South Central Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program. Process Evaluation - Final Report. October, Prepared by: Jeffrey A.

Transcription

1 South Central Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program Process Evaluation - Final Report October, 2003 Prepared by: Jeffrey A. Bouffard North Dakota State University Department of Criminal Justice and Political Science

2 Executive Summary History: The South Central Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program began operation on January 5, Several months of planning was conducted by personnel from the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation s (DOCR) Field Services Division, as well as by members of the Drug Court s Advisory Board. Initial funding for the planning and implementation of the SCJD Drug Court was provided by a 3 year grant to DOCR from the U.S Department of Justice, Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program. Evaluation Methods Used: This evaluation used a combination of interviews and paper-andpencil surveys with individuals involved in the delivery of the drug court program including the presiding judge, Drug Court Coordinator from the North Dakota Department of Corrections- Field Services Division, West Central Human Services (WCHS) Drug Court Program Case Manager, WCHS substance abuse counselors, the local State s Attorney, and a local defense attorney. In addition, a sample of substance abuse treatment group sessions offered by WCHS was observed to determine the overall content of these treatment services. A drug court hearing and the staff meeting which preceded it were also observed. Finally, data maintained by the Drug Court Coordinator, regarding participants (and rejected applicants) background characteristics, sanctions imposed, and services (e.g., drug tests, etc) received during the program was analyzed. Partners: The key agencies involved in the operation of the SCJD Drug Court include the Bismarck, ND office of the DOCR Field Service Division, the West Central Human Services Center, the SCJD Court and its administration and the Burleigh County State s attorney s office. Other agencies involved in the drug court program include those operating local halfway houses and other social services as needed. Participants: Over its first 30 months of operation (from January, 2001 to July, 2003) the SCJD Drug Court program has received 105 applications from potential participants. Of these, 47 individuals have been accepted and participated in the program. Fifty-eight individuals then have had their applications rejected as the cases were did not meet the program s requirements. As of July 7, 2003, 14 individuals had graduated from the program and 8 had been terminated for violations of various program requirements (6 for an arrest and/or conviction for a new criminal offense). Of the 14 individuals who have graduated only 1 has had an arrest and/or conviction for a new criminal offense after completing the program (a 7% post-program recidivism rate). While the current study is not intended as an impact evaluation (examining the effectiveness of the program in reducing future drug use or criminal recidivism), by way of comparison it should be noted that a recent federally-funded study (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003) found an average recidivism rate of approximately 16% among a national sample of adult drug court graduates (using a sample 2,020 graduates from 95 drug courts). Thus, while the current sample of graduates from the SCJD Drug Court is far too small to make credible conclusions regarding its effect on recidivism, there is also no preliminary data to suggest that the court is not operating at least as effectively as other more established courts. NADCP s Key Components: In addition, results of this process evaluation (presented in Section 3.4) generally reveal that the SCJD drug court program meets most of the 10 Key 2

3 Components of the drug court model as described by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. In general, this evaluation concludes that the SCJD drug court program is successful in each of the following eight (8) areas: Integrating alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants due process rights. Providing access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Using a coordinated strategy of responses to drug court participants' non-compliance. Providing ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant. Monitoring and evaluating the achievement of program goals and gauging effectiveness. Obtaining continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness. Two of the Key Components which the SCJD drug court program needs to continue to address include the longer than planned delay in screening and admitting potential participants (about 42 days on average over the last 6 months of program operation, in contrast to the program s own goal of 30 days from date of arrest). Despite this, the program has made improvements in this area, as the average time from arrest to program entry in the first 12 months of program operation was 87 days. Continued efforts are needed to ensure early identification and placement of potential participants consistent with the Key Component and the program s own goals. Similarly, analysis of data on drug tests completed by participants in the SCJD drug program reveals that the average participant is not receiving the anticipated minimum number of drug tests during their time in the program. The average graduate from this program completed 35.2 tests per 12 months of drug court participation, compared to an expected minimum number of 56 tests in 12 months of program participation (based on the number of tests described in the drug court handbook for each phase of the program and the expected minimum stay in each phase of the program). This represents 62.5% of the minimum number of tests expected over a hypothetical 12 month period. Improvements in testing frequency, conducted either by drug court staff or by staff at the WCHS Center appear warranted to bring the program s implementation of the substance abuse monitoring in line with its own policies and with the NADCP s Key Component regarding Abstinence Monitoring. In the remaining eight (8) Key Component areas the SCJD drug court program appears to be implementing a program that comports with these basic principles of the overall drug court model. Federal Evaluation Questions: In addition to meeting most of these national professional standards for the implementation of the drug court model, this evaluation of the SCJD drug court program also finds that the program is successfully addressing several areas outlined in the original program funding proposal (see Section 3.2). Several evaluation questions were posed in the original proposal for federal planning and implementation funding regarding the uniformity 3

4 of case processing across participants with different individual characteristics. For instance, the evaluation asked whether gender, race, offense type, and other individual level factors impacted program outcomes such as graduation rates and the imposition of graduated sanctions during program participation. These questions and the results from the evaluation are presented briefly below. Additional details regarding each of these evaluation questions can be found in Section 3.2. There was no difference in program completion rates for men vs. women. There was no difference in program completion rates for felony vs. misdemeanor participants. There was no difference in completion rates for DUI offenders vs. Drug-related offenders. There was no difference in program completion rates for drug court participants of different racial/ethnic groups. There was no difference in program completion rates between those participants who received jail as a sanction and those who did not receive any jail time as a program sanction. There was no difference in re-arrest rates for participants with different primary drugs of choice. The drug court program did not successfully lower the LSI (Level of Supervision Inventory, a risk scale) scores of participants by 40% between program entry and program completion, however the 14 program graduates to date did show a 32% decline in their LSI scores at the time of graduation. The drug court program maintained offenders in treatment and other maintenance programs for at least 12 months. In fact, in line with research from other evaluations of drug court programs graduates from the SCJD program spent more than 12 months in the program (an average of 16 months). There was a large difference between average time to sentence for drug court participants (60.9 days on average) vs. non-participants (168.8 days on average). The average time from date of arrest to date of program entry was not less than 30 days, as was suggested during the program planning process, but was in fact 42 days (over the last 6 months of program operation). While this is longer than program guidelines would expect, there is evidence of improvement from the first 12 months of program operation when the average time was over 80 days. The drug court program decreases incarceration time for non-violent offenders by at least 75%. In fact, while recognizing some limitations in the data available to examine this question, there is some evidence to suggest that the program reduces incarceration time by roughly 88% (although additional future analyses should continue to more thoroughly examine this issue). The revocation rate of participants (8 of 47 participants, or about 17%) is lower for drug court program participants compared to the average revocation rate for non-drug court participants (an average of 32% for typical North Dakota probationers). 4

5 Drug Treatment Services: One of the under-researched aspects of the drug court model in general is the nature and impact of the substance abuse treatment services offered as part of the drug court. Several nationally recognized scholars in the field have called for more thorough examinations of these issues in evaluations of drug court programs. Results collected in this evaluation suggest that the SCJD drug court has an excellent relationship with the WCHS center through which the program is able to access a wide array of services, either directly or by referral. Among the many strengths of the services provided by the WCHS center the agency conducts appropriate assessments of potential clients from the drug court program and matches those clients to varying levels of treatment intensity as appropriate. While providing an array of appropriate services, including assessments, aftercare, other adjunctive treatments (e.g., for mental health conditions, housing needs, etc) and treatment programs of varying intensity, a large body of scientific research on offender rehabilitation suggests that improvements in these services may be realized by adding more cognitive-behavioral content to those services in which drug court clients participate (see Section for a more complete description of the substance abuse services available to participants in the SCJD drug court program). Programming Recommendations: Increase the frequency of substance abuse monitoring. Improve the speed of identifying, screening and admitting drug court participants. Add more cognitive-behavioral content to substance abuse services provided to drug court participants (see Section 5.1 for more specific details). Future Evaluation Recommendations: Future evaluation efforts specifically designed to answer questions about the SCJD drug court program s impact (on drug use and repeat criminal offending) and cost-effectiveness will be needed reach credible conclusions on these issues. This type of well-designed outcome study is dependent primarily on the availability of a large enough sample of drug court participants, graduates, and appropriate comparison individuals to facilitate meaningful statistical analysis of each group s outcomes (e.g., recidivism). In the meantime, several recent evaluations of the drug court model itself suggest that the overall approach can be effective. As such, the goal of the current evaluation was simply to ascertain whether the SCJD Drug Court program is being implemented in a manner consistent with the standards set out by organizations such as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the National Institute of Justice s Office of Justice Programs. Given that the Drug Court model itself has generally been supported as effective in reducing crime and drug use among graduates and that the SCJD Drug Court is implemented in a manner that is largely faithful to that model there is good reason to suspect that it will eventually be able to demonstrate similar impacts, once enough individuals have participated to allow a credible outcome study. Fortunately, the tracking of many of the data elements crucial to an eventual outcome evaluation are currently in place in the form of the various computerized databases maintained by the Drug Court Coordinator. The continued collection of this information and its maintenance in a complete and up-to-date fashion will greatly expedite the eventual conduct of an outcome evaluation. Appropriate data collection, coupled with the development of an appropriate comparison group of similar individuals who do not participate in the SCJD drug court will allow definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the South Central Judicial District Drug Court program, in reducing outcomes such as in-program revocation rates, post-program 5

6 offending and substance use, and criminal justice system costs associated with processing druginvolved non-violent offenders. (Steps that can be taken to facilitate the eventual outcome evaluation of this program are more completely described in Section 5.2.4) 6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction Program Development Key Agency Partners Overview of Offender Participation Drug Court Evaluation Literature Specific Evaluation Questions Method Procedure Sample Materials Results Description of Specific Drug Court Components and Activities Specific Federal Grant Evaluation Questions Specific Evaluation Questions from SCJD Drug Court Personnel The 10 Key Components of the Drug Court Model Conclusions Recommendations Program Recommendations Future Evaluation Recommendations References

8 1. Introduction This report documents the planning and implementation process (first 30 months) involved in the SCJD Drug Court operating in Bismarck, North Dakota. The goal of this report is to provide an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the development and operation of the SCJD Drug Court as of July, Specifically, the report seeks to document the extent to which this drug court program is being implemented in a manner that is consistent with the 10 Key Components of the Drug Court Model described by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2003). In addition, several questions are addressed which are related to the initial planning and implementation grant awarded to the SCJD Drug court program by the U.S. Department of Justice. The specific issues to be examined in this report are outlined below in the Specific Evaluation Questions Section (1.5). A brief overview of the program and its history is presented next, followed by a review of some of the relevant literature on the implementation and effectiveness of drug courts nationally. This is followed by a description of the methods used to collect information for this report. Results related to each of the 10 Key Components of the drug court model and also in relation to the questions related to the planning and implementation grant are then presented, followed by a discussion of the findings and recommendations for improvements, as well as future evaluation efforts for the SCJD Drug Court program. 1.1 Program Development The South Central Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program began operation on January 5, Several months of planning was conducted by personnel from the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation s (DOCR) Field Services Division, as well as by members of the Drug Court s Advisory Board. Members of this board include participants from the Burleigh and Morton County State s Attorneys offices, local and state law enforcement agencies, South Central Judicial District court, local defense counsel, West Central Human Services Center, and DOCR Field Services. Initial funding for the planning and implementation of the SCJD Drug Court was provided by a 3 year grant to DOCR from the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Court Discretionary Grants Program. Recently, the state legislature passed a biennial budget that included continued funding for the program. In addition, the governor has recently made the continued funding and expansion of drug courts, for adults and juveniles, a priority for the state. 1.2 Key Agency Partners The key agencies involved in the operation of the SCJD Drug Court include the Bismarck, ND office of the DOCR Field Service Division, the West Central Human Services Center (the regional branch of the state Department of Human Services), the South Central Judicial District Court (represented by two judges) and its administration, and the local State s Attorney s office. Other agencies involved in the drug court program include several that operate local halfway houses and other social services, which can be accessed by participants as they are needed. 8

9 1.3 Overview of Offender Participation Over its 30 months of operation the SCJD Drug Court program received 105 applications from potential participants. Of these, 47 individuals had been accepted and participated in the program at the time of the evaluation. Fifty-eight individuals had their applications rejected for various reasons, including lack of motivation for treatment (denial of a substance abuse/dependence problem), inappropriate current charges or other factors which make them inappropriate for participation according to the program s admission criteria. As of the writing of this report, 14 individuals had graduated from the program and 8 had been terminated for violations of various program requirements (6 for an arrest and/or conviction for a new criminal offense). Of the 14 individuals who have graduated only 1 has had an arrest and/or conviction for a new criminal offense after completing the program (a 7% post-program recidivism rate). While the current study is not intended as an impact evaluation (examining the effectiveness of the program in reducing future drug use or criminal recidivism), by way of comparison it should be noted that a recent federally-funded study (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003) found an average recidivism rate of approximately 16% among a national sample of adult drug court graduates (using a sample 2,020 graduates from 95 drug courts). Thus, while the current sample of graduates from the SCJD Drug Court is far too small to make credible conclusions regarding its effect on recidivism, there is also no preliminary data to suggest that the court is not operating at least as effectively as other more established courts. 1.4 Drug Court Evaluation Literature Drug Treatment Courts provide one of the newest innovations in judicial/correctional practice. By design, these special courts attempt to incorporate treatment principles as part of a strategy to assist offenders with recovery from substance abuse. These courts also address the process of recovery by providing a structured environment for offenders and monitoring the progress of the offender using state-of-the-art technology including treatment, drug testing, and graduated sanctions. In essence, the drug court integrates aspects of the treatment and criminal justice systems to form a unique service delivery system. The main components of this integrated service delivery model then include judicial interaction, community supervision, drug testing and substance abuse treatment. Recent rigorous evaluations of the drug court model have demonstrated that it can be effective in reducing substance use and criminal recidivism (Belenko, 1998, 2001; Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearly, 2003). In their recent experimental evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court, Gottfredson and her colleagues (2003) cite prior research indicating that drug courts have also proven more successful in retaining clients compared to other forms of intervention for substance abusing offenders (Belenko, 1998) and have produced savings in terms of jail, probation supervision and other criminal justice system costs (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999). While the drug court model has been used in increasing numbers of jurisdictions, since its inception in the mid-1980 s, only now is a relatively large body of evaluation research emerging that demonstrates the effectiveness of the model. In light of this body of research, the National Drug Court Institute online webpage has made the following statements about the drug court model: 9

10 Drug courts provide more comprehensive and closer supervision of the drug-using offender than other forms of community supervision. Drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while clients are participating in drug court. Criminal behavior is lower after program participation, especially for graduates. Drug courts generate cost savings, at least in the short term, from reduced jail/prison use, reduced criminality and lower criminal justice system costs. $10 savings for every $1 spent on drug court. Drug courts have been quite successful in bridging the gap between the court and the treatment/public health systems and spurring greater cooperation among the various agencies and personnel within the criminal justice system, as well as between the criminal justice system and the community ( While the effectiveness of the overall drug court model is beginning to be firmly documented, important questions remain unanswered, particularly in relation to the extent to which many of recently implemented drug courts conform to the prototypical model spelled out by drug court professional organizations and the federal government. This question is also important for the SCJD Drug Court, because if new courts fail to faithfully implement the drug court model they may not expect to achieve similar levels of success as have been found in the rigorous outcome evaluations conducted to date (for example, Gottfredson, et al, 2003). In addition to faithfully implementing the structural components of the drug court model (judicial interactions, community supervision, testing and treatment) the nature of the substance abuse treatment services delivered in the context of these courts is also important to consider. Two important reasons exist to suggest that the content/quality of substance abuse treatment provided in drug courts is crucial to their success. First, the most recent impact evaluation finds that participation in treatment is crucial to the reduction in participants post-graduation recidivism (Gottfredson, et al, 2003). The evaluation of the Baltimore drug court compared three groups of subjects. The Treatment group consisted of clients in drug court who received at least 10 consecutive days of treatment services from a certified provider (about half of those in the drug court received this type of treatment). The No-Treatment group consisted of nearly half the drug court participants who did not receive this type/amount of treatment, but who did receive the other three drug court components (i.e., judicial interaction, community supervision and drug testing). Finally, these two groups were compared to a group of individuals who did not receive any drug court services. Despite the claims by some (for example, Kleiman, 2001) that the treatment component of drug court programs is either ineffective or not cost-effective, Gottfredson s evaluation finds that those drug court participants who received no treatment services did as poorly in terms of recidivism as those who received no drug court services at all. In other words, according to the Gottfredson, et al (2003) evaluation, treatment (with criminal justice supervision) is effective, while supervision, testing and judicial interaction alone fared no better than no intervention at all. Given the results from the evaluation by Gottfredson and her colleagues, meaningful (at least 10 consecutive days) participation in treatment provided by a certified provider is crucial to the success of the drug court model (at least among the sample of Baltimore drug court participants 10

11 studied). In fact, the idea that the criminal justice system can be used to effectively coerce offenders into meaningful participation in rehabilitative programming is not new (Mackenzie, 1997; Nemes, Wish, & Messina, 1999). Similarly, much is known about the effectiveness of certain offender rehabilitation approaches. In particular, there is a large body of empirical research demonstrating the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) approaches, in reducing substance use and recidivism among drug-involved offenders (for instance, Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990; Anglin & Hser, 1990; Miller, Brown, Simpson, et al, 1995). Not only have these summaries demonstrated the impact of CBT-type interventions, they have also generally suggested that these approaches are more effective than other styles of intervention (e.g., psychoanalytic, medical model, or punishment-oriented approaches; Andrews, et al, 1990; Gendreau & Goggin, 2000). As a very general description, cognitive-behavioral approaches to treatment are structured attempts to teach clients to monitor their internal emotional and cognitive processes, recognize that these internal processes impact their behaviors and teach them to alter these internal processes as a means of changing their behavior. As such, important questions must be asked about the content of treatment services delivered to drug court participants as well. Drug court clients who receive CBT style treatment services should be more successful, since they will have received the type of intervention most strongly supported by empirical research on offender rehabilitation (Andrews, et al, 1990 for example) than those who receive other types of interventions. Finally, questions about the level of integration between various drug court components (e.g., criminal justice services, such as drug testing, probation supervision and substance abuse treatment services) are also important to consider in the successful implementation of the drug court model as the coordinated delivery of consistent and high quality services is the cornerstone of the drug court approach. The existing drug court literature outlines the stated purpose of the drug court model: to reduce drug use among offenders to subsequently reduce their criminal conduct. This assumption underlies most of the activities in the drug court in that the reason for drug treatment is to reduce drug use and related criminal behavior (Belenko, 1998; Drug Court Program Office, 1998). If this were not true, drug treatment as the intervention provided by these courts would not be theoretically or rationally tied to the expected outcomes. The type and nature of these substance abuse treatment programs then becomes pivotal to the success of drug courts, because it relates the behavior to be intervened upon (e.g., substance abuse which precedes crime) with the components of the overall intervention (drug court). It is important then to consider whether these treatment services are of the type that prior research suggests are most likely to reduce the recidivism of substance abusing offenders. In recent years, several authors have called for evaluations of Drug Court programs that include a through examination inside the black box of treatment (Goldkamp, 2000; Peters & Murrin, 2000; Harrell, Cavanaugh, & Roman, 2000). Goldkamp in particular was very clear in stating that: we have argued that evaluation of drug courts should be tied to a clear understanding of their goals and that assessment of their impact can best be understood through a conceptual framework a typology-- that identifies key ingredients thought to be responsible for their advertised results. Recognizing their diversity, we have argued that meaningful assessment of impact must be guided by a clear understanding of what drug 11

12 courts are and what they are not. Without such a framework to isolate critical instrumental elements of the approach, findings from scattered evaluations will accumulate like apples and oranges and other ingredients for a mixed fruit salad of research (page 2). While Goldkamp, White and Robinson (2000) reported on the results of a longitudinal evaluation of two of the longest-running drug courts in the country, their evaluation of the actual delivery of treatment services consisted exclusively of reviewing the treatment providers written materials. Their longitudinal evaluation included an examination inside the black box of treatment services in these drug courts but it fails to go beyond a simple recounting of the services provided according to these written materials. The study does not directly measure the nature of the services used in these courts. The research conducted by Goldkamp et al (2000) is not the only drug court evaluation that has failed to thoroughly examine the nature of treatment services, but rather provides an example of one such effort. One recent attempt to examine the nature of treatment services included in drug court programs came from the Drug Court Program Office (2001). This national survey of drug court judges/coordinators asked them to report on the use and availability of various types of treatment (e.g., residential, detoxification, outpatient), use of treatment adjuncts (e.g., vocational education, culturally competent treatment), screening and assessment procedures, types of offenders served, and so on. Again, while this is a comprehensive survey in terms of the number of courts who participated (212 of the 263 courts solicited responded), the reliance on the self-report of court administrators in reference to the exact clinical nature of the services provided is problematic. While the report reaches the conclusion that treatment services designed for and used by drug courts comport with scientifically established principles of treatment effectiveness (DCPO, 2001, pg. xii), the study failed to survey any treatment providers, observe any treatment services, or find out what was actually done in these drug courts affiliated treatment programs. Thus most evaluations to date have failed to adequately examine the black box of drug court treatment. Gottfredson et al (2003) reinforce the central role that meaningful participation in treatment plays in reducing substance abuse and recidivism, but the impact of specific treatment content and quality is still understudied. Overall, while the need to examine the real-world delivery of services is becoming more widely accepted (Taxman & Bouffard, 2000; Taxman & Bouffard, 2002; Belenko, 1998), it appears that even those calling for, and in some instances conducting such evaluations have not yet begun to implement studies designed to collect actual service delivery data. Even the Gottfredson et al, (2003) study, which is arguably the most rigorous outcome evaluation to date, does not measure actual treatment content, however it does distinguish between treatment provided by certified providers and those that are not certified (as determined by the agency overseeing local substance abuse treatment programs). The current evaluation attempts this sort of direct examination of the nature of drug treatment services offered in the SCJD drug court, by using among other techniques, a structured observation instrument that produces data useful for categorizing the specific nature of treatment services as they are actually delivered. In addition to merely cataloging the type of treatment services offered to clients in the court, accurate information about the content of this treatment allows for an examination of whether this treatment comports with the findings of previous research demonstrating the relative 12

13 effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) interventions. Again, in light of the most recent impact evaluation (Gottfredson, et al, 2003) suggesting that treatment participation is crucial to the effectiveness of the drug court model, it is crucial that an evaluation of the implementation of the SCJD program include an attempt to ascertain the nature of the treatment delivered to drug court participants. Since treatment itself appears to be a central ingredient in the success of the drug court model, the appropriateness of the content of that treatment is also crucial to examine. 1.5 Specific Evaluation Questions There are several key components of the prototypical drug court model, as outlined by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals online webpage (NADCP, 2003; Any drug court program would be expected to implement these key components faithfully in order to be seen as actually delivering an intervention conforming to the label Drug Court. As was outlined in the literature review above, often the evaluation of a given criminal justice program is compromised by the failure of the evaluator to examine what actually takes place in the program, or a failure to look inside the black box to see what is really occurring. As part of describing the processes involved in the operation of the SCJD Drug Court, this evaluation specifically considers how this program corresponds to the NADCP s 10 Key Components. During the evaluation data collection period information was collected (from interviews, paper-and-pencil surveys, on-site observations, and computerized client data provided by the ND DOCR) relative to each of the 10 Key Components of drug courts (NADCP, 2003). These key components are as follows: Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants' due process rights. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness. In addition to examining the overall operation of the SCJD Drug Court program in terms of the 10 Key Components, specific evaluation questions were required to be examined in accordance with the federal planning and implementation grant. These questions are listed below: 13

14 Is there a difference in program completion rates for men vs. women? Is there a difference in program completion rates for felony vs. misdemeanor participants? Is there a difference in completion rates for DUI offenders vs. Drug-related offenders? Is there a difference in program completion rates for drug court participants of different racial/ethnic groups? Is there a difference in program completion rates between those participants who received jail as a sanction and those who did not receive any jail time as a program sanction? Is there a difference in re-arrest rates for participants with different primary drugs of choice? Does the drug court program successfully lower the LSI scores of participants by 40% between their time of program entry to program completion? Does the drug court program maintain offenders in treatment and other maintenance programs for at least 12 months? Is there a difference between average time to sentence for drug court participants vs. nonparticipants? Is the average time from date of arrest to date of program entry less than 30 days, as was suggested during the planning process? Does the drug court program decrease incarceration time for non-violent offenders by 75% (drug court participants vs. rejected applicants)? Does the drug court program reduce the revocation rate of participants compared to the average revocation rate for non-drug court participants? Finally, a series of questions were asked by program personnel regarding ways to improve the operation of drug court program by identifying clients likely to succeed, as well as those likely to experience problems with program compliance. These questions include the following: What factors are related to an applicant being selected for participation in the SCJD Drug Court? What factors are related to a program participant eventually graduating from the SCJD Drug Court? What factors are related to a program participant receiving graduated sanctions (especially jail or community service) while participating in the SCJD Drug Court? 14

15 2. Method 2.1 Procedure This section describes the data collection methods used to examine in detail the implementation of the SCJD Drug Court during the week of July 7, The evaluation used in-person interviews with the drug court and other criminal justice system personnel, as well as the treatment program administrator. During the site visit, the evaluator conducted a semi-structured interview with one of the two presiding drug court judges, the probation officer who coordinates the program and the case manager from the treatment agency. Face to face interviews were also conducted with the state s attorney and a local defense attorney. A paper-and-pencil survey was also distributed to six (6) treatment program counselors who provided treatment services at the local human service agency. Three of the six counselors returned these survey s to the evaluator, via postal mail. In addition, the treatment program administrator was asked to complete a paper and pencil survey designed to collect additional information on the operation of the drug treatment agency. This survey was sent to the administrator in advance of the on-site visit in order to provide additional time to complete the instrument. Unfortunately, this survey was not returned to the evaluator. Observations of treatment meetings were also used to understand the components and delivery of the treatment services associated with this drug court. Archived data regarding participants demographic characteristics, application of sanctions, drug tests, and so on were also used in this evaluation to document the delivery of various treatment and criminal justice services. This data has been collected by the drug court itself after each participant has signed a participation agreement form authorizing the sharing of information between the various agencies involved in their treatment and specifically authorizing the use of this data in program evaluation and monitoring efforts. In addition, program materials (e.g., client handbooks, past evaluations, initial proposals for implementation funding, etc) from both the court and the treatment provider were reviewed as part of the process evaluation. 2.2 Sample A representative of each of the various agencies that participate in the drug court program (e.g., judge, probation office, State s Attorney, defense counsel, treatment agency) was interviewed. A paper and pencil survey was also provided to each of the counselors (6) involved in providing substance abuse treatment services, with three completing them. The drug court s computerized database included information on 47 individuals who had participated in the program between its inception on January 5, 2001 and July 11, The data base also contained information on 58 individuals who has applied for, but were not accepted into the drug court program, as of July 11, Table 2.a. presents basic demographic information on these two groups of individuals. The only individual-level factor that was found to be related to the probability that an applicant was accepted into the court program was their employment status at the time of application. Accepted applicants were more likely to be employed at the time of application (61.7% of successful applicants were employed) than were 15

16 those whose applications were rejected (37.5% of rejected applicants were employed). No other individual/demographic factors were found to be statistically related to the likelihood of an application being accepted (e.g., race, gender, age, current offense type). Table 2.a. Description of SCJD Drug Court Participants and Rejected Applicants a Variable Participants Rejected Applicants Total Cases Graduates Terminated Active Average Age 30.1 years 31.7 years (at entry/application) Gender Male 33 (70.2%) 32 (56.1%) Female 14 (29.8%) 25 (43.9%) Race/Ethnicity White 44 (93.6%) 49 (90.7%) Native American 3 (6.4%) 5 (9.3%) Employed (at entry/application)* Offense Type DUI 20 Drug-Related (Possession of Drugs or Paraphernalia) 29 (61.7%) (54.4%) 25 (43.5%) Other Charge 1 (2.2%) Offense Level Felony (37.5%) 16 (35.6%) 22 (48.9%) 7 (15.6%) 27 (59.6%) (61.4%) Misdemeanor 19 (40.4%) 17 (38.6%) a Numbers do not always total to 47 participants or 58 rejected applicants because some individuals had data missing from the drug court s database. * Individuals who are accepted into the drug court are significantly more likely to have been employed at the time (Chi Square = 4.467, p<.05). Applicants who were eventually rejected were less likely to have been employed at the time of their application to the program. Finally, in addition to the data sources listed above, direct observations of nine drug abuse treatment sessions were conducted by the evaluator during the site visit, using an observational tool designed to measure the type and quantity of various treatment components that may be employed in group-based substance abuse treatment. This observational tool has been used 16

17 previously in a nationwide drug court treatment services evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. DC VX 0008). The tool is not designed to collect information on individual clients or counselors involved in group treatment meetings, rather it merely allows the researcher to code the amount of time spent on various general treatment activities and topics. Further discussion of this tool is presented below in the Materials section (2.3). With a single treatment provider (WCHS) servicing the court s clients it was possible for the evaluator to observe one meeting of each type that took place during the week-long data collection period, according to the schedule provided by the treatment agency. Specifically, the evaluator observed a Relapse Discussion group, a Drug and Alcohol Education group, and a full day of Addiction Day Treatment meetings (except one meeting period in which clients watched a video of state penitentiary inmates in place of a cancelled meeting that would have dealt with health issues, presented by a nurse). The evaluator also observed a Low Intensity, Phase 1 meeting, a Low Intensity, Phase 2 meeting, an Aftercare group, and a Recidivist group. Table 2.b. presents information on the schedule of treatment activities provided by the treatment agency, as reported by counselors and recorded on the Treatment Agreement as provided to the evaluator. While not explicitly described as such by the treatment agency personnel, the Addiction Day Treatment program, Drug and Alcohol Education program, and Low Intensity Outpatient program (Phase 1) are considered in this report as primary treatment interventions, since they appear to be aimed at reducing substance abuse by providing various sets of skills/knowledge. On the other hand, the Low Intensity Outpatient program (Phase 2), Relapse Discussion, Recidivist and Aftercare groups are considered as aftercare or maintenance groups, as they appear to focus on maintaining gains in recovery made by clients after having participated in some other form of primary treatment. Table 2.b. Description of the Treatment Schedule at WCHS Group Name Days(s) Hours(s) Week(s) Addiction Day Monday-Thursday 8am 3pm 6 Treatment Friday 8am 12pm Aftercare Program Wednesday 5:15 6:30pm 12 Thursday 5:15 6:30pm Drug and Alcohol Monday 5:30-7:00p.m. 5 Education Group Low Intensity Monday 9am -12pm, 6 9:30pm 16 Phase 1 Tuesday Wednesday 6 7:30pm 9-10:30am, 6 7:30pm Low Intensity Wednesday 7:45 9:30pm 12 Phase 2 Recidivist Group Tuesday 10 11am, 5:15 6:15pm Open Ended Relapse Discussion Group Thursday 10 11am, 5:15 6:15pm Monday 3:30 5pm 12 17

18 Table 2.c. presents descriptive information regarding the clients observed in these meetings, as well as the meetings themselves. Additional data regarding the content of these treatment meetings is presented in the Results section below. In general, the average scheduled duration of the 9 meetings observed during the site visit was 90 minutes. The average meeting actually lasted approximately 73 minutes (81% of the scheduled meeting time), not including time allotted in the middle of groups for breaks. The average break lasted 6 minutes, although only 3 of the 9 observed meetings included a break. When the time allotted for breaks is included the average meeting observed delivered 71 minutes of treatment time (or 79% of the scheduled treatment time). In addition, 3 of the 9 observed meetings lasted the entire scheduled length or a few (approximately 5) minutes longer than scheduled. The typical meeting observed included 6 clients, with an average of 4 males and 5 white clients per meeting. Counselors indicated that in 7 of the 9 observed meetings (78%) at least one client was missing from the group. Table 2.c. Descriptive Information on Nine Observed Treatment Meetings Variable Descriptive Statistics Meeting Characteristics Number of Meetings Observed 9 Average Scheduled Duration of Meetings 90 Minutes Average Actual Duration of Meetings 73 Minutes (81% of scheduled time) Average Minutes for Breaks 6 Minutes (8% of actual treatment time) Average Treatment Time Delivered 71 Minutes (Actual Length of Meeting Minus Breaks ) (79% of scheduled time) Client Characteristics Average Number of Clients in Meetings 6 (Range) (2-10) Average Number of Male Clients/Meeting 4 Average Number of White Clients/Meeting 5.1 Number of Meetings w/at least 1 Client Noted as Missing by Counselor 2.3 Materials 7 (78% of Meetings) Interview for Judge. A 48-question interview was used to gather information from one of the two judges who preside over the drug court program, regarding the operation of the drug court. Topic areas on this interview include general program characteristics, client eligibility and case flow, provision of treatment and other services, use of various reinforcements, intensity of client contacts, program philosophy, linkages with other agencies, program administration and implementation (including implementation barriers), and other program evaluability issues Interview for Prosecution and Defense. A 69-question interview was used to gather information from representatives of the prosecutor s office and defense counsel, regarding the operation of the drug court. Topic areas on this interview include general program characteristics, client eligibility and case flow, staffing and context of the court, funding and 18

19 costs of the program, provision of treatment and other services, use of various reinforcements, intensity of client contacts, program philosophy, monitoring and supervision of clients, linkages with other agencies, program administration and implementation (including implementation barriers), and other program evaluability issues Interview for Drug Court Coordinator (Probation Officer). A 41-question interview was used to gather information from the probation officer who coordinates the drug court program regarding its implementation. Topic areas on this interview include general program characteristics, staffing and context of the court, provision of treatment and other services, use of various reinforcements, intensity of client contacts, program philosophy, monitoring and supervision of clients, linkages with other agencies, program administration and implementation (including implementation barriers) Interview and Survey for Treatment Program Case Manager/Administrator. The treatment program s drug court case manager s interview protocol is designed to learn more about topics such as the programs implementation, average length of treatment received, other services offered within the program, the rationale for the program, and other treatment implementation issues. This interview was conducted with the counselor who serves as the case manager for all drug court clients served by the agency. The substance abuse treatment program director was also sent a paper and pencil survey ahead of the site visit. This survey includes questions about areas such as the implementation, funding, services and staffing of the substance abuse treatment program at WCHS. This paper-and-pencil survey was not returned to the evaluator Treatment Counselor Surveys. Based on information provided by the treatment program s drug court case manager it was determined that approximately six counselors provide services to drug court participants in this agency. A paper-and-pencil survey was left with each of these counselors during the site visit. Participants were instructed to return the survey directly to the evaluator via mail, in the stamped envelope that was provided to them. The counselor s survey instrument is designed to gather information about the individual s educational background, experience providing drug treatment services, credentials, average amount of time spent on several activities during a typical week (e.g., assessments, group counseling, etc), demographic information, program characteristics (e.g., client s expected length of stay in the program, use of a waitlist, use of drug testing) and the provision of treatment adjuncts (aftercare drug treatment, medical services, legal aid, etc), among other types of data. Three of these counselors returned the survey to the evaluator Drug Court Client Database. The following data elements are maintained in the drug court s client database and were used to answer various evaluation questions posed by this study: General Demographic information Offense/Classification Date of Arrest/Date released from jail Total number of days in jail prior to entry Date of guilty plea/date of entry into drug court Number of days to program entry Date exited drug court Number of days in program 19