % Denied Denied Ineligible % Missing 3 Missing Data Transferred to other county % TOTAL % 2 Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding. 3 Cases are excluded from further analyses. Social & Behavioral Sciences 14

15 E. FINDINGS 1. Comparison of clients who did / did not enter Drug Court In this first portion of the analysis, we examine the characteristics of clients in the Drug Court program (N=317). This group includes offenders active in the program as of September 2003 (N=112), as well as program graduates (N=91) and those who entered the program but failed to graduate (N=114). We compare these clients with a group of offenders who did not participate in the program (N=77). In addition, we provide demographic data for Cowlitz County in 2000 for comparative purposes. Table 2 reveals that the demographic characteristics of clients who entered Drug Court and the offenders who did not are similar in most respects. The ratio of males to females in both groups is close to 50/50, although there is a slightly greater proportion of males in Drug Court than in the group of offenders who did not participate in the program. The race and ethnic breakdown of both groups is similar as well, with more than 90% of each group identified as White. (The table also shows that the gender, race and ethnic characteristics of both groups are comparable to the Cowlitz County population in 2000.) However, differences are observed in the age distributions for both groups. Offenders that did not enter Drug Court are (on average) older than Drug Court clients, while the Cowlitz County population as a whole is significantly older than both groups. For marital status, the data reveal a greater proportion of Drug Court clients that are married. However, a substantial number of offenders who declined Drug Court had missing data for their marital status, rendering it difficult to draw any conclusions about this characteristic. It is not surprising to note that the Cowlitz County population in 2000 shows a much higher proportion of residents who are married. In terms of education, 46.2 % of Drug Court clients reported having a high school degree or a GED, a proportion slightly higher than the non-drug Court group. Over one-half of those who did not enter Drug Court had no high school degree, while 43.8% of Drug Court Social & Behavioral Sciences 15

16 Table 2: Demographics of Clients Who Did/Did Not Enter Drug Court Attribute Entered Drug Court Did not enter Drug Court Cowlitz County Population Gender (N=317) (N=77) (2000 census) Female 47.9% 53.2% 50.7% Male 52.1% 46.8% 49.3% Race White 93.1% 92.2% 91.8% Black 1.9% 3.9% 0.5% Hispanic 1.6% 1.3% 4.6% Native American 2.8% 1.3% 1.5% Asian 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% Other 0.6% 0.0% 2.1% Age % 10.4% 19.3% % 33.8% 14.7% % 41.6% 14.6% % 11.7% 19.6% % 1.3% 38.1% Education (82.3% of County High School / GED 46.2% 40.3% residents age 25 and Associates Degree 5.0% 0.0% older have at least a Vocational 4.4% 2.6% high school degree) BA / BS degree 0.3% 1.3% Post-Graduate 0.3% 0.0% No Degree 43.8% 55.8% Marital Status (age 15+) Married 15.1% 2.6% 56.2% Never Married 52.1% 37.7% 20.7% Divorced 21.8% 14.3% 12.4% Separated 6.3% 11.7% 3.9% Widowed 0.9% 0.0% 6.8% Unknown / Missing Data 3.8% 33.7% 2.1% Social & Behavioral Sciences 16

17 clients had not earned a high school degree or GED. County-level data in 2000 shows that 83.2% of Cowlitz County residents have a level of education at or above the high school level. Table 3 provides additional data about residential characteristics and employment status of offenders, as well as whether they were receiving some form of public assistance. These data report what the offenders in the sample looked like at the time they were first interviewed by the Drug Court team. If available, county-level data from the 2000 census are also provided. Table 3 reveals a significant amount of missing data concerning the living arrangements of offenders who did not participate in Drug Court, making accurate comparisons with Drug Court clients difficult. However, the results tend to show that a substantial number of Drug Court clients were living in non-household arrangements (e.g., shelters or transient living) at the time they opted into the program. By contrast, over 98% of the Cowlitz County population resided in a household in The table also shows that the living arrangements of Drug Court clients and non-participants were quite varied. Although more than 60% of the Cowlitz County population over 16 years of age were employed in some capacity during 2000, at their initial screening less than 20% of Drug Court clients and those who declined to participate reported working for pay in a full-time or part-time job. However, almost onehalf of Drug Court clients were seeking work when they entered the program, while only about 1 in 3 non-participants reported seeking work when the Drug Court team interviewed them. Some of this discrepancy appears to be due to the fact that a much larger proportion of non-participants reported being disabled or otherwise unable to work, compared to Drug Court clients. More than 1 in 5 Drug Court clients received public assistance, compared to 45% of non-participants. (By comparison, slightly more than 8% of Cowlitz County residents received any form of government assistance in 2000.) Social & Behavioral Sciences 17

18 Table 3: Housing, Employment & Income of Clients Who Did/Did Not Enter Drug Court Attribute Entered Drug Court Did not enter Drug Court Cowlitz County Population Type of Residence (N=317) (N=77) Household 85.2% 62.3% 98.5% Jail / Prison 0.9% 0.0% 1.0% Shelter 8.8% 2.6% 0.5% Transient 1.6% 2.7% Unknown / Missing Data 3.5% 32.4% Living Arrangement Alone 12.6% 7.8% With child 5.7% 5.2% Friends 11.7% 10.4% Parents 9.1% 14.3% Parents & child 14.2% 2.6% Partner 7.3% 2.6% Partner & child 16.4% 13.0% Other Family 18.9% 10.4% Unknown / Missing Data 4.1% 33.7% Employment Status 61% of persons over Full-Time 10.4% 9.0% 16 years of age in Part-Time 9.2% 6.5% Cowlitz County were Student 4.8% 0.0% in the labor force Seeking work 45.7% 35.1% (full-time or part- Not Seeking Work 21.8% 28.6% time) in 2000 Homemaker 1.6% 2.6% Unable to work / Disabled 6.4% 18.2% Public Assistance Yes 20.5% 45% 8.6% Social & Behavioral Sciences 18

19 In Table 4, we examine the drug use history of Drug Court clients and offenders who did not participate in the program. Subjects were asked about 5 different types of substances: alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and other drugs. (The Drug Court Coordinator has noted that the category of other typically refers to methamphetamine, and this was corroborated through a review of information contained in the Drug Court database.) Each person interviewed by the Drug Court team was asked which of these substances represented their primary and secondary drugs of choice. The data in Table 4 show that the drug use history of Drug Court clients and offenders who did not participate in the program were similar in some respects. No meaningful differences were discovered between the groups in terms of their primary or secondary drug of choice. (It is important to note that data were missing for a large number of offenders who did not participate in Drug Court, making firm conclusions difficult to draw about the similarity of this group to Drug Court clients.) More than 50% of both groups identified marijuana or other (methamphetamine) as their primary drug of choice. Most of the subjects also identified a different illicit substance as a secondary drug of choice, indicating that a majority of both groups exhibit poly-drug consumption patterns. If subjects reported ever having used a particular drug, they were asked to identify the age at which they first used the drug, as well as their frequency of use in the month prior to the interview. Table 4 shows that the average age at which offenders starting using particular substances is fairly similar between the two groups. (The notable exception is average age at first use of heroin: among offenders who have used heroin, Drug Court clients tended to initiate use about 4 years earlier than non-participants.) Significant differences were observed between Drug Court clients and nonparticipants in terms of the frequency of drug use in the month prior to the interview. For each drug, offenders were flagged as frequent users of a particular substance if they reported a frequency of consumption in the previous month equal to or greater than 1-2 times a week. The data in Table 4 show that for each type of drug, a larger proportion of Drug Court clients Social & Behavioral Sciences 19

20 Table 4: Drug History of Clients Who Did/Did Not Enter Drug Court Attribute Entered Drug Court Did not enter Drug Court Primary Drug of Choice Alcohol Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Other / Methamphetamine Secondary Drug of Choice Alcohol Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Other / Methamphetamine Age at First Use Alcohol Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Other / Methamphetamine Frequency of Use in Past Month Alcohol more than 1-2 times / week Cocaine more than 1-2 times / week Heroin more than 1-2 times / week Marijuana more than 1-2 times / week Other / Meth more than 1-2 times / week (N = 303) 11.5% 10.2% 18.5% 22.1% 37.6% (N = 280) 18.6% 17.5% 5.7% 29.6% 28.6% (N = 317) (N = 317) 27.1% 20.2% 19.2% 36.6% 43.5% (N = 47) 10.6% 17.0% 17.0% 21.2% 34.0% (N = 39) 23.1% 15.4% 2.6% 33.3% 25.6% (N = 77) (N = 77) 13% 13% 11.7% 20.8% 24.7% reported frequent use in the prior month. For example, about 1 in 4 nonparticipants reported regular consumption of methamphetamine/other drugs in the past month, while almost one-half of Drug Court clients reported frequent use of these substances. Social & Behavioral Sciences 20

21 Table 5: Criminal History & Current Offenses of Clients Who Did/Did Not Enter Drug Court Attribute Entered Drug Court Did not enter Drug Court Mean % with 1+ Mean % with 1+ Charges Charges Prior Felony Charges % % Prior Felony Drug Charges % % Prior Misdemeanor Charges % % Current Charge (primary) Drugs (e.g., VUCSA) Burglary Forgery Theft Motor Vehicle Pa/Pr Violation, Elude, Bail Jump Other / Unknown % 56.1% 9.5% 18.3% 11.0% 3.2% 0.9% 0.9% % 51.9% 6.5% 7.8% 28.6% 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% In a final set of comparisons between Drug Court clients and nonparticipants, we examine the criminal histories and current (primary) charges for each group. These data are reported in Table 5. The Drug Court database contains information about the number of felony arrests, felony drug arrests, and misdemeanor arrests incurred by each offender prior to the current set of criminal charges. We calculated the mean number of arrests levied against Drug Court clients and non-participants, and also report the proportion of offenders in each group that had one or more prior arrests. The data in Table 5 clearly shows that, compared to non-participants, Drug Court clients have a lower average number of prior misdemeanor charges and felony charges (including felony drug charges). In addition, the proportion of Drug Court clients with one or more prior misdemeanor or felony charges is lower than the sample of offenders who declined Drug Court. In sum, Drug Social & Behavioral Sciences 21

22 Court clients are less likely to have a criminal history than non-participants, and among those that do have a prior record, it is typically less extensive than the number of offenses accumulated by those who decline to participate in the program. With respect to offenders current (primary) criminal charge, Table 5 shows that although offenders and clients were charged with a variety of offenses, over 50% of both groups had a drug-specific charge pending (e.g., VUCSA, or Violation of Uniform Controlled Substances Act). 2. Comparison of Drug Court graduates and clients that did not complete Drug Court One of the key objectives for this evaluation is to identify factors that are associated with successful completion of the Drug Court program. We turn our attention to this question in this section of the report. Offenders who declined to participate in the program are excluded from this portion of the analysis, as are clients who were still active in the program when the data collection process began. We examine the characteristics of Drug Court clients who entered the program and either graduated successfully or did not complete the program. Unfortunately, much of the database does not reflect changes that may occur for a client as they progress through the program (e.g., changes in employment status or living arrangements). As a result, most of the variables we consider in this study are static, in the sense that the data represent what the clients looked like at the time they entered the program. Even so, it is important to consider whether these data may predict successful completion of the Drug Court program. We are also interested in determining how a client s behavior while in the program might predict program success. One measure of behavior is the record of sanctions that may be accrued as offenders move through the program. In Table 6, we evaluate the sanction history of Drug Court graduates and clients terminated from the program, and look for differences in sanctioning events. At the top of Table 6, the mean number of sanctions received by each group is reported, along with the proportion of each group Social & Behavioral Sciences 22

23 Table 6: Sanction History of Drug Court Graduates & Clients Terminated From Program Demographic Factors Drug Court Terminated Graduates From Program Client Attribute Mean # % Sanction-Free Mean # % Sanction-Free Sanctions After 30 Days Sanctions After 30 Days Total Sample % % Gender Female % % Male % % Age % 55.2% 59.4% 53.8% % 39.0% 32.4% 23.1% Marital Status Married Never Married Divorced Separated % 53.8% 54.5% 50.0% % 33.9% 30.8% 11.1% Living Arrangement Alone % % With child % % Friends % % Parents % % Parents & child % % Partner % % Partner & child % % Other Family % % Employment Full-Time % % Part-Time % % Seeking Work % % Not Seeking work % % Social & Behavioral Sciences 23

24 that remained sanction-free during the first 30 days in the program. Although clients who were eventually terminated from the program received approximately two more sanctions (on average) than eventual graduates, the results show that both groups tended to receive a rather large number of sanctions while in the program (6.59 for graduates, and 8.20 for nongraduates). On the other hand, the majority of Drug Court graduates remained sanction-free during the first 30 days in the program, while less than 1 in 3 of the terminated clients remained sanction-free during the first 30 days of Drug Court. We also examine sanctions between graduates and non-graduates by selected demographic characteristics. (Race and ethnicity are not considered here because almost all of the offenders in the sample were White.) First, among terminated clients the mean number of sanctions is much higher for males than for females, even though the proportions of both genders that received one or more sanctions within the first 30 days of the program is essentially the same. Second, among graduates and non-graduates, clients aged were least likely to remain sanction-free in the beginning weeks of the program. Additionally, terminated clients between years of age tended to receive many more sanctions than terminated clients between and years of age. Third, Drug Court graduates who were married had a lower average number of sanctions, on average, than graduates who were divorced, separated, or never married. Fourth, graduates and non-graduates who lived alone tended to receive many more sanctions than clients in other living arrangements, and very few clients who lived alone managed to stay sanction free during the first 30 days of the program. Finally, a somewhat perplexing set of results is observed among clients who worked part-time. Both graduates and clients terminated from the program who worked parttime tended to have many more sanctions than other subjects did. For instance, graduates with part-time employment when they started Drug Court received an average of 11 sanctions before completing the program, compared to 7.4 received by eventual graduates who were unemployed and not seeking work when they started the program. Without additional details about the nature of the employment, it is difficult to explain these results. One possibility is that part-time work doesn t represent as great a stake in Social & Behavioral Sciences 24

25 conformity as full-time work, but it may provide offenders with enough money to secure drugs and alcohol. It is also possible that some clients were attempting to simultaneously balance part-time work with school and/or family obligations, leading to role strain. Another limitation is that the data Table 7: Sanction History of Drug Court Graduates & Clients Terminated From Program Drug & Criminality Factors Drug Court Terminated Graduates From Program Client Attribute Mean # % Sanction- Mean # % Sanction- Sanctions Free After 30 Sanctions Free After 30 Days Days Primary Drug of Choice Alcohol % % Cocaine % % Heroin % % Marijuana % % Other / Methamphetamine % % Frequency of Use in Past Month Alcohol more than 1-2 times / week % % Cocaine more than 1-2 times / week % % Heroin more than 1-2 times / week % % Marijuana more than 1-2 times / week % % Other / Meth more than 1-2 times/ week % % Any Prior Felony Charges % % Any Prior Felony Drug Charges % % Current Charge (primary) Drugs (e.g., VUCSA) % % Burglary % % Forgery % % Theft % % Social & Behavioral Sciences 25

26 only reflect the employment status of clients when they were initially screened, and do not show how their employment history may have changed after starting Drug Court. Nevertheless, the data suggest it may be somewhat premature to conclude that all forms of employment equally contribute to client success while in the program. In Table 7, we extend our analysis of sanctions to consider client attributes relating to drug use and prior criminal history. A greater proportion of clients who eventually graduated from Drug Court (compared to non-graduates) remained sanction-free during the first 30 days of the program, regardless of the primary drug of choice. Moreover, graduates generally received a lower average number of sanctions than did terminated clients. (The only exception among offenders whose primary drug of choice was marijuana, graduates averaged sanctions while non-graduates averaged 9.95 was not a statistically significant difference.) Among frequent drug users (i.e., more than 1-2 times per week in the previous month), non-graduates tended to receive more sanctions and were much less likely to remain sanction-free during the first month of the program. Among clients with prior felony charges, graduates were more likely to remain sanction-free during the first 30 days of the program, and they also tended to receive a lower average number of sanctions. One central conclusion that can be drawn from the results in Tables 6 and 7 is that Drug Court graduates received fewer sanctions, and they were more likely to remain sanction-free during the first 30 days of the program. This tends to be the case regardless of particular demographic characteristics, drug use, criminal history, or current criminal charge. Although both graduates and non-graduates on average tended to receive several sanctions during their time with Drug Court, a greater proportion of graduates remained free of a sanction during the first 30 days of the program. Thus, it is conceivable that a client s early behavior in Drug Court may be more significant in predicting eventual graduation than a more general assessment of how many times their behavior may fall short of program expectations. In other words, the critical issue regarding the relationship between sanctions Social & Behavioral Sciences 26

27 and graduation may not be how many sanctions but rather how quickly do offenders receive sanctions after entering the program. Table 8: Median Time to Sanction: Drug Court Graduates & Clients Terminated From Program Drug Court Terminated Graduates From Program Median Days Before 1 st Sanction Median Days Before 2 nd Sanction Median Days Before 3 rd Sanction Median Days Before 1 st Sanction Median Days Before 2 nd Sanction Median Days Before 3 rd Sanction 44 days 159 days 197 days 15 days 49 days 205 days To consider this idea, we calculated the time that passed from the point that an offender entered Drug Court until the time that they received their first sanction. We continued this procedure for each sanction the client may have received before either graduating from Drug Court or being terminated from the program. In Table 8, we report the median number of days that passed before graduates and non-graduates received each additional sanction. The data in Table 8 support the conclusion drawn above: clients who eventually are terminated from Drug Court tend to receive their first two sanctions much earlier than graduates do. For non-graduates, the median number of days that elapsed before a first sanction was received was only 15 days. (This means that one-half of the non-graduates received at least one sanction within the first two weeks of entering Drug Court.) By contrast, the median time to first sanction for graduates was almost 3 times as long 44 days. An even larger difference is observed for second sanctions. The median amount of time that elapsed before Drug Court graduates received a second sanction was 159 days about 5 months. For non-graduates, the figure is 49 days. Note that for third sanctions, the median figures are 197 and 205 for graduates and non-graduates, respectively. In essence, there is no meaningful difference between the groups in terms of the average time elapsed before the third sanction. (No substantive differences between the groups with respect to sanctions 4-10 were found, and thus these analyses are not presented.) These data tend to reinforce the notion that the behavior Social & Behavioral Sciences 27

28 of clients early in the program is a key distinguishing feature between individuals who will eventually graduate and those who will not. Figure 1: Survival Time to First Sanction: Drug Court Graduates & Clients Terminated From Program 1.0 Proportion With No Sanction Graduates Terminated Days Until First Sanction To further illustrate the differences between the groups, Figure 1 shows the results of a survival analysis for time to first sanction among Drug Court graduates and non-graduates. When clients begin the Drug Court program, they are sanction-free. As time goes on, however, some of them will receive a Social & Behavioral Sciences 28

29 sanction. Survival analysis is a statistical technique that allows us to calculate the probability that graduates and non-graduates will survive (i.e., remain sanction-free) within any particular period of time in Drug Court. Three conclusions can be drawn from Figure 1. First, it is apparent that most graduates and most non-graduates receive at least one sanction. Second, most graduates and non-graduates, if they do receive a sanction, tend to get it within the first 60 days of entering Drug Court. Third, it is clear that a greater proportion of graduates remain sanction-free throughout the first year of the program. Indeed, at about day 60, only about 20% of clients who will eventually be terminated from the program remained sanction-free. To complete our analyses of Drug Court clients, we perform a statistical procedure called logistic regression to identify factors that may predict whether a client admitted to Drug Court will successfully graduate from the program. In Table 9, we summarize the results of this procedure. (For technically inclined readers, we provide the full results of the model and all statistical tests in Section H of this document.) Our analysis reveals that, without examining any other factors that might increase or decrease the probability that a client will graduate, the overall odds of successfully completing the program is 44.4%. Our analysis also identified several factors that appear to predict graduation from the Drug Court. For example, other factors held constant, males were about half as likely as females to graduate. Another observed risk factor was if the offender lived alone at the time that they entered Drug Court. Compared to clients with other living arrangements, these individuals were 69% less likely to graduate. A third risk factor was if the client received two or more sanctions with the first 30 days of entering Drug Court. These clients were less than half as likely to graduate, compared to others who did not earn multiple sanctions in the first weeks of the program. Interestingly, the total number of sanctions that a client received did not represent a significant influence on the probability of graduation. Other factors considered but found to not significantly alter the probability of graduation were client age or race, primary drug of choice, prior felony convictions (whether drug-related or not), or the primary criminal charge. Social & Behavioral Sciences 29

30 Table 9: Predicting Graduation From Drug Court Program Overall odds of successful completion 44.4% Variable: Change in Odds that Client Will Graduate If client is male If client is married If client works full-time If client lives alone Client has 2+ sanctions in first 30 days 52% less likely 2.92 times more likely 4.34 times more likely 69% less likely 56.2% less likely Factors that don t significantly predict graduation from Drug Court: Client age Client race Primary Drug of Choice Prior Felony Convictions Prior Felony Drug Convictions Current Charge Number of Sanctions Received Permanent Housing 3. Recidivism analysis for Drug Court clients and offenders who did not enter Drug Court In this portion of the report, we describe analyses related to recidivism. Although the Cowlitz County Drug Court provides assessment, education and treatment for drug offenders, the objective of the program is not merely restricted to reducing future drug use or crimes specifically related to drugs. As a result, for this study recidivism is defined as a new felony arrest, and includes arrests for drug and non-drug felonies. Social & Behavioral Sciences 30

31 At a most basic level, one can simply identify the proportions of graduates, terminated clients, and offenders who did not enter the program that received a new felony arrest. For Drug Court graduates, we count any felony arrest that may have occurred after graduation from the program. For terminated clients, we look for any felony arrest that occurred after the client was terminated, and after any period of incarceration the client may have served to satisfy the original conviction(s). For offenders who declined to enter Drug Court, we consider any felony arrest that occurred after the date the offender refused the program, and after any period of incarceration the offender may have served to satisfy the original conviction(s). Our analysis shows that 14.5% of Drug Court graduates received a new felony arrest after they successfully completed the program. This compares to a recidivism rate of 38% for clients who entered but did not graduate from the program, and 43.1% for offenders who did not enter the program. However, these data may be somewhat misleading, because not all groups had the same amount of time in which they could be arrested for a new crime. All else being equal, the more time that an offender is observed, the greater the probability that a new arrest will occur. Clients terminated from Drug Court had a longer time to get arrested than graduates did because non-graduates tended to leave the program earlier. Moreover, offenders who did not enter Drug Court tended to serve a short period of time in jail or prison (if at all) after their decision not to participate, and thus they had an even greater amount of time in which a new arrest could occur. One way to account for this problem is through the statistical procedure known as survival analysis (described above). In essence, survival analysis allows us to examine the probability that offenders will receive a new felony arrest over a specified period of time. Clients and offenders are observed only as long as they have been free to receive a new felony arrest, and these data are used to compute the probability of a new felony arrest during that time. Social & Behavioral Sciences 31

32 Figure 2: Survival Time to First Felony Arrest: Statistics for Clients Who Did/Did Not Enter Drug Court 1.1 Proportion With No Felony Re-arrest Terminated Graduates Declined Days Until Felony Re-arrest Figure 2 provides results of a survival analysis that calculates the probability of a new felony arrest for Drug Court graduates, clients terminated from the program, and offenders who declined to participate in Drug Court. The data show that Drug Court graduates were significantly less likely than terminated clients or offenders not in the Drug Court program to receive a new felony arrest within one, two, or three years of release from the program. A look at Figure 2 shows that over 90% of Drug Court graduates remained Social & Behavioral Sciences 32

33 felony arrest-free approximately one year after they left the program. This compares to a one-year survival rate of less than 80% for clients who were terminated from the program. (For offenders who did not participate in Drug Court, more than 30% received a felony arrest within the first year of their refusal to enter the program.) And at the end of three years, almost double the proportion of Drug Court graduates had avoided a new felony arrest, compared to the terminated and declined comparison groups. We have previously seen that in most respects the characteristics of Drug Court participants and non-participants were similarly distributed. There are also relatively few characteristics that appear to distinguish Drug Court graduates from clients who didn t complete the program. However, the three groups are not identically constituted, and it is possible that the reason graduates have a more favorable recidivism record than the other groups is because they are different in some respects that are unrelated to the Drug Court program. To consider this possibility, we perform a logistic regression statistical procedure. Just as our earlier model that examined factors that predict graduation from Drug Court, we consider whether these variables predict whether subjects would receive a new felony arrest. Our results are summarized in Table 10. (The full results of the procedure and all statistical tests are included in Section H of this document.) Our results showed that, overall, the odds that an offender would receive a new felony arrest were a little more than 40%. However, we did confirm that there were statistically significant differences between graduates, terminated clients, and offenders who did not participate in the program. Indeed, controlling for other factors, offenders who did not opt in to Drug Court were found to be over 5.5 times more likely to receive a new felony arrest, compared to Drug Court graduates. Moreover, clients who failed to complete the program were almost 4 times more likely to receive a new felony arrest. We also discovered other factors that were associated with recidivism. Offenders who had at least one prior drug-related felony conviction were 2.15 times more likely to receive a new felony arrest, controlling for other factors. In addition, we observed that clients who received 4+ sanctions during the Social & Behavioral Sciences 33

34 Table 10: Odds of New Felony Arrest: Graduates, Terminated Clients & Offenders Who Declined Drug Court Overall odds of a New Felony Arrest 41.2% (N=255; Does not include active clients in Sept. 2003) Characteristic: Change in Odds For New Felony Arrest: Client declined Drug Court (compared to Drug Court Graduates) Client failed to complete Drug Court (compared to Drug Court Graduates) Each additional prior felony drug conviction Client received 4+ sanctions in first 60 days 4.93 times more likely 3.01 times more likely 2.15 times more likely 2.73 times more likely (excludes non-participants) Factors that don t significantly predict new felony arrest: Client Age Client Race Client Gender Primary Drug of Choice Prior Felony Convictions (any type) Current Charge Marital Status Employment Status Total Number of Sanctions in Drug Court first 60 days of entering Drug Court were 2.73 times more likely to receive a new felony arrest, compared to other Drug Court clients. On the other hand, several other factors were shown to have no significant association with recidivism. For example, the total number of sanctions a client received, and Social & Behavioral Sciences 34

35 the prior number of felony convictions (whether or not they were drug felonies) did not predict re-arrest, nor did the available demographic or drug use variables. Social & Behavioral Sciences 35

36 F. IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS This section analyzes the main findings from this evaluation of the Cowlitz County Drug Court. The findings presented in this report should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, all program evaluations have limitations. Some of the limitations of this particular project can be observed in most of the research on drug courts conducted nationwide (Belenko, 2001). For example, this study was unable to randomly assign participants to an experimental or control group. In addition, regional variation in population characteristics and drug abuse patterns make it difficult to compare results from this study with drug courts operating in different jurisdictions. Small sample sizes and missing data further complicate efforts to generalize findings from particular programs. Therefore, comparisons of findings from this evaluation to other studies should be undertaken with caution. Nevertheless, the study has numerous strengths that do allow some conclusions to be drawn. We did have access to a sample of offenders who were deemed eligible to participate in drug court but declined to participate. These individuals were processed through the traditional criminal justice system. Thus, we were able to compare graduates and non-graduates who entered Drug Court with a pool of offenders who met the eligibility criteria but declined to participate. Although not as rigorous a study design as a classic experimental design, this study represents a significant improvement over many evaluations that merely look for differences among drug court participants. The data presented in this study reveal a great deal of information about the impact of the Cowlitz County Drug Court on this sample of offenders, in this jurisdiction. This study also provides evidence about a crucial aspect of drug courts sanctioning activity which has not received sufficient attention in previous research. As such, this investigation can be used to inform future studies on drug courts in other jurisdictions. Finally, one advantage of evaluation research is that it can highlight opportunities to improve program performance in the future. Social & Behavioral Sciences 36

37 The remainder of this discussion is broken into two parts. First, we highlight some of the key findings of the research. Second, we offer some specific recommendations relating to data collection and client evaluation that may help to further improve what has been demonstrated to be an effective program. 1. Key Findings The Cowlitz County Drug Court represents an important alternative to the traditional criminal justice approach for handling alcohol and drug-using offenders. In 1989 the nation s first drug court was established in Dade County, Florida (Aos & Barnoski, 2003; Burdon, Roll, Prendergast & Rawson, 2001; Goldkamp, 2003). Since then the criminal justice system has witnessed a dramatic increase in the development of drug courts across the nation (Aos & Barnoski, 2003; Belenko, 2001; Brewster, 2001; Burdon et al. 2003; Goldkamp, 2003). Accounts in the literature regarding the number of drug courts vary, but it appears that by the end of 2002 nearly 1,000 courts were in operation with another 400 or so in planning stages in all 50 states (Aos & Barnoski, 2003; Belenko, 2001; Brewster, 2001; Burdon et al. 2001; Harrell, 2003; Listwan, Koetzle-Shaffer, & Latessa, 2002). Drug courts vary both in terms of the services offered and the outcomes they produce (Belenko, 2001; Listwan et al. 2002; Sechrest & Shicor, 2001; Spohn et al. 2001; Wolfe, Guydish & Termondt, 2002), but they share similar goals of reducing future drug abuse and crime. The primary rationale for the development of drug courts was to counter some of the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs, including increased demand of resources on the judicial system, jail overcrowding and the increased cost of the revolving door related to drug crime (Brewster, 2001; Cox, Brown, Morgan & Hansten, 2001). In addition, the criminal justice system experienced somewhat of a paradigm shift from crime control and deterrence-based approaches to problem-solving solutions focusing on Social & Behavioral Sciences 37

38 rehabilitation (Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001; Harrell, 2003; Longshore, Turner, Wenzel & Morral, 2001). Drug courts do not exclusively focus on punishment for the offense; rather they integrate the crime control and rehabilitation objectives. Sechrest and Shicor (2001) note that drug courts focus on the potential cause of the crimes (i.e. addiction) and other social and environmental issues, but at the same time hold the offender accountable for his/her behavior with the use of sanctions. In a drug court program, the offender has the opportunity to participate in drug treatment with judicial oversight. In other words, the Cowlitz County Drug Court is used as a lever to get people into treatment to keep them engaged in treatment. For alcohol and drug offenders, the Cowlitz County Drug Court is more effective at reducing future criminal behavior than the traditional criminal justice process. Belenko has conducted reviews of existing research on drug courts (1998, 1999, 2001) and found reduced arrests and/or convictions in outcome evaluations. Other studies not included in Belenko s 2001 compilation have found similar successes regarding recidivism (Aos, 1999; Cox et al. 2001; Goldkamp et al. 2001; Harrell, 2003; Listwan et al. 2002; Miller & Shutt, 2001; Peters & Murrin, 2000). One outcome evaluation found an increase in recidivism for drug court participants ( Miethe et al. 2000;) and a few have been unable to document an effect of drug courts on recidivism (Aos & Barnoski, 2003; Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger & Latessa, 2003; Wolfe et al., 2002). The results from the present study are consistent with the vast majority of previous investigations about the ability of drug courts to reduce criminal behavior. By the end of three years, the rate of recidivism (measured as a new felony arrest) for Cowlitz County Drug Court graduates is about half of that observed for offenders who did not participate in Drug Court and were instead adjudicated in the traditional criminal justice system. Graduates also fared considerably better than clients who failed to complete the program. Social & Behavioral Sciences 38

39 The fact that this study tracks offenders and former Drug Court clients for as long as four years indicates that the Drug Court program has a long-term effect on reducing criminal behavior among the drug and alcohol abusing population. Client behavior in the early days and weeks of Drug Court predict successful program completion and lower recidivism We discovered that 44.4% of offenders admitted to the Cowlitz County Drug Court eventually graduated from the program. The graduation rate observed in this study is consistent with data that has been collected from other drug court evaluations. Belenko (2001) conducted a review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts across the nation, and discovered that about 47% of clients admitted to drug courts across the US eventually graduate. Barnoski and Aos (2003), in a review of six Washington State drug court programs, observed graduation rates that ranged from 26% to 58%. One of the more interesting findings of this evaluation is that, holding constant other possible risk factors, the behavior of clients in the early days and weeks after admission to Drug Court is a powerful predictor in determining whether they will eventually complete the program. We discovered that although Drug Court graduates received slightly fewer sanctions (on average) than clients eventually terminated from the program, both groups tended to receive a significant number of sanctions. The more salient issue was whether a client received sanctions early in the program. Indeed, in a regression model predicting whether a client would graduate, the number of sanctions the client received was not a significant predictor, but if the client received 2 or more sanctions in the first 30 days of the program, the probability of graduation dropped by almost one-half. 2. Recommendations One positive benefit of evaluation research is that it can identify ways in which programs may be improved. Many of the following recommendations relate to the maintenance of the Drug Court database. We believe that Social & Behavioral Sciences 39

40 changes in the structure of the database, and modification in data collection and entry procedures can increase the ability of the Drug Court team not only to evaluate the progress of individual clients but also to make continual appraisals of the program. Based on our analysis of program outcomes, we also offer recommendations concerning how clients are assessed at intake and throughout the program. Redesign the Drug Court database The Cowlitz County Drug Court uses a Microsoft Access database to store information about all offenders associated with the program, from the time offenders are initially evaluated until their graduation or termination. The database is potentially a rich source of information not only for keeping track of a particular client s progress, but also to provide aggregate data about all program participants. However, our review of the database structure revealed several flaws that limit the ability of the database to provide the Drug Court team with information that can help to efficiently manage the program. Rather than provide an extensive list here, we highlight a few changes that might be considered. For one thing, many of the database fields have not been designed to prevent null values from being entered. As a result, data fields for many offenders and clients have been left blank, leading to missing data. As we have noted elsewhere, a substantial number of offenders and clients had missing data for important demographic, residential, employment, and drug history variables, making it more difficult to investigate how these factors might be related to program effectiveness. Second, when the Drug Court database was initially designed, many of the data structures that were created to record changes in client status were text fields. These fields allow members of the Drug Court team to make detailed notes about the status of the offender when new information was available. However, the Drug Court database should also be modified to include more categorical measures of offender progress (e.g., a ranking of client attitude toward treatment, on a scale from 1 [very negative] to 5 [very positive]). Social & Behavioral Sciences 40

41 Categorical variables would allow the Drug Court team to instantly generate summary measures about the progress and status of all clients. Third, some of the data fields are constructed so that when an offender s particular status is updated in the database, the previous data are deleted. For example, clients can be promoted or demoted between several phases during their participation in Drug Court. However, as the database is currently constructed, summary information about the client s status is deleted when new information is recorded. (Of course, the data may exist if a Drug Court team member enters it in a text field, but it is exceedingly difficult to efficiently extract this kind of data for multiple clients.) To consider how useful this client history can be, it is instructive to consider our results that showed Drug Court graduates stay sanction-free for longer periods of time than terminated clients, but graduates still earn a similar number of sanctions. It is possible that a spike in sanctions occurs at about the time clients are promoted to a less-restrictive phase of the program. If data are overwritten, however, this possibility cannot be explored. A related problem, mentioned earlier in this report, is that many of the clients characteristics that may change during their participation in the program is often not updated in the database. For example, client residence and living arrangements are recorded when an offender enters the program, but subsequent changes are not reflected in the database. Ensure complete data collection for all offenders considered for Drug Court, even if they ultimately decline to opt in. As we have noted elsewhere, a large number of offenders who were initially considered for Drug Court but declined to participate had missing data. For ongoing program review, it is important to have complete data on these subjects to compare them to Drug Court clients. Social & Behavioral Sciences 41

42 Incorporate data from pre-docket meetings into the Drug Court database Members of the Drug Court team generate some of the most potentially important information about a client s progress in Drug Court during weekly pre-docket meetings. These meetings typically include the Superior Court Judge, the Drug Court Coordinator and other members of the Corrections Department, and representatives from the drug and alcohol treatment providers. Before clients are scheduled to appear in court, the Drug Court team reviews all aspects of a client s progress in the program and makes recommendations to the Judge. At the present time, a member of the Drug Court Team can enter a brief summary of the discussion into the database. We recommend developing a set of summary measures about each client that are made at the pre-docket meetings. For example, variables should be developed that capture the Drug Team s assessment of the client s attitude in treatment, or their efforts to secure and maintain employment. The data should be recorded in the database in a way (e.g., 1-5; Very Unsatisfactory to Very Satisfactory) that will facilitate additional aggregate-level analyses. These data may illuminate additional ways in which the Drug Court team could improve program outcomes. Conduct a rigorous review of each client after 30 days, paying particular attention to the number of sanctions they received during this critical period. One of the more interesting findings of this evaluation is the fact that a client s behavior in the first few weeks of Drug Court is a powerful predictor of whether they will ultimately graduate from the program. We suggest that the Drug Court team conduct a rigorous review of each client 30 days after they begin the program. However, we do not recommend that clients should be summarily terminated from the program if they have several early sanctions. Although we discovered that clients who had 2 or more sanctions within the first 30 days were at significantly greater risk of not graduating, about 1 in 3 of these clients did eventually graduate. Rather, we suggest that the Drug Court team recognize that offenders with several early sanctions Social & Behavioral Sciences 42

43 are at greater risk of not graduating, especially if the offender has other characteristics that this evaluation has demonstrated represent a greater likelihood of program failure. An early evaluation may provide opportunities for the Drug Court team to develop special interventions that might help these at-risk clients to succeed in the program. Develop additional partnerships with service providers in the community. Drug Court programs are most effective when drug and alcohol treatment is blended with efforts to help offenders successfully make a transition to a more stable and crime-free lifestyle. The Cowlitz County Drug Court is a good example of this type of program. The efforts of the Drug Court team would be enhanced through additional partnerships with service providers in the community. The data in this report show that Drug Court clients are in need of additional educational training, stable housing arrangements, and employment opportunities. Clients who secure these resources are more likely to become productive citizens and make positive contributions to the community. Consider additional review and modification of Drug Court eligibility criteria. In 1997, the Drug Courts Program Office published a set of benchmarks that identify best practices and operations for drug court programs (US Department of Justice, 1997). One recommendation in that report was that drug courts should codify a set of eligibility standards to screen potential clients, and to identify suitable candidates promptly after their arrest. The Cowlitz County Drug Court has met this benchmark. The Drug Court Manual sets forth a clear set of criteria for client eligibility and has procedures in place to quickly identify suitable candidates. However, the benchmark itself is unclear about what particular factors should be considered in a screening tool. Indeed, the standard merely recommends that drug courts should develop a set of eligibility requirements, Social & Behavioral Sciences 43

44 write them down, and use them. But with the absence of clear national standards for determining client eligibility, drug courts across the county have been left on their own to develop eligibility standards Minimum eligibility requirements for county governments that operate in the State of Washington are mandated by the Revised Code of Washington. RCW , which authorizes counties to set up and operate drug courts, establishes minimum eligibility standards for participants which include that the offender not currently be charged with (or have a previous conviction for) serious violent crimes or sex crimes. The Cowlitz County Drug Court currently complies with all provisions of this statute. However, the Drug Court has additional eligibility requirements that are not mandated by state law. We recommend that the Drug Court team conduct a targeted analysis of these program eligibility requirements. Among other factors, we encourage the Drug Court team to reconsider the current criterion that excludes individuals from participating in Drug Court if they have a prior conviction for Residential Burglary (RCW 9A ), or if they have a current charge pending for the same offense. A growing amount of criminological research (e.g., Wright & Decker, 1994) suggests that many offenders who commit residential burglaries do so specifically to support a chronic drug habit. Indeed, self-reports of active residential burglars reveal that a need to support drinking and drug-taking behavior is the primary motivation that shapes decisions to commit residential break-ins. Given the robust relationship observed between drug and alcohol abuse and this particular crime, the Drug Court team may wish to consider whether admitting selected individuals with this offense history may help the program better meet its mission and program goals. Although we have focused attention here on residential burglary, we recommend a thorough review of all program eligibility requirements. This review should be informed by current practices followed by other drug courts in the region and across the country, but should not merely seek to adopt the standards established by other programs. Indeed, there is very little research that has explored the efficacy of particular eligibility standards used by drug Social & Behavioral Sciences 44

45 courts. In the absence of good research or national standards, many drug courts appear to have decided to implement eligibility criteria based on what their colleagues have adopted, without sufficient information about the appropriateness or effectiveness of these standards. (For example, our review uncovered several drug courts that identify residential burglary as a disqualifying offense, but we discovered no empirical evidence or policy justification to warrant the exclusion of such offenders.) We suggest that the existing criminological and criminal justice literature on relationships between drug use and offending can help the Drug Court to tailor its eligibility criteria for maximum efficiency. Social & Behavioral Sciences 45

46 G. REFERENCES Aos, S Can Drug Courts Save Money for Washington State Taxpayers? Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Aos, S., & Barnowski, R Washington State s Drug Courts for Adult Defendants: Outcome Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Belenko, S Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. National Drug Court Institute Review Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update. National Drug Court Institute Review Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 2001 Update. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Brewster, M An Evaluation of the Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Burdon, W., Roll, J., Prendergast, M., & Rawson, R Drug Courts and Contingency Management. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Cox, G.; Brown, L.; Morgan, C., & Hansten, M NW HIDTA/DASA Washington State Drug Court Evaluation Project: Final Report. Seattle: Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington. Goldkamp, J The Impact of Drug Courts. Criminology and Public Policy, 2: Social & Behavioral Sciences 46

47 Goldkamp, J.; White, M., & Robinson, J Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Harrell, A Judging Drug Courts: Balancing the Evidence. Criminology and Public Policy, 2: Listwan, S., Shaffer, D., & Latessa, E The Drug Court Movement: Recommendations for Improvements. Corrections Today, 64: Listwan, S., Sundt, J., Holsinger, A., & Latessa, E The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: The Cincinnati Experience. Crime and Delinquency, 49: Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., & Morral, A Drug Courts: a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Marlowe, D. B., DeMatted, D.S., & Festinger, D.S A Sober Assessment of Drug Courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16: Miethe, T, Lu, H., & Reese, E Reintegrative Shaming and Recidivism Risks in Drug Court: Explanations for Some Unexpected Findings. Crime and Delinquency, 46: Miller, J., & Shutt, J Considering the Need for Empirically Grounded Drug Court Screening Mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Peters, R., & Murrin, M Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing Criminal Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27: Schutt, R Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Social & Behavioral Sciences 47

48 Sechrest, D., & Shicor, D Determinants of Graduation from a Day Treatment Drug Court in California: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Spohn, C., Piper, R., Martin, T., & Frenzel, E Drug Courts and Recidivism: The Results of an Evaluation using Two Comparison Groups and Multiple Indicators of Recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Wolf, E., & Colyer, C Everyday Hassles: Barriers to Recovery in Drug Court. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Wolfe, E., Guydish, J., & Termondt, J A Drug Court Outcome Evaluation Comparing Arrests in a Two-Year Follow-Up Period. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: Wright, R., & Decker, S Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-ins. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Social & Behavioral Sciences 48

49 H. APPENDICES LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL PREDICTING GRADUATION FROM DRUG COURT a,b Exp(B) S.E. Sig. Variables Age At Intake Sex (male) White Married Full-Time Employ Part-Time Employ Live Alone Primary Drug.217 (Alcohol) Primary Drug (Cocaine) Primary Drug (Heroin) Primary Drug (Marijuana) Primary Drug (Meth / Other) Current Charge = Burglary Current Charge = Forgery Current Charge = Theft Current Charge = Theft Total Sanctions Total Sanctions Sanctions in st 30 days Constant Constant Log L Nagelkerke R.237 Square a. Data: Cowlitz County Drug Court Database, Aug 1999 Sept 2003 b. Estimates shown are exponentiated logistic regression metric coefficients. Social & Behavioral Sciences 49

50 LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL PREDICTING NEW FELONY ARREST (GRADUATES & TERMINATED CLIENTS, AND OFFENDERS WHO DECLINED DRUG COURT) a,b Exp(B) S.E. Sig. Variable Declined Drug Court Terminated From Drug Court Days Since Release Age at Intake White Sex Primary Drug.623 (Alcohol) Primary Drug (Cocaine) Primary Drug (Heroin) Primary Drug (Marijuana) Primary Drug (Meth / Other) Prior Felony Arrests (All) Prior Felony Arrests (Drug) Married Married Full-Time Employ Full-Time Employ Part-Time Employ Part-Time Employ Live Alone Live Alone Total Sanctions Sanctions in 1st days Constant Log L Nagelkerke.313 R Square a. Data: Cowlitz County Drug Court Database, Aug 1999 Sept 2003 b. Estimates shown are exponentiated logistic regression metric coefficients. Social & Behavioral Sciences 50