Evaluation of a Day Reporting Center for Re peat DWI Offenders

Transcription

1 1. Report No. 2. Govermet ccessio No. 3. ec piets Catalog No. DOT HS Techical Report Documetatio Page 4. Tide ad Subtitle Report Date Evaluatio of a Day Reportig Ceter for Re peat DWI Offeders August a ormtg Orgaizatio Code 7. Author(s) S.- Performig Orgaizatio Report No. Joes, R. K.; ad Lacey, J. H. 9. Performig orgaizatio Name ad Address 10. Work it No. (TRAIS) Mid-America Research Istitute 611 Mai Street 11. Cotract or rat o. Wichester, MA DTNH22-95-C Sposorig Agecy Name ad Address 13. Type of Report ad Period Covered Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio Office of Research ad Traffic Records Street, S.W. Washigto, DC Fial Report 14, Sposorig Agecy Code 15. Supplemetary Notes Amy Bemig was the Cotractig Officer's Techical Represetative (COTR) for this project. 16. Abstract Describes ad evaluates the effectiveess of a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) i reducig the DWI recidivism of repeat DWI offeders. Also examies the effect of the DRC program i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. Foud that the DRC program was o more effective i reducig recidivism tha was a compariso stadard probatio program i use by the study jurisdictio. However, the DRC program was more cost-effective ad helped reduce pressure o a already over-taxed couty jail system. 17. Key Words 18. Distributio Statemet DWI, impaired drivers, sactios, setecig, This report is available from the Natioal Techical probatio, recidivism, court procedures, program Iformatio Service, Sprigfield, Virgiia evaluatio, day reportig ceter (703) Security asst. (of this report) my Class if. o is page) 21. No. of ages 22. Price Form DOT F (8-72) Reproductio of completed page authorized

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to ackowledge the assistace we received from our may collaborators i Maricopa Couty, Arizoa. The Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) is a program of the Maricopa Couty Adult Probatio Departmet. We wish to thak Norma Helber, Chief Probatio Officer ad Dorothy Faust, former Deputy Chief Probatio Officer for Programs for their willigess to subject their program to evaluatio ad for facilitatig the research project. Lee Brikmoeller, Probatio Officer Supervisor, was i charge of the DRC durig the period evaluated ad was istrumetal to the coduct of the study. His opeess ad isight were istrumetal to the success of the project. The Arizoa Motor Vehicles Divisio provided the driver record data used i the recidivism aalysis. Russell K. Pearce, Divisio Director, ad F. William (Rick) Griffeth, Assistat Director, were most helpful i approvig our request ad steerig it through the ecessary reviews. Hilto Ishimoto performed the computer programmig which was ecessary to fulfillig our request. Alberto Gutier, Director of the Arizoa Goveror's Office of Commuity ad Highway Safety ad Tila Redo of his staff were most helpful i supportig the project ad facilitatig appropriate cotacts. To the persos metioed above ad may others who helped, we exted our sicere thaks. i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... i TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii FIGURES...iv TABLES... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... v 1- INTRODUCTION... I BACKGROUND... 1 PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH... 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT DESCRIPTION... 7 SITE DESCRIPTION... 7 Populatio ad Socio-Ecoomic Factors... 7 DWI Eforcemet System... 7 Laws... 7 Eforcemet... 8 Adjudicatio... 8 Sactioig... 8 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION... 9 Overview... 9 Offeder Case Flow ad Processig Screeig Acceptace, Cacellatio, ad Placemet Orietatio Cliet Assessmet Cliet Cotact Employmet ad Collectios Procedure Discipliary Actio Case Trasfers STANDARD PROBATION DESCRIPTION EVALUATION APPROACH PROGRAM OPERATION ii

4 PROGRAM IMPACT Experimet Desig Data Sources Aalysis Techiques Results Recidivism Offeder Characteristics SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A - Stadards for DRC Caseload Documetatio iii

5 FIGURES Figure 3-1: Raw Recidivism Curves for the DRC Group ad the Compariso Group Figure 3-2: Percet of Combied Group Recidivatig After Two Years By Number of Prior DWIs TABLES Table 1-1: Oe-Year Recidivism Rates for First Offeders ad Repeat Offeders, Statewide Data from Various Sources... 2 Table 3-1: Number of Study DWIs Eterig the DRC Program by Year.. 20 Table 3-2: Mea Moths Seteced to Probatio ad Mea Moths Served by DRC Subjects Studied iv

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of a project desiged to describe ad evaluate a selected alterative sactio program for repeat DWI offeders who had bee arrested for ad charged with a feloy DWI offese. The selected coutermeasure, a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) is a highly structured o-residetial facility that provides supervisio, reportig, employmet, couselig, educatio ad commuity resource referrals to probatioers. The DRC studied was operated by the Adult Probatio Departmet ofthe Maricopa Couty, Arizoa Superior Court ad provided a cotiuum of correctioal services to augmet itesive supervisio, residetial programs (e.g., halfway houses, work release ceters, etc.), ad regular supervisio. The evaluatio addressed the effectiveess of the Maricopa Couty DRC i reducig DWI recidivism, i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. The study foud that the DRC program was o more effective i reducig recidivism tha was a stadard probatio program i use by the study jurisdictio. Both programs had a recidivism rate of about 8% after two years, quite low for this group of offeders. However, other measures of effectiveess yielded more positive results. The goal of the DRC program is ot oly related to recidivism, but rather is iteded to assist i the reitegratio of these offeders ito society. This icludes isistece o employmet, demostratio of resposibility through at least partial paymet of fees, ad participatio i educatioal programs as appropriate. Further, the cost ofprovidig correctioal services through DRC is sigificatly less thajail. I Maricopa Couty it costs $36.79 per day per idividual to keep a offeder i jail versus $19.69 per day for DRC. The DRC offeder typically is icarcerated for sixty fewer days tha compariso group members who completed their period of icarceratio followed by stadard probatio. This $17.10 per day savigs traslates ito $1,026 per offeder if they are i DRC rather tha jail. Aother beefit is that participats become employed ad thus provide support for themselves ad their families. Udereducated adults beefit from additioal educatioal services. Treatmet eeds are addressed. Cosequeces for ucooperative or o-compliat behaviors are immediately imposed. This study also sought to determie whether DWI offeders were appropriate for a DRC-type program, which is iteded for offeders thought to be of low risk of committig violet crimes. Iterviews with program staff idicated that DWI offeders did participate i the DRC program ad were appropriate participats. Oe area where the program might be modified to more effectively deal with DWI offeders is i the treatmet aspect of the program. The vast majority of these severe DWI offeders are alcohol abusers rather tha abusers of other drugs. The program studied i this project icluded a geeral substace abuse treatmet compoet. If v

7 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS the DWI caseload i DRC were expaded, the it would be appropriate to scree for problem drikig ad implemet treatmet modalities specifically tailored to alcohol abuse ad drikig drivig. The study foud that there had bee some reluctace to use DRC for DWI offeders because, though by traditioal measures they met the criteria of low-risk offeders, they were believed to pose a risk to society because of potetial drikig ad drivig while they were participatig i the program. However, this study idicates that DWI offeders pose o greater risk tha those who serve their full jail or priso terms, ad that it costs society less to deal with them i DRC tha i jail or priso. We recommed that cosideratio be give to referrig more DWI offeders to DRC-type programs ad that the DRC treatmet program be modified to iclude a treatmet regime which is structured to deal specifically with alcohol abuse ad drivig. vi

8 1 - INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a project desiged to describe ad evaluate a selected alterative sactio programs for repeat DWI offeders. The project was coducted for the Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio uder Cotract Number DTNH22-95-C etitled "Develop ad Test Coutermeasures for Repeat DWI Offeders." The objective of this project was to idetify, test, ad evaluate a promisig coutermeasure for drikig after drivig by repeat DWI' offeders. BACKGROUND There is a cosiderable body of research poitig to repeat DWI offeders as a sigificat compoet of the drikig-drivig problem i this coutry. For example, a study by Doova et a1. (1990) examied the driver records of 39,011 Washigto State drivers ad foud that early 20% of the drivers with prior DWIs were arrested agai durig a three-year follow-up period, compared to oly 2% of the drivers with o priors. Other studies of statewide data have also foud DWI offeders with prior DWI offeses ted to have higher recidivism rates tha do DWI offeders with o priors, although the ratio of the recidivism rate for those with priors to the rate for those with o priors is ot early so dramatic as the 10 to I ratio foud by Doova ad associates (Table 1-1). Studies of DWIs at the local level are i geeral agreemet with these statewide studies. For example, as a part of our NHTSA-sposored study of alterative sactios for repeat DWI offeders (Joes, Wiliszowski, ad Lacey, 1997), we examied the recidivism rates of drivers with ad without prior DWIs i two jurisdictios. We foud that i oe jurisdictio (Milwaukee, Wiscosi), ot oly were the oe-year recidivism rate of drivers with priors cosiderably higher tha those without priors, but that the recidivism rate icreased as the umber of priors icreased. For example, the adjusted oe-year recidivism rate of a group of DWIs with two priors receivig traditioal sactios for their idex offese was early twice that of such DWIs with oe prior (15.2% versus 8.0%). There is also evidece that drivers with prior DWIs are more likely to be ivolved i severe traffic crashes tha are other drivers. Data from FARS (Fell, 1991) show that, i 1988, 3.3% of all licesed drivers had bee arrested for DWI i the past three ' I this report, the term "DWI" is used geerically to describe drivig with a illegally high blood alcohol cocetratio (BAC). Other terms that are used by some jurisdictios iclude DUI (drivig uder the ifluece) ad OMVI (operatig a motor vehicle while itoxicated), amog others. 1

9 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Table 1-1: Oe-Year Recidivism Rates for First Offeders ad Repeat Offeders, Statewide Data from Various Sources Locatio Group Subsequet Priors No Priors Ratio Evet (%) (%) Califoria' BAC test refusers DWI who also were covicted of DWI Illiois' BAC test refusers DWI or re fusal Teessee2 DWIs DWI Califoria3 DWIs Composite Notes: 1. Joes, Joksch, ad Wiliszowski, Joes, et at, Arstei-Kerslake ad Peck, Composite recidivism icludes at least oe of the followig: ighttime accidet, alcohol-related accidet (from police report), ad major traffic covictio (DUI, reckless, hit ad ru). years, but 5.7% of all fatally ijured drivers had bee arrested for DWI i the past three years. This idicates that drivers with prior DWIs were over-represeted i fatal crashes by a factor of about 1.8. Clearly, the, there is a eed for coutermeasures targeted specifically at repeat DWI offeders. We have coducted three recet NHTSA-sposored projects aimed at idetifyig promisig coutermeasures for such idividuals. The first of these projects, "Evaluatio of Alterative Programs For Repeat DWI Offeders" (cited above), ivolved a examiatio of programmatic ad evaluative literature o the effectiveess of coutermeasures for repeat DWIs, the selectio for evaluatio of two promisig coutermeasures employig alteratives to j ail, ad the evaluatio ofthese two coutermeasures. The secod recet project "Determie Reasos for Repeat Drikig ad Drivig," (Wiliszowski et al., 1996) was aimed at determiig whe, where, how ad why idividuals covicted of druk drivig repeat the offese; ascertaiig what coutermeasures these idividuals have ecoutered ad the extet oftheir effectiveess agaist recidivism; ad idetifyig promisig coutermeasures to reduce DWI recidivism amog repeat offeders. The third recetly completed project, "Evaluatio of a Idividualized Sactioig Program for DWI Offeders," (Joes ad Lacey, 1998) examied coutermeasures for both first offeders ad repeat offeders ad idetified a promisig program of idividualized sactios for both groups of DWI offeders. We are also curretly ivolved i a third project 2

10 INTRODUCTION (uder NHTSA's Parters i Progress program) that is implemetig ad evaluatig a DUI court program for drivers covicted of a repeat DWI offese. This project is a cotiuatio of this research, which will together provide additioal kowledge for use by jurisdictios i developig coutermeasures suitable to their ow operatioal eviromets. PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH This project sought to select ad test the effectiveess of a coutermeasure that appeared to have potetial for reducig the icidece of drikig-drivig by repeat DWI offeders. The site selectio criteria icluded the followig elemets ad were tailored ad expaded to accommodate the specific requiremets for the coutermeasure to be studied. 1. Adequate sample size of repeat offeders to istitute a viable coutermeasure program ad to allow for detectio of a program effect, if preset. 2. Willigess of appropriate agecies withi the commuity to implemet the coutermeasure ad subject the program to evaluatio. 3. Availability of resources ecessary to competetly implemet the coutermeasure ad maitai it throughout the period of evaluatio. 4. Availability of useable data which would permit coutermeasure impact evaluatio, ad willigess ad ability to provide those data i a appropriate format. 5. Absece of plas to begi implemetatio of other coutermeasure activity, legislative ad legal chages, special programs, additioal eforcemet programs or other measures which would compoud coutermeasure evaluatio or mask the effect of the coutermeasure uder study. 6. Willigess to collect ad provide additioal process data which will eable a full descriptio of the implemetatio process ad allow for what amouts to a process evaluatio. Based o these criteria, we selected Maricopa Couty, Arizoa as the site ad the Adult Probatio Departmet of the Maricopa Couty Superior Court (APD) as the implemetig agecy. The APD has a log history of developig ad evaluatig iovative programs for persos with alcohol- ad drug-related offeses. The APD had bee operatig a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) for several years, but had ot had the opportuity to evaluate the program's effectiveess i dealig with DWI offeders. Past operatio of the program made available data that could be used i trackig program participats for several years after their etry ito the program, thus allowig a stroger experimetal desig for evaluatig the program. Day Reportig Ceters (DRC) have bee used i several jurisdictios as a alterative for jail for low-risk offeders covicted of a variety of offeses (Morris ad Tory, 1990; U.S. Departmet of Justice, 1990). I geeral, a DRC is a highly 3

11 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS structured o-residetial facility that provides programs cosistig of supervisio, reportig, employmet, couselig, educatio ad commuity resource referrals to probatioers. DRCs ca be developed ito a cotiuum of correctioal services to augmet itesive supervisio, residetial programs (e.g., halfway houses, work release ceters, etc.), ad regular supervisio. We had idetified the DRC approach as a cadidate for evaluatio i the Alterative Sactios project, but it was dropped from cosideratio i that project because of a lack of data for performig a scietific evaluatio ad because of a lack widespread use of the approach at that time. The particular form of DRC program that we studied i this project was desiged to serve two purposes: (1) reitegrate the offeders ito society ad thereby reduce the likelihood of future DWI icidets, ad (2) reduce the cost of maitaiig offeders i jail for the full period of their setece. The part of the study that was cocered with recidivism used a research desig that compared the recidivism rates of a group of offeders who were assiged to the DRC program to the rates of a group of offeders who were assiged to a stadard probatio program used by the APD for offeders i a geeral. Offeders i both groups had bee charged ad covicted of a serious DWI offese, ad had iitially bee seteced to a period of icarceratio, usually four moths. The DRC group of offeders was assiged to the DRC program at the begiig of their probatioary period. They were assessed for treatmet, job skills ad educatioal eeds at the begiig of DRC, ad the placed ito specific programs as appropriate. While i the DRC program, the offeders received very frequet cotact from their probatio officer (a miimum of two cotacts a week durig most of the program) ad had to seek ad obtai employmet. Participatio i DRC geerally lasted oe to two moths ad was give i lieu of a similar period of icarceratio. For example, a DRC participat who received a jail setece of four moths might serve two moths i jail followed by two moths i the DRC program. After completio of DRC, participats were placed o stadard probatio for the remaider of their period of probatio, averagig about four years. The compariso group of offeders assiged to stadard probatio served their full period of icarceratio, usually four moths, followed by about four years o stadard probatio. Stadard probatio usually icluded some form of treatmet or couselig at the outset ad mothly visits with the probatio officer. The probatio officer also attempted to visit probatioers at their home about four times per year. Thus, the evaluatio reported here addresses the effectiveess of the selected DRC i reducig DWI recidivism, i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT A detailed descriptio of the program site ad the DRC program is preseted i Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the desig ad results of the evaluatio, ad Chapter 4

12 INTRODUCTION 4 presets the overall coclusios of the project. A listig of pertiet referece material follows i Chapter 5. A Appedix describig the stadards used by the APD for documetig the DRC caseload is also icluded. 5

13 6 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS

14 2 - DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION Populatio ad Socio-Ecoomic Factors Maricopa Couty has the largest populatio of ay couty i Arizoa, 2.7 millio, amoutig to some 57% of the populatio of the etire state i The couty ecompasses a area of 9,226 square miles ad cotais a umber of muicipalities. The largest of these is the city of Phoeix with a populatio of 1.2 millio, also the largest city i the state. Other cities i the couty with a populatio over 100,000 are Scottsdale, Mesa, ad Tempe. Maricopa Couty is oe of the fastest growig couties i the U.S., icreasig 24% sice 1990 ad 3% sice The media age is 31.1 years with 61 % of the populatio fallig betwee the ages of 18 ad 64. Twety-six percet (26%) of the Couty's populatio is uder 18, while 13% is over 65. The 1990 U.S. Cesus reports that 84% of this populatio is white, 4% is black ad 12% other races. The Couty has a large populatio ofpersos ofhispaic origi, estimated at about 16%. Media household icome i Maricopa Couty was $37,583 i 1995, with 13.8% of the populatio was estimated to be i poverty as July The Couty has had low uemploymet over the past te years ad is i the 3% rage as of this writig. DWI Eforcemet System Laws. The populatio targeted i this study is drivers who have bee charged with a feloy DWI offese ad bee covicted i Superior Court i Maricopa Couty. Though all were origially charged with a feloy, they may have bee covicted of a feloy DWI, more precisely defied as a Class 4 feloy i the state statutes, or of a serious misdemeaor DWI i cases where they plead guilty to a lesser offese. Drivers covicted of the feloy charge who have two or more prior DWI covictios withi a six-year period may be seteced to 2'/2 to 12 years i priso (ot jail) ad a fie of ot more tha $150,000. Drivers with three or more prior feloy covictios may be seteced to eight to 12 years i priso. Drivers with two prior DWIs must serve a miimum of four moths i priso, ad drivers with three or more DWIs must serve a miimum priso term of eight moths. Some defedats, though charged with a feloy or multiple offeses, may plead guilty ad receive four moths i jail ad probatio rather tha serve their time i priso. A limited "furlough" from priso or jail may be grated (for example, to participate i a work release program or a DRC-type program) for those covicted of a feloy DWI. Offeders will be placed o probatio durig the furlough period (see the discussio i the Program Descriptio sectio below). 7

15 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Driver licese sactios are imposed by the Motor Vehicle Departmet for both the DWI offese ad various other admiistrative ifractios that may be coicidet with the DWI. However, statutes exclude feloy DWIs from assigmet to commuity service i lieu of jail. Eforcemet. DWI laws are eforced by officers from the various muicipal agecies ad also by the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Departmet ad the Arizoa Highway Patrol. The Uiform Crime Report (UCR) for 1995 reports that there were 2,183 officers i the city of Phoeix aloe as of October 31, Mesa, Tempe, ad Scottsdale together had aother 1,061, ad the Sheriffs Departmet had 445. Altogether, we estimate that some 4,000 officers were egaged i eforcig laws of all kids i Maricopa Couty durig the years covered by this evaluatio. The 1995 UCR also lists 27,708 DWI arrests statewide for reportig jurisdictios havig a populatio of 3,869,000. This amouts to 7.71 arrests per 1,000 populatio. So, a rough estimate of the umber of DWI arrests for Maricopa Couty (populatio 2.4 millio i 1996) is 7.71 x 2,400 = 17,400. This amouts to about four DWI arrests per swor officer. Adjudicatio. Feloy DWI cases are prosecuted i Maricopa Couty by prosecutors from the Maricopa Couty Attorey's Office. The cases are heard i the Maricopa Couty divisio of the Superior Court of Arizoa. Cases origially charged as misdemeaor DWIs are geerally heard i a lower court which does ot have probatio services. Thus, all of the cases uder cosideratio i this study are DWI cases which were heard i Superior Court which is served by the Adult Probatio Departmet (APD). Sactioig. Feloy DWI cases are heard i the Superior Court of Maricopa Couty. Madatory priso or jail seteces idicated above are imposed. Additioal discretioary compoets of the seteces vary accordig to idividual judges subject to setecig guidelies provided by the state court system. Drivers covicted of a feloy DWI are icarcerated i oe of four priso facilities i Arizoa. Oe of these facilities is i Maricopa Couty, but Maricopa Couty offeders may also be set oe of the other three facilities. Persos who have plea-bargaied their offese dow to a misdemeaor are icarcerated i the Maricopa Couty Jail. This facility is plagued by a lack of space for its populatio, reportedly ow crowdig some 7,000 adult offeders ito space desiged for about 3,000. "Tet Cities" have bee costructed to help relieve some of the pressure, ad the issue of jail overcrowdig is a major issue i the Couty. 8

16 DESCRIPTION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Overview The DRC program is a ogoig program. Its stated purpose is to furlough targeted defedats from icarceratio to a program of strict supervisio ad structured reitegratio services. The program provides supervisio of furlough-selected defedats from icarceratio who have bee grated probatio by the Maricopa Couty Superior Court. I cotrast to other offeders, DRC program participats are selected from those origially charged with feloy DWI, but have plea-bargaied dow their offese to a misdemeaor DWI. Thus, their icarceratio is spet i the Maricopa Couty jail, rather tha a State priso as required of those who were actually covicted of a feloy. The DRC program is desiged to provide for the protectio of the commuity with strict commuity supervisio ad structured reitegratio services. The DRC staff is resposible for the eforcemet of terms of probatio as well as developmet of a treatmet strategy which is desiged to facilitate high eed defedats i a variety of areas that will assist i their effective reitegratio ito society after their lives have bee disrupted from icarceratio, loss of employmet, loss of residece, etc. The DRC program provides for high supervisio (daily cotact with probatio officers, house arrest, icreased umber of drug ad alcohol tests, roud the clock supervisio) as well as madatory "programmig" for substace abuse, educatio, employmet or other specialized eeds. Youthful offeder (18-25 years of age) treatmet ad residetial facilities are also utilized. Defedats are screeed before ad after setecig for possible participatio i the DRC. If a icarcerated, furlough-eligible defedat appears motivated to chage egative behavior, is a oviolet defedat, ad has a residece that ca be verified, the defedat is eligible to participate i the program. I cases where a defedat has a uhealthy or trasiet residece, adult males ca be brought directly from jail ito the DRC Garfield residetial facility. Typically, this occurs durig the fial 30 to 60 days of the jail setece. While i the program, defedats are expected to follow structured daily schedules ad are cosidered uder house arrest. Durig the day, defedats follow a hour-by-hour schedule of courses offered at the DRC ad other commuity-based agecies ad/or participate i a job search program util employed. All defedats follow daily schedules. These schedules are based upo the idividual eeds of each defedat. Uemployed defedats are give five to te days to obtai employmet or are immediately put back ito custody. Courses offered at the DRC address a variety of eeds, icludig drug ad alcohol couselig, literacy ad GED classes, family ad health issues ad behavioral health couselig. These courses focus o assistig the defedat i the developmet of skills eeded to successfully itegrate ito the commuity. The most efficiet ad cost-effective meas to offer these services is through the use of private, 9

17 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS oprofit vedors. I order to attract these agecies, space is provided at the DRC to coduct group ad idividual couselig services. Providers are allowed to offer these services to o-probatio cliets as well. I retur, the providers are required to offer DRC defedats: priority to services, deferred paymets for services, reduced paymets for services, ad scholarships for the most eedy cliets. Probatio officer/surveillace officer teams moitor defedats participatig i the DRC program. These teams are resposible for developig treatmet plas, coductig idividual ad group couselig sessios ad formulatig the defedats' daily schedules. Itake screeers, job developers, literacy teachers, ad commuity service coordiators assist these case maagers. Defedats are moitored by surveillace ad probatio officers durig the day, ight ad o weekeds. The behavior of the defedats is also scrutiized through collateral cotacts, as well as regular urie ad breath testig. Defedats remai i the DRC program util the completio of their origial jail setece but may cotiue to be supervised i the program if the defedat eeds to complete Youthful Offeder Program (YOP) treatmet or has had problems at the ed of the jail phase of DRC. Upo successful completio of the program, the defedats cotiue uder stadard or itesive probatio supervisio. If a defedat fails to complete the program, the defedat is retured to jail to complete the origial jail setece or retured to court for violatio proceedigs. The target populatio for DRC programs iclude those idividuals servig jail as a term of probatio with sixty days or less remaiig o the jail term (defedats may participate loger if ordered by the Court). Defedats also must be idividuals who would beefit from a structured reitegratio service ad who do ot pose a serious risk to the commuity. No sex offeders are ever admitted to the program. Offeder Case Flow ad Processig Screeig. Oce a defedat is determied to be a member of DRC target populatio, a screeig process begis to assess the idividual's eligibility. The Furlough Screeig Uit screes all defedats give a jail term who are furlougheligible. Each defedat's eligibility for DRC is the reviewed. I order to be eligible for DRC programs, all idividuals must meet the followig guidelies: be furlough-eligible per terms ad coditios of probatio, have a acceptable, verifiable address, display a o-violet patter of behavior, have access to trasportatio, be willig to participate i the program per the Compliace Agreemet, ot have charges pedig or outstadig warrats that would iterfere with participatio i the program, ot have ay history of sex offese covictios, ad 10

18 DESCRIPTION have approval from the prosecutig attorey i those cases where jail is stipulated i the plea agreemet. If a defedat meets the above criteria for DRC participatio, the screeer coducts a iterview ad completes a DRC Screeig Packet. The packet is the forwarded to DRC Admiistratio. The DRC supervisor, or desigate, the reviews each case for acceptace ito the program. A screeig officer may reject a applicatio for oe or more of the followig coditios: the defedat has bee covicted of escape or ay uauthorized absece from ay correctioal istitutio or release program i the past, the defedat has charges pedig ad caot be released from jail. (Exceptios are possible if extraditio for a pedig charge has bee declied by the filig/chargig jurisdictio or the defedat has bee released o ow recogizace), the ature ad extet of the defedat's crimial history reflects a high probability to re-offed i the commuity, the defedat has ot received a favorable recommedatio from the field or presetece officer most kowledgeable about the case, reliable iformatio idicates that the defedat has a patter of violet behavior or weapos use, the defedat has bee formally charged with a crimial act subsequet to commissio of the preset offese, the defedat's preset offese ivolved the use, exhibitio, or presece of a firearm, explosive, or other weapo, the factual circumstaces of the preset offese idicate severe violet tedecies, Maricopa Couty Sheriffs office bookig iformatio which suggests the defedat's iability to successfully complete the program. This could iclude discipliary write-ups by detetio persoel, the defedat is a illegal alie with a hold by the Immigratio ad Naturalizatio Service, the defedat is ot residig i Maricopa Couty followig release from icarceratio, or the defedat committed a work furlough program violatio. The DRC must otify the prosecutig attoreys of ay defedats servig jail terms as a stipulatio of their plea agreemet. The DRC support staff seds otice to the assiged prosecutig attorey at least te days prior to the defedat beig placed i the DRC. If there is a objectio by the Couty Attorey, the defedat is cosidered ieligible for the program. 11

19 EVALUATION OFA DAYREPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Acceptace, Cacellatio, ad Placemet. If all the above coditios are satisfied, a DRC supervisor, or desigate, approves the defedat for participatio i the program ad assigs a supervisio team. The screeig packet is give to the assiged support staff, ad the Order of Release, icludig a arrative for the Court's cosideratio, is completed. The Order of Release is completed seve days prior to the scheduled release date of the defedat. Oce the Order of Release is completed, a copy is set to the assiged furlough screeer for the Judge's sigature. Work Furlough, Accout Services, the Day Reportig Ceter staff ad the Buildig Admiistrator of Garfield Residetial Ceter also receive copies. Oce the Judge sigs the Order of Release, the order is set to DRC Admiistratio. DRC Admiistratio seds copies of the Order of Release to the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Office Work Box ad the Victim Notificatio Uit. Copies of the siged Order of Release ad screeig packets are delivered to the assiged supervisio team withi twety-four hours of the Judge's sigature. The supervisio team the verifies appropriateess of the defedat's residece. If the defedat has o residece, but is otherwise appropriate for the program, the supervisio team makes every effort to secure a residece or refers the defedat for participatio i the Garfield Residetial Treatmet Program. Oce accepted, the DRC probatio officer makes arragemets to obtai the defedat's file. For Work Furlough cases, the files are available at the time of the defedat's release. Cacellatios or postpoemets for etry ito the DRC program ca result from oe or more of the followig: residece caot be verified or is cosidered to be iappropriate, Couty Attorey objects whe plea stipulates jail, ew iformatio, ot available at the time of screeig, makes the defedat ieligible, o-compliace with Work Furlough rules ad regulatios, or violatios of jail rules ad regulatios that require a cacellatio. Before a cacellatio is made, a DRC supervisor reviews the case. If it is determied that cacellatio is ecessary ad a Judge has already siged the Order of Release, immediate otificatio is set to the Maricopa Couty Jail, the assiged field probatio officer, the DRC team assiged to the case, Admiistratio Accout Services ad Work Furlough. If the Court orders the defedat ito the program per the terms ofprobatio ad the defedat is uable to participate, the setecig Court is immediately otified. After a cacellatio has bee approved, DRC Admiistratio support staff is otified, ad the assiged DRC team returs the origial screeig packet to the Garfield Ceter. After otificatio, the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Office trasports DRC defedats to the desigated facility for pick-up. Whe this is ot possible, pick-up takes place at the facility where the defedat is housed. The Sheriffs office has the 12

20 DESCRIPTION defedat's Order of Cofiemet available for the DRC supervisio team at the time of pickup. The surveillace officer is resposible for the pick-up of the idividual. The supervisio teams at each DRC site coordiate pick-ups to esure that orietatio begis o time. Orietatio. All defedats complete orietatio o the first day they are i the program. The DRC staff explais the program to defedats, aswers questios, ad addresses ay issues that could coflict with a idividual successfully completig the DRC. Orietatio icludes discussio of the program's directive(s), the DRC Compliace Agreemet, each idividual's terms of probatio, educatioal assessmet ad weekly schedule. The DRC also uses this opportuity to review the defedat's livig coditios, verify employmet or curret job search, ad determie the idividual's paymet ability. The DRC staff completes a Letter of Uderstadig with the defedat. The letter is to be siged by the defedat's employer withi 5 workig days of receipt. Formal staffigs are held every week at a desigated time ad day of the week. At least oe member of the supervisio team ad oe perso from each of the treatmet compoets participate. Normally, by the ed of the defedat's first week i the program, a priority staffig is held. This helps determie which programs the defedats will participate i ad i what sequece. After the priority staffig, progress staffigs are held weekly. The priority staffig is the corerstoe of the Case Maagemet Supervisio (CMS) pla. Whe a case reaches the mid-poit i the program the defedat's performace is reviewed. At this time, ay chages i treatmet, sactios or termiatio, as well as the goals to be met for completio of the program, are discussed. Cliet Assessmet. Cliet assessmet is a ogoig process ad is critical durig the first days the defedat is i the program. Needs of the defedat are determied by iput from the supervisio team, applicable commuity-based programs, collateral sources ad the defedats themselves. The defedat's eeds are idetified, prioritized, ad addressed with a clearly defied supervisio strategy. Assessmet criteria cosidered iclude educatio/vocatio, substace abuse, metal health, family issues, employmet, physical health, legal or fiacial matters, religious eeds ad reitegratio ito the commuity. Cliet Cotact. Three differet levels of cliet cotact are provided, oe level for each of the followig three program phases: Phase I - Orietatio. This phase lasts approximately oe to two weeks, depedig o the defedat's eeds. Program work ad scheduled daily cotact with DRC staff begi. A miimum of two field cotacts per week are made. By the ed of this phase, the Case Maagemet Supervisio pla is complete. Daily reportig 13

21 EVALUATION OFA DAYREPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS meas that the defedat is see five out of seve days per week at the office or i the field. The Adult Probatio staff is resposible for the cotact. Cotact i the field is "radom" as to day of week ad time of day so the offeder caot pla them. This requires early morig or late ight visits, icludig double-backs whe ecessary by the supervisio team. Phase II - Program. The majority of the defedat's work ad programmig occurs durig this phase. The average stay i this phase is six to eight weeks. A miimum of two field cotacts are made per week with supplemetal cotacts occurrig based o idividual eeds. The defedat is required to report to the DRC as directed by the supervisio team. Phase III - Trasitio. Durig the fial two weeks of the defedat's stay i the DRC, a exit iterview is coducted for the purpose of compilig a future supervisio strategy. Ideally, this icludes the defedat, the DRC team, ad the ewly assiged officer. A miimum of oe field cotact per week occurs durig this level, with office reportig as eeded. Staff provides a fial assessmet of each defedat prior to the trasfer of the case. The last day i the program is typically determied by the jail release date though offeders may be "exteded" i the program. I cases where "soft time" is give, ad the release date is uclear, the calculatio of time is reviewed with the supervisor ad jail staff to coordiate a accurate release date. Employmet ad Collectios Procedure. It is expected that all DRC defedats be employed ad/or erolled as a studet. DRC defedats must have a Letter of Uderstadig completed by their employer withi five workig days of obtaiig employmet. If the DRC defedat committed a offese that could potetially be a coflict with the employer, such as a theft charge, the employer must complete a letter idicatig that they have a detailed uderstadig of the defedat's offese ad the liability of employig the idividual. This letter is also submitted with the Letter of Uderstadig withi five workig days of employmet. All employed DRC defedats pay DRC program fees at the rate of oe hour's gross wage per day plus a two dollar daily admiistrative fee with a miimum paymet of $7.00 per day. Defedats pay program ad Court fees by surrederig their paycheck or submittig moey orders. The supervisig officer decides as to the maer of paymet after cosultig with the DRC supervisor. At the time of orietatio, ay employed DRC defedats who have ot bee i a furlough program have a Paymet Disbursemet Form completed ad set to Admiistrative Accout Services alog with a copy of the defedat's Terms ad Coditios of Probatio. If a DRC defedat is uemployed, paymets are made at the discretio of the supervisig officer. However, if the supervisig officer feels that the defedat is ot makig every effort to fid employmet, a paymet schedule is maitaied i order to motivate the idividual to fid work. All defedats are expected to make some paymet regardless of their employmet or fiacial circumstaces. 14

22 DESCRIPTION Work Furlough defedats who eter the DRC Program o Tuesdays pay i advace through the Saturday of that same week. Upo trasfer ito the DRC Program, defedats' moies are hadled through the Itesive Probatio Supervisio accout. Work Furlough defedats are expected to be curret o their furlough fees before beig accepted ito the DRC. The defedat is resposible to pay all accrued deliquecies from the Work Furlough Program while participatig i the DRC. DRC fees are oly modified or waived with the writte approval of the DRC supervisor. The supervisig DRC Officer documets the DRC defedat's iability to pay full fees while i the program. Modificatio of furlough fees is ot allowed without the writte approval of the DRC supervisor. For modificatio of fees to be cosidered, the defedat must provide documetatio ad complete a Paymet Ability Form ad submit it to the supervisig officer. If approved by the supervisor, this iformatio is submitted to Admiistrative Accout Services alog with a disbursemet form. Accout services provides DRC staff with a weekly list of defedat's whose records show them to be deliquet i the paymet of program fees. Officers receive this deliquecy list o Wedesday afteroo, ad have util the followig Moday at oo to review it ad make ecessary correctios with accout services. If a defedat is deliquet, the supervisio team addresses this ad takes appropriate steps to resolve the problem. Discipliary Actio. For techical violatios that do ot require removal from the program or permaet retur to custody, the supervisio team utilizes itermediate sactios whe appropriate. This may iclude: Icreased/more severe restrictios Icreased surveillace Commuity Restitutio hours Case maagemet staffigs with the DRC supervisor, supervisio team, ad the defedat Placemet i Garfield Residetial Ceter A temporary retur to custody (7-14 days) followed by retur to the program Techical violatios that require the defedat be retured to custody are staffed with the DRC supervisor. Whe a DRC defedat is removed from the program durig the jail phase, the supervisio team has the optio of arrestig or directig the defedat to self-surreder. The defedat is directed to self-surreder oly i those cases whe there has bee some compliace, ad it appears likely that they shall comply with a self-surreder without causig problems. If the defedat is directed to self-surreder, the Retur to Custody ad Jail Bookig Forms are completed. The defedat is rebooked ito jail uder the origial bookig umber. The defedat takes this paperwork alog with the Order of Cofiemet ad the writte directive 15

23 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS with istructios for self-surrederig by a specific time. Probatio staff the advises jail staff of the approximate time the defedat is to arrive at jail. If the defedat does ot fit the self-surreder criteria, the DRC supervisio team follows stadard arrest procedures. The arrestig officer is give the origial of both forms alog with the defedat's Order of Cofiemet to give to the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Office. A Arrest Icidet is completed ad set to DRC Admiistratio withi two workig days of the arrest. Furlough Accoutig ad, if applicable, the officer who received the case are otified. Upo otice that the whereabouts of a defedat caot be accouted for, ad reasoable efforts to locate the defedat are usuccessful, the defedat is cosidered to be a abscoder. A Petitio to Revoke Probatio with a Warrat are walked through by the ext workig day. Furlough Accoutig ad, if applicable, the field officer who would have received the case are otified. If the defedat commits a ew crimial offese, the case is staffed immediately with a DRC supervisor. The DRC supervisio team is resposible for requestig all Warrats ad filig Petitios to Revoke Probatio for techical violatios ad for committig a ew crime while the defedat is i the program. Case Trasfers. All efforts are made to have cotact with the ewly assiged probatio officer durig the fial Phase ad soo after completio of the program. If o field probatio officer has bee assiged, the Officer of the Day at Presetece is called for probatio officer assigmet. This is doe at least two weeks before the defedat leaves the program. If there is a field probatio officer already assiged, the case goes back to that officer, provided the defedat resides i the officer's assigmet area; otherwise, the case is cosidered for radom assigmet. Copies of all icidets, cotact sheets, ad weekly schedules are set to DRC Admiistratio for data etry. A trasitio summary is the completed. This icludes a descriptio ad assessmet of the directed supervisio strategy, a descriptio of ogoig programmig ad a recommedatio for future supervisio. All icidets, cotact sheets, schedules, ad other documets are placed i the file. I the evet the defedat does ot report to the ewly assiged officer as directed, ad efforts to locate the defedat fail, the defedat is cosidered a abscoder. The "most kowledgeable probatio officer" stadard is applied. I most cases, this meas the DRC supervisio team is resposible for completig a Petitio to Revoke ad dealig with future related Court matters. Each offeder's progress through the DRC program is documeted. Stadards for caseload documetatio are provided i Appedix A. STANDARD PROBATION DESCRIPTION Geerally, DWI offeders who receive stadard probatio (icludig those i this study's compariso group) receive writte or telephoe cotact from their assiged 16

24 DESCRIPTION probatio officer ear the ed of their period of icarceratio. At this time, a appoitmet is made for their first meetig with the probatio officer ad they are istructed to brig certificates of couselig ad treatmet they may have received while icarcerated to that meetig. At the iitial meetig, the probatio officer reviews the terms of the probatio, (which require them to abstai from alcohol ad comply with couselig ad treatmet regimes), cofirms their livig ad workig circumstaces, ad refers them to a treatmet provider. Persos o stadard probatio the are required to meet with their probatio officer o a mothly basis throughout their probatio. Typically, probatio officers also visit the probatioers at their residece a miimum of oce every three moths. Probatioers are charged probatio fees of $30 to $40 per moth. Persos who participate i DRC go o stadard probatio after DRC ad remai there util the ed of their period of probatio. 17

25 18 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS

26 3 - EVALUATION APPROACH Our basic approach to the evaluatio was similar to that used i two other evaluatios of alterative sactioig programs we have performed recetly for NHTSA (Joes, Wiliszowski, ad Lacey, 1997; Joes ad Lacey, 1998). The evaluatio had two compoets, program operatio ad program impact. The program operatio compoet dealt with the extet to which the program specificatios (as summarized above i our program descriptio) were actually beig achieved. This aspect of a evaluatio is ofte referred to as a admiistrative evaluatio. Our approach was to query DRC program staff o the particulars of their activities to obtai data o gross measures of program activity (for example, umber of cliets eterig the program per uit time ad their mea time i the program) from program staff. The program impact compoet was the major cocer of the evaluatio. It sought to determie the effect of the DRC program o the future drikig-drivig behavior of program participats. The measure we used for future drikig-drivig behavior was the time from a cliet's etry i the program to aother DWI arrest. The desig ad results of each of these compoets are described below. PROGRAM OPERATION We studied the DRC program's effect o the 177 DWI offeders studied i this project (see discussio of the impact evaluatio below). Table 3-1 shows the umber of DWIs eterig the program durig the period studied. Oly 12 persos etered DRC i the first two years, but activity icreased i the third year (1994), risig to 64 i 1996 ad droppig dow to 25 i O average, the offeders were seteced to 38 moths of probatio (icludig time both durig ad after DRC), ad served 24 moths. The figure for moths served is colored by the fact that few of those eterig DRC i 1996, ad oe of those eterig i 1997 had completed their probatio by the ed of 1997 (Table 3-2). Actually, some of the offeders ever completed their probatio because of violatios of the terms of probatio. By compariso, the offeders i the stadard probatio compariso group had slightly loger terms of probatio: 44 moths seteced ad 26 moths completed. The variatio of percet completig probatio by year was similar to that of the DRC group. 19

27 * * 1992 * EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Table 3-1: Number of Study DWIs Eterig the DRC Program by Year '----' bib * Year of Etry Ito DRC Table 3-2: Mea Moths Seteced to Probatio ad Mea Moths Served by DRC Subjects Studied i Seteced E ]Served '-'-----' F ii * Year of Etry to DRC 20

28 EVALUATION Program staff reported that the program ra i accordace with the procedures described i Chapter 2. The oly major problem experieced (from the APD viewpoit) was due to the requiremet that the Couty Attorey approve participats APD had selected for the program, sometimes resultig the exclusio of offeders APD believed would beefit from the program. Fially, we examied cost of the DRC program as compared to stadard probatio. Data from APD idicate that it costs $36.79 per day per idividual to keep a offeder i the Maricopa Couty jail versus $19.69 per day for DRC. Sice the DRC offeder typically is icarcerated for sixty fewer days tha compariso group members, a savigs or $1,026 ($17.10 x 60) per offeder is realized from the DRC. PROGRAM IMPACT Experimet Desig The major research questio addressed i this evaluatio was: What is the DWI recidivism of feloy D WI offeders participatig i the DRCprogram ad how does it compare with the DWI recidivism of feloy DWI offeders give a traditioal setece? The statewide recidivism of the DRC group was compared to that of a group composed of feloy DWI offeders who received stadard probatio (the compariso group). DWI recidivism is defied here as the probability of the occurrece of the first subsequet DWI covictio' o or before time T. For the DRC group, T = 0 is the time whe the offeder etered the DRC program after release from jail, ad for the stadard probatio group, T = 0 is the time whe the offeder etered stadard probatio after release from priso. Sice subjects were ot radomly assiged to the two groups, aalytic adjustmets of the data were made to accout for possible differeces betwee the test group ad the compariso group. A umber of covariates (listed below) were available for adjustig the modeled recidivism. Data Sources Data were provided by two sources. The Adult Probatio Departmet of the Superior Court of Maricopa Couty provided files cotaiig the probatio records of both groups of offeders, ad Arizoa Motor Vehicle Departmet (MVD) 2 Arrest dates were ot cotaied i the database we obtaied from the Arizoa Motor Vehicle Departmet. 21

29 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS provided the driver records of both groups. All of the subjects etered their program durig the period 1992 through Driver records data cotaiig the dates of all recorded DWI covictios were merged with the probatio records, eablig us to determie the date of the idex offese, the umber of DWI covictios prior to the idex offese, ad the time from the program etry date to the first subsequet DWI covictio, if ay. The fial aalysis file cotaied 2,841 records, 176 for the DRC group ad 2,765 for the compariso group. Variables cotaied i the aalysis file were: Group (DRC or Compariso) Alcohol Abuser (yes or o) Program Etry Date Program Ed Date Actual time o Probatio Date of Birth Time to First Subsequet DWI Educatio Classificatio Ethicity Number of Past Feloies Number of Past Juveile Offeses Marital Status Number of Past Misdemeaors Number of Prior DWIs Occupatioal Status Number of Past Priso Seteces Number of Past Probatios Offeder Sex Other variables were costructed from these variables for use i the aalysis. Aalysis Techiques The primary techique used for the impact aalysis was survival curve aalysis. This techique allows the study of complex time patters of recidivism, for example, a recidivism rate that is iitially low, but higher later. The formal factor reflectig the evaluatio desig was a variable idicatig whether the subject beloged to the treatmet group or the compariso group. Factors available for use i cotrollig for differeces betwee the treatmet ad compariso groups (that is, the aalytical "matchig" of the two groups) are idicated i the above list. I the survival aalysis, we used the time from program etry to the first "failure" ( DWI covictio) as the depedet variable. The time-varyig recidivism (that is, probability of a failure) as a fuctio of group (DRC or compariso) was of primary 22

30 * EVALUATION iterest. The aalysis was desiged to idicate whether there was ay differece i recidivism with respect to group ad if so, the directio ad amout of the differece, ad also the probability p that the differece was due to chace aloe. We also ascertaied whether various subgroups (for example, youg offeders ad old offeders) had differig recidivism times with respect to group. The statistical * techiques cotaied i the SAS PHREG procedure were used i the aalysis. * We also performed a collateral aalysis to determie which offeder attributes of the combied group (DRC plus stadard probatio) were associated with a higher probability of recidivatig withi two years after program etry. The CHAID * * procedure developed for the SPSS statistical package was used i the multivariate aalysis. Idepedet variables icluded were sex, age, race, educatioal level, employmet status, marital status, umber of prior DWIs, moths o probatio, * umber of prior probatios, umber of prior priso seteces, umber of prior feloy * offeses, umber of prior misdemeaor offeses, umber of prior juveile offeses, * ad whether or ot a alcohol abuser. The depedet variable was the percetage of the combied group recidivatig after two years. Results Recidivism. The raw recidivism curves (uadjusted for differeces betwee the two groups) are show i Figure 3-1 below. The two curves are approximately the same up for about the first 18 moths. From 18 moths though about 45 moths the curve for the DRC group is about 1 to Figure 3-1: Raw Recidivism Curves for the DRC Group ad the Compariso Group q Stadard Probatio 14 Day Reportig Ceter H Moths After Program Etry

31 * EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS 2 percetage poits higher tha the curve for the compariso group. At 65 moths, the two curves coicide. The formal recidivism aalysis adjusted the raw recidivism rates for group differeces i such covariates as cliet age, sex, ad prior DWIs, amog others. It also allowed us to determie whether ay differece i the recidivism rates of the two groups was statistically sigificat, that is, ot due to chace aloe. The model showed that the followig covariates had a statistically sigificat effect o recidivism, ad were retaied i the recidivism model: * * Covariate P Number of Prior DWIs Sex Age Time o Probatio Time Seteced to Probatio Number of Prior Feloies I the table, p is probability that a covariate's effect o recidivism was due to chace aloe. A value of 0.05 or lower is usually take as beig "statistically sigificat." Note that offeder race did ot have a sigificat effect o recidivism. Of primary iterest, though, is the variable "group," where the DRC group was assiged the value of 1, ad the compariso group was assiged the value of 0 i the PHREG model. The p value for "group" was , owhere ear the level required for statistical sigificace. Thus, the survival aalysis idicated that there was o sigificat differece betwee the recidivism ofdrc group ad that of the stadard probatio compariso group. The umber of prior DWI offeses affected the recidivism of both groups. Figure 3-2 shows the percet of the combied groups that had recidivated after two years plotted versus umber of prior DWIs. Figure 3-2: Percet of Combied Group Recidivatig After Two Years By Number of Prior DWIs _ Number of Prior DWIs 6 24

32 EVALUATION From the figure it ca be see that 8% of offeders with two priors had bee covicted of aother DWI after two years. However, early 13% of offeders with with six priors (by ay measure, "hard-core" offeders) had bee covicted of aother DWI after two years. Offeder Characteristics. The CHAID aalysis examied the characteristics of the combied group of offeders. Specifically, it attempted to idetify the characteristics of offeders with very high ad the characteristics of offeders with very low recidivism rates after two years. Variables foud to be sigificat at the 0.05 level i idetifyig such characteristics were: Age, Sex, Time o probatio, Employmet status, Number of prior probatios, Race, Alcohol abuser, ad Prior DWIs. Four groups havig much higher recidivism rates tha the overall two-year recidivism rate of 8% were idetified. They were: Group % recidivatig age 35+ years; 1 to 3 prior probatios; o-white collar; o-white race; 2 prior DWIs Group % recidivatig age <35 years; male sex; 1+ prior probatios Group % recidivatig Age 35+; 4+ prior probatios Group % recidivatig age <35 years; male sex; o prior probatios; ot a alcohol abuser Two groups had very low recidivism rates after two years. They were: Group 5-1.7% recidivatig age 35+; o prior probatios, white collar Group 6-2.1% recidivatig age <35; female sex 25

33 EVALUATION OF A DAYREPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS These results should be of iterest to probatio departmets i selectig treatmet ad rehabilitatio regimes for cliets as well as to researchers i selectig target groups for future studies of repeat DWI offeders. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We examied the DWI recidivism of DRC participats compared to the recidivism of other similar offeders assiged to stadard probatio. We foud o sigificat differece i the recidivism of the two groups, the aalyses idicatig that, if aythig, the recidivism of the DRC group might be slightly higher tha that of the stadard probatio group. This is ot ecessarily a egative fidig i regards to the DRC program. The DRC group cosisted of persos who were released from jail early to participate i the program. They geerally were i the DRC program for a period equivalet to their remaiig jail time. They were evaluated ad received treatmet ad other services such as job skills traiig, educatioal services ad the like while i the DRC program. The compariso group cosisted of offeders who served their full term of icarceratio either i jail or priso. Those i jail were referred to couselig or treatmet after release from icarceratio. Those i priso geerally received treatmet early i their period of icarceratio ad were referred to further treatmet after release. Thus all persos received treatmet, though at differet poits i the sactioig process. However, offeders who have bee icarcerated i the Departmet of Correctios (DOC) complete madatory alcohol assessmet ad treatmet i priso while the DRC ad Youthful Offeder Program offers substace abuse treatmet that is ot alcohol specific. Thus, the DRC group i our study may be at a treatmet disadvatage i that they are placed i drug offeder groups for treatmet as opposed to a treatmet program tailored to deal with alcohol specifically. Additioally, DRC cases are screeed to be lower risk DWI offeders to be eligible for the program. The DOC group may have a lower level of deial after alcohol specific treatmet ad icarceratio while the DRC group may perceive themselves as ot havig a serious problem. If alcoholism deial is a key factor i recidivism, the the DRC group may be at a disadvatage i this study. However, oe of the key programmatic virtues of the DRC program besides its itet to ease the trasitio of offeders back ito society is that it is a lower cost program tha either form of icarceratio ad thus is less costly to the overall sactioig system. 26

34 4 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The mai focus of this study was to examie the effectiveess of the Day Reportig Ceter program followed by probatio as a coutermeasure for severe DWI offeders as a alterative to loger icarceratio i priso or jail followed by probatio. We coclude that the DRC group had essetially the same statewide covictio rate for alcohol related traffic violatios as the compariso group. However, other measures of effectiveess yielded more positive results. Several aspects of the DRC program are ot iteded to address DWI recidivism directly, but rather are iteded to assist i the reitegratio of these offeders ito society. These iclude isistece o employmet, demostratio of resposibility through at least partial paymet of fees, ad participatio i educatioal programs as appropriate. Further, the cost providig of correctioal services through DRC is sigificatly less that jail. I Maricopa Couty it costs $36.79 per day per idividual to keep a offeder i jail versus $19.69 per day for DRC. The DRC offeder typically is icarcerated for sixty fewer days tha compariso group members who completed their period of icarceratio followed by stadard probatio. This $17.10 per day savigs traslates ito $1,026 per offeder if they are i DRC rather tha jail. Thus, the DRC program saves o average about $1,000 per offeder. Participats become employed ad thus provide support for themselves ad their families. Udereducated adults beefit from additioal educatioal services. Treatmet eeds are addressed. Cosequeces for ucooperative or o-compliat behaviors are immediately imposed. This study also sought to determie whether DWI offeders were appropriate for a DRC-type program, which is iteded for offeders thought to be of low risk of committig violet crimes. Iterviews with program staff idicated that DWI offeders did participate i the DRC program ad were appropriate participats. Oe area where the program might be modified to more effectively deal with DWI offeders is i the treatmet aspect of the program. The vast majority of these severe DWI offeders are alcohol abusers rather tha abusers of other drugs. The program we studied, icluded a geeral substace abuse treatmet compoet. If the DWI caseload i DRC were expaded, the it would be appropriate to scree for problem drikig ad implemet treatmet modalities specifically tailored to alcohol abuse ad drikig drivig. We uderstad that there is some reluctace to use DRC for DWI offeders because, though by traditioal measures they meet the criteria of low risk offeders, they are believed to pose a risk to society through potetial drikig ad drivig while participatig i the program. However, this study idicates that they pose o greater risk tha those who serve their full jail or priso terms, ad that it costs society less to deal with them i DRC tha i jail or priso. 27

35 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS We recommed that cosideratio be give to referrig more DWI offeders to DRC-type programs ad that the DRC treatmet program be modified to iclude a treatmet regime which is structured to deal specifically with alcohol abuse ad drivig. 28

36 5-REFERENCES Arstei-Kerslake, GW; ad Peck, RC. (1985). Topological aalysis of Califoria DUI (drivig uder the ifluece) offeders ad DUI recidivism correlates. Sacrameto: Califoria State Departmet of Motor Vehicles. Doova, DM; Umlauf, RL; ad Salzberg, PM. (1990). Bad drivers: idetificatio of a target group for alcohol-related prevetio ad early itervetio. Joural of Studies o Alcohol 51(2): Fell, JC. (1991). Repeat DWI offeders: their ivolvemet i fatal crashes. I: Itoxicated Drivers: Multiple ad Problem Offeders' Coferece. Steves Poit, WI, 5-6 September, Washigto, D.C.: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. Joes, RK; Joksch, HC; ad Wiliszowski, CH (1991). Implied coset refusal impact. Washigto, D.C.: Report No. DOT HS Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. Joes, RK.; Wiliszowski, CH; ad Lacey, JH (1997). Evaluatio of alterative programs for repeat DWI offeders. ReportNo. DOT HS Washigto, DC: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. Joes, RK; ad Lacey, JH. (1998). Evaluatio of a idividualized sactioig program for DWI offeders. Report No. DOT HS Washigto, D.C.: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. Joes, RK; Joksch, HC; Lacey, JH; ad Schmidt, HJ (1988). Field evaluatio ofjail sactios for DWI. DOT HS Washigto, D.C.: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. Morris, N; ad Tory, M (1990). Betwee priso ad probatio. Itermediate puishmets i a ratioal setecig system. New York: Oxford Uiversity Press, Ic. U.S. Departmet of Justice. (1990). A survey of itermediate sactios. Washigto, D.C.: U.S. Departmet of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Wiliszowski, CH; Murphy, PV; Joes, RK; ad Lacey, JH (1996). Determie reasos for repeat drikig ad drivig. Report No. DOT HS Washigto, D.C.: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. 29

37 30 E VAL UA TION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS

38 APPENDIX A - Stadards for DRC Caseload Documetatio DRC is a program ivolvig the supervisio of defedats who are cosidered part of the jail populatio, ecessitatig that all documetatio be doe i a timely ad comprehesive maer. Icidets requirig documetatio iclude: -All probatio violatio actios. -New arrests. -Modificatios. -Court orders ad miute etries. -Chages i supervisio strategy whe pla proves to be ieffective or o loger viable. -Justificatio for chages i phase. -Etry, ito, departure from, or refusal to cooperate i treatmet programs. -Completio of special terms of probatio. -Chages i employmet ad address. -Jail bookigs ad release dates, marriages, suicide attempts, psychotic episodes, ad all other o-routie or out-of-the ordiary evets (e.g., hostile attitude or threats by defedats, family problems, ad divorces). -Ay missed scheduled evet. -Receipt of Letter of Uderstadig siged by the employer. -Roll-ups. A special Arrest Icidet Form is to be completed. Most field cotacts are routie, but occasioally they do require more iformatio tha simply statig a cotact was made. For the purposes of this program certai documetatio is made i order to avoid maipulatio by the cliet. Field book etries must iclude: -Directives. -Chages i schedule. -Requests for chages i schedule. -Ay referece to a icidet. -Ay rule violatio. DRC defedats are ot oly uder house arrest, they are i custody. Before a officer issues a travel permit or submits a Petitio to Modify Probatio, the case is staffed with the supervisor. Out-of-state travel requires a Petitio to Modify Probatio, releasig the defedat from custody ad allowig the defedat to travel out of state. The Petitio reflects the dates of travel ad whe the defedat is to be retured to custody. The time the defedat is abset is ot couted toward the time icarcerated. Out-of-state travel is verified ad documeted. Out-of-couty travel is verified ad documeted. A exceptio is temporary work that does ot require the 31

39 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS defedat to be out of the couty overight. A Petitio to Modify Probatio is ot required if the defedat is oly abset for the day. If the defedat is abset for more tha 24 hours, a Petitio to Modify Probatio is required. 32

40 DRC COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT 1. I uderstad that the Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) is a jail furlough Program. I will coduct myself i accordace with the laws, terms of probatio, ad the rules of the DRC program. Failure to comply could result i my retur to the Maricopa Couty Jail. 2. I the evet of a emergecy, ay uforesee difficulty or chage of schedule, I will cotact a DRC staff member immediately. 3. At all times I will carry a state-approved idetificatio card. 4. I uderstad that I am required to complete a daily schedule, approved by the DRC staff. If I leave from or fail to report to ay locatio such as place! of employmet, educatio, couselig, or home without authorizatio of the DRC staff, I may be cosidered as missig from the program or as, a escapee. This may result i my termiatio from the program ad possible ew crimial charges. 5. I will travel directly to my approved destiatio with o stops or detours alog the way. 6. I uderstad that my place of residece must be approved ad is subject to frequet verificatio. Failure to be at said residece durig desigated times may be cosidered a major violatio. I agree to be accessible to ay staff member(s) of the DRC who attempt to cotact me whether i perso or by telephoe. I also grat authorizatio of ay probatio or surveillace officer to search myself or my property. 7. I will ot use illegal drugs, illegal substaces or alcohol while i the program. I will get permissio from my supervisio team prior to takig ay prescribed or over-the-couter medicatio. I also uderstad that I will be subject to drug ad alcohol testig. 8. I will ot possess, cotrol, or ow ay firearm, ammuitio, explosive, deadly weapo, or prohibited weapo. 9. I uderstad that I am resposible for providig my. ow trasportatio, public or private, ad that the DRC staff must approve all trasportatio arragemets icludig vehicle, driver ad route. I will ot operate a motor vehicle without first providig DRC staff with a copy of my valid Arizoa Driver's Licese, proof of isurace, curret registratio ad complete vehicle descriptio. I will drive o other vehicle without prior approval of the DRC staff. 10. Other tha for authorized DRC fuctios, I uderstad that while o furlough I will ot associate with or cotact i ay maer ay perso kow to have a crimial record without prior approval of the supervisio team. 11. If I am sick or otherwise uable to work or report to the DRC, I will otify ad obtai approval from DRC staff. If workig, I will otify my employer of my iability to work i accordace with the rules of my place of employmet. I will remai at home for the remaider of the day. 12. I will advise ay prospective or curret employer of my offese ad 33

41 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS ivolvemet with the DRC prior to acceptig a job. I also authorize DRC staff to cotact ad exchage pertiet iformatio as ecessary to moitor my program performace ad discuss my curret status with prospective employers ad other program sposors. 13. I authorize my employer to disclose ad release to DRC staff ay iformatio regardig my employmet. 14. I will ot eter ito ay civil cotract or icur ay idebtedess without the approval of my DRC supervisio team. 15. I uderstad that I am required to iform DRC staff of ay charges pedig agaist me, icludig traffic matters. I agree to appear as scheduled for all Court hearigs. 16. I uderstad that ay acts or threats of violece by me to ay perso may result i my removal from the program. 17. I will atted ay program of assistace, icludig participatio i the Commuity Restitutio Program, as directed by the DRC staff. 18. I uderstad that there is a charge of oe hour's gross wage per day, plus a $2.00 daily admiistrative fee to defedat i the DRC. The amout I will be resposible for payig will be determied by my ability to pay ad a fiacial evaluatio completed by DRC staff. 19. I uderstad if I am uder 26 years of age, I will be placed i the Youthful Offeder Program ad will be required to atted service programs which may go beyod my origially scheduled jail release date. I have read ad/or have had explaied to me fully, ad uderstad the above rules ad regulatios ad agree to fully abide by them. I uderstad that ay deviatio may result i my removal from the program. I have received a copy of this agreemet. Cliet Sigature D.R.C. Staff Sigature Date Date 34

42 NHTS NHTSA BOX DOT-NHTSA PROJECT

43 DOT HS August 1999 People Savig People WWW a itis d M gov