Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217 – 224
Regular article
Los Angeles County drug court programs: initial results Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., M.P.Ha,*, Grace Tye, B.S.b, Patrick L. Ogawa, M.S.a, Iraj J. Imam, Ph.D.c, Anna M. Long, Ph.D., M.P.H.a a
Los Angeles County, Department of Health Services, 313 North Figueroa Street, Room 806, Los Angeles, CA 90012, USA b Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA c Center for Applied Local Research, Richmond, CA 94804, USA Received 16 April 2001; received in revised form 16 May 2002; accepted 22 May 2002
Abstract Los Angeles County established its first drug court program in 1994 in response to escalating criminal activity associated with substance abuse and overcrowded jails. This paper describes results of an evaluation of 803 drug court participants admitted to the program between 1994 and 1997. Of all drug court participants, 76% remained free of any new arrests throughout the one-year followup period, compared to 63% of participants in a drug diversion education program and 49% of the felony defendants not exposed to either program. Of offenders completing the drug court program 80% had no arrests, compared to 67% for non-completers. Drug related re-arrests were significantly lower among drug court graduates (13%) than offenders with no program participation (30%). The study results suggest that drug court participation and graduation decrease the likelihood of repeated arrests, including drug-related arrests. Drug courts represent a promising collaboration between criminal justice and public health agencies. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Drug courts; Substance abuse treatment; Diversion programs; Drug offenders; Program evaluation
1. Introduction In the past 30 years, increasingly harsh sentences for drug possession and sales and an increase in substance abuse by criminal offenders have resulted in prisons overflowing with drug offenders (Curley, 1999; Knight, Hiller, & Simpson, 1999; Schwartz & Schwartz, 1998). In hopes of both easing the burden on prisons and breaking the cycle of court, jail, street crime, and substance abuse, many state legislators, local law enforcement agencies and health officials have championed treatment programs to rehabilitate drug offenders. The number of corrections-based drug treatment programs provided to convicted drug-offenders has increased markedly, with more than three quarters of the states now offering some type of drug treatment program (United States Department of Justice [DOJ], 1998, 2000). Most of these programs are designed to provide residential treatment for incarcerated drug abusers or parolees (Knight et al., 1999; Schwartz & Lurigio, 1995; Wexler, 1995). * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-213-240-8117; fax: +1-213-9751273. E-mail address:
[email protected]. (J.E. Fielding).
More recently, however, drug treatment programs have been offered as an alternative to regular incarceration for nonviolent addicted offenders (Curley, 1999; Barthwell, Bokos, Bailey, Nisenbaum, Devereux, & Senay, 1995; Leukefeld & Tims, 1990). These diversion programs vary in their specific policies and treatments, but all aim to rid offenders of their drug addictions and decrease the likelihood of repeated drug-related offenses. The first drug court program was launched in Miami, Dade County, Florida, in 1989 (Finn & Kewlyn, 1993). Since that time, the drug court concept has received widespread attention as an effective treatment strategy for druginvolved criminal offenders. Drug courts have become increasingly popular nationwide in the criminal justice system, with 688 drug courts in operation and another 432 under development in 2001 (Belenko, 2001). In California alone, the number of drug courts grew from 4 in 1994 to 102 in December 1999, spanning 47 of its 58 counties. Evaluations of early drug court programs focused on process measures (e.g., completion rates) and presented limited information on outcomes following program completion (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1998; Goldkamp & Weiland, 1999; Belenko, 1999).
0740-5472/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 0 - 5 4 7 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 2 - 3
218
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
A more recent review of 36 drug court programs suggests the need for additional methodological rigor in the collection of drug court data (Belenko, 2001). Of those programs providing outcome data, few included data on recidivism after one year post-program. Evaluation of drug court participant post-program recidivism has been mixed. Of six programs reviewed by Belenko, two showed significantly lower recidivism, two programs had lower, but insignificant levels of recidivism, one evaluation was inconclusive, and the sixth showed significantly higher recidivism for drug court participants. Despite mixed results across several programs, there is much evidence that that drug court programs have a beneficial impact on program participants (Belenko, 2001; Brewster, 2001; Spohn, Piper, Martin, & Frensel, 2001). 1.1. Los Angeles County In May 1994, in response to escalating criminal activity associated with substance abuse and overcrowded jails, Los Angeles County established its first drug court program in the Central Branch of the Los Angeles Municipal Court. Within two months, a second project was established in another judicial district within the County. These two pilot programs were not only the genesis of the Los Angeles County Drug Court Program, but also the beginnings of a growing movement to fundamentally alter the County justice system response to drug addiction and crime. The program has since expanded to include eleven locations, each independently operated by the sponsoring court. However, all drug courts participate in a collaborative planning process, share critical resources, and will soon be tied to a common data and case management system. Los Angeles County’s drug court programs collectively represent the nation’s first multi-jurisdiction drug court network. Los Angeles drug courts are specifically designated and staffed to supervise nonviolent felony drug defendants who have been referred to a comprehensive and judicially monitored program of drug treatment and rehabilitation services. The ‘‘pre-plea’’ program is designed for felony offenders charged with possession of narcotics or of a controlled substance. The drug court system represents a non-traditional approach to rehabilitating criminal offenders who are addicted to drugs. Rather than focusing only on the crimes they commit and the punishments they receive, drug courts also attempt to address some of the underlying problems that contribute to criminal behavior. The drug courts are built upon a collaborative relationship between the criminal justice system and the public health system, through its substance abuse treatment program and treatment professionals. This partnership has developed a structured regimen of treatment and recovery services that centers on the authority of the court and personal involvement of the drug court judge. Through the creation of a non-adversarial courtroom atmosphere, the judge heads a team of court officers, staff, and treatment
counselors all working in concert to support the participant’s recovery. The drug court program includes supervision based on frequent drug testing and court appearances. By closely monitoring participants, the court is able to actively support the recovery process but also react swiftly and flexibly to problems that may occur. Judicial intervention in such situations may be to authorize continued treatment, to impose appropriate therapeutic sanctions or even reinstate criminal proceedings when participants do not comply with the program. However, in general drug courts are less formal and more oriented towards finding ways to support responsible behavior than are regular criminal courts. As of June 2001, 11 pre-plea drug court programs were operating in parts of 11 of Los Angeles County’s 24 judicial districts. These pre-plea diversion programs provide a treatment alternative to prosecution for non-violent felony drug offenders. Potential participants are screened for eligibility and suitability within 48 hours of arrest and are brought before the drug court judge for admission to the program. Once accepted, intensive treatment begins immediately, coupled with frequent drug testing. In lieu of prosecution and incarceration, the participant agrees to complete a well-defined 12-month program that includes intensive outpatient treatment, self-help groups, optional acupuncture treatment, mandatory drug testing, and numerous court appearances before the drug court judge who oversees each case from beginning to end. 1.2. The treatment program Los Angeles County’s drug court treatment programs are built on five principles. First is the recognition that addicted individuals are most amenable to successful intervention when they are in the crisis of initial arrest and incarceration. Thus, intervention must be immediate. Second, because preventing gaps in communication and ensuring offender accountability are of critical importance, court supervision must be coordinated and comprehensive. Third, treatment must be long term and comprehensive because addiction to drugs is a progressive and debilitating condition. Fourth, addiction to drugs seldom exists in isolation from other serious problems that undermine rehabilitation. Therefore, treatment must include integration of other available services and resources such as educational assessments, vocational assessments, and training and job placement. Finally, because progress interrupted by relapse is the normal course of the recovery process, incentives and progressive sanctions must be integral to the drug court treatment strategy to maximize likelihood of successful program completion. Participants in the drug court program must progress through four distinct program phases based upon welldefined performance and compliance requirements. The drug court judge utilizes a progressive range of therapeutic sanctions including short-term residential treatment in community-based programs or a specialized drug treatment
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
module in the County jail. The program consists of a twoweek trial phase and three treatment phases as indicated in Table 1. The length of treatment averages twelve months, based on the needs of the offender. Participants are required to be drug free and successfully pass through all treatment phases before they are qualified to ‘‘graduate’’ from the drug court program. Frequent drug testing is mandatory. A typical 12-month program will subject participants to a minimum of 125 drug tests. Participants must also complete a pre-specified number of 12-step self-help meetings, participate in individual and group counseling, pay the program fee in full, and be employed or enrolled in an education/vocational program. Only after completion of all requirements is a participant graduated from the program and the original charge dismissed. 1.3. Drug court program 1994– 2001 The drug court program in Los Angeles County depends upon a coalition of agencies, organizations, and elected leaders for support. Under the general auspices of the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee’s (CCJCC) Drug Court Oversight Subcommittee, this coalition includes the municipal courts, Superior Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Probation Department, the Alcohol and Drug Program Administration within the Department of Health Services, and communitybased drug treatment programs. The Subcommittee provides programmatic and technical assistance; coordinates countywide data collection and program evaluation activities; and facilitates consensus on countywide policies and program standards. Every drug court in the County is an independent entity, each reflecting the unique needs and operational environments of the local court jurisdictions. It is the responsibility of the Drug Court Oversight Subcommittee to ensure overall uniformity as to basic program components and operational procedures and principles. The Subcommittee collaboratively develops general policy guidelines for all of the County’s pre-plea drug courts.
219
1.4. Court program standards and practices In addition to the pre-plea Drug Court Program, the County also has two specialized variations that were implemented in late 1998: the Juvenile Drug Court Program and the Superior Court Sentenced Offender Program. While retaining all of the core elements of a drug court, these specialized programs were significantly modified to accommodate the special needs and legal circumstances of their respective participant populations. The Superior Court Sentenced Offender Drug Court Program is provided for convicted felony offenders who do not qualify for a pre-plea program. As an alternative to State prison, these higher risk offenders are placed into the drug court as a condition of probation. The Sentenced Offender Program requires 90 days of residential drug treatment in a special unit of the County jail and, immediately upon release from custody, participation in a six- to nine-month program of drug court supervision and outpatient treatment. The sentenced offender undergoes intensive outpatient treatment, frequent drug testing, and formal probation supervision. Following completion of the outpatient drug court phase, the offender remains on formal probation for the term mandated by the court. The Juvenile Drug Court provides yet another variation of the basic drug court program. Because it deals with youthful offenders, the Juvenile Drug Court must provide for an even broader range of services and supervision than the pre-plea drug court. The Juvenile Drug Court includes intensive probation supervision, required family involvement, educational programs, and collaborative relationships with schools and other organizations in the community. As of May 2001, 11 pre-plea drug courts in Los Angeles County had 884 participants, the juvenile offenders program 54 participants, and the sentenced felony offender program 122 participants. Between May 1994 and March 2001, 1,325 felony drug offenders graduated from the Los Angeles County drug court program. As of March 2001, 22 youth had graduated from the Juvenile Drug Court Program and none from the sentenced offenders program due to the recency of their rehabilitation.
2. Methods Table 1 Los Angeles drug court program phases Mandatory drug tests
12-step meetings
Individual or group counseling
Trial phase Assessment, stabilization and treatment phase Intensive treatment phase
6/week 5/week
6/week 6/week
6/week Frequent
3 – 5/week
6/week
Transition phase
2 – 3/week
5 – 6/week
Frequent with focus on long-term recovery and socialization Frequent with focus on self-sufficiency and socialization
Program phase
The CCJCC requested that the Center for Applied Local (CAL) Research, an independent non-profit organization, evaluate the effectiveness of the County’s drug court program. Specifically, CAL-Research evaluated program outcomes for the County’s first four drug courts: the Los Angeles Municipal Court Central Division; the Rio Hondo Municipal Court; the Pasadena Municipal Court; and the Santa Monica/West District Superior Court. There were two comparison groups for the study: defendants charged with felony possession, but who participated in Penal Code (PC) 1000 drug diversion education; and defendants that went to trial. PC 1000 programs are
220
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
deferred-entry-of-judgment diversionary programs where defendants charged with violating certain drug-related laws enter conditional guilty pleas and are allowed to attend a 20-week education and rehabilitation program. Upon successful completion of the program, the charges are dismissed. In most cases, the defendants are non-violent first offenders. Defendants were assigned by the court to diversion education or trial using a composite scale designed to assess release risk. These two groups were matched with the sample of drug court participants on risk scale scores. The risk score comes from a composite scale which includes age at first arrest, prior probation or parole, employment or source of support, residential stability, support for minor children and severity of substance use. This scale is used by PreTrial Services to determine release risk. The drug court group was fairly evenly distributed into high, medium, and low risk groups. The drug diversion group included more low risk individuals, and the felony defendant group included more persons in the ‘‘very high risk’’ category. Comparison groups were matched by time of hearing, gender and age. As with the drug court group, both comparison groups consisted of individuals entering the programs or trial between 1995 and 1996. Because the drug court program was already in operation at the time the evaluation sampling began, it was necessary to use a quasi-experimental design. In order to determine how successful the drug court program is relative to other alternatives, drug court participants were compared to individuals who had decided to participate in drug diversion (which operated simultaneously in other parts of the County) and those who decided not to participate in whichever of these programs was in place where their case was being heard (i.e., felony defendants). All three groups were compared on program completion and recidivism, controlling for risk group. Each group was followed for 12 months following program completion or sentencing. The evaluation included 803 of the 819 participants admitted between 1994 and 1997. Information was collected on the charac-
teristics of participants, length of time in treatment, retention and graduation rates, and program costs (Deschenes et al., 2000). 2.1. Background characteristics of experimental and comparison groups The quasi-experimental design required a comparison of the characteristics of the experimental and comparison groups to determine if matching was successful. The experimental group included only those clients who had a 12-month follow-up following program completion. Table 2 displays the results. Statistical tests were conducted using both chisquare tests and analysis of variance to determine if there were any significant differences between the three groups. The results of matching the three sample groups indicated that the two comparison groups differed significantly from the experimental group in terms of race, but were similar in age and gender (see Table 2). The average age of all three groups was between 33 and 34 years. The majority of offenders in all three groups were males (between 82% and 87%). Less than a quarter of the drug court participants and felony defendants were white, and only 10% of the drug diversion sample were white (a statistically significant difference). Between one quarter and one third of the offenders were African American, with no statistically significant differences between the three sample groups. The majority of offenders in the drug diversion sample were Hispanic (65%), which differed significantly from both the drug court and felony defendant samples (43% and 51% respectively). Less than 5% of any of the three groups was other than white, Hispanic, or African American, and race was unknown or missing for eight participants in the drug court program. On average, drug court participants had seven arrests, one felony conviction, and three misdemeanor convictions. The vast majority (90%) reported no prior drug treatment. Risk level data were compiled for the experimental and comparison groups based on a combined scale of items including prior criminal record and type of current offense,
Table 2 Sample Characteristicsa by Group Experimental drug court (N = 285)
PC 1000 diversion comparison Group (N = 298)
Felony defendant comparison group (N = 251)
Average age
Mean 34.4
SD 8.9
Mean 32.8
SD 9.4
Mean 33.7
SD 9.2
Male African American Asian/Other Hispanic* White* Low risk* Medium risk* High/very high risk*
n 242 84 11 118 64 76 107 75
% 84.9 30.3 3.9 42.6 23.1 29.5 41.5 29.1
n 259 68 7 193 30 142 123 30
% 86.9 22.8 2.3 64.8 10.1 48.1 41.7 10.2
n 206 59 8 127 57 16 46 156
% 82.1 23.5 3.2 50.6 22.7 7.3 21.1 71.6
a
Percentages for race and risk level calculated after deletion of missing data. * Significant difference between experimental and comparison groups based on Chi-square tests at p .05 level.
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
221
Fig. 1. Drug court risk assessment scale.
as well as measures of community ties (see Fig. 1). As expected, the drug court sample differed significantly from the two comparison groups in terms of risk level due to program eligibility criteria restricting more serious offenders from participating in the drug court program. Approximately 10 percent of the sample was missing data on risk level, with 771 subjects with complete risk data. The subjects missing data were disproportionately distributed, with 13% missing data for felony defendants, 10% missing for the drug court sample, and only 1% for the diversion sample. It is not known if those with missing data significantly differ from the rest of each group.
3. Results 3.1. Program completion Overall 65% of all participants admitted into drug court successfully completed the program and graduated. Almost all of those who were terminated did so in the first six
months of the program. On average, drug court graduates needed 12 months to complete the treatment program. 3.2. Recidivism As shown in Table 2 there were significant differences in risk levels among the three groups. While the drug court sample was fairly evenly divided between low, medium, and high risk, those in the diversion group were more likely to be low or medium risk offenders. The majority of the felony defendant group was rated as very high risk. Although similar percentages of both the drug court and drug diversion samples were medium risk, all other contrasts between drug court participants and comparison groups showed statistically significant differences. Table 3 shows the analysis of recidivism (re-arrest) by sample group at each risk level at intake. Overall, drug court participants were less likely to be re-arrested than drug diversion participants or felony defendants. However, results differ by risk strata. Low risk study participants’ re-arrest rates did not differ significantly from those of the
222
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
Table 3 New arrest and drug related offenses Experimental drug court (N = 285)
Any new arrest All subjectsa Subjects with risk datab Any new arrestc Low risk Medium riskd High/very high riske Any drug offensef Low risk Medium riskg High/very high riskh
PC 1000 diversion comparison group (N = 298)
Felony defendant comparison group (N = 251)
n
%
n
%
n
%
69 71
24.2 30.3
110 94
36.9 34.1
129 113
51.4 43.3
22 21 16
28.9 19.6 21.3
48 50 11
33.8 40.7 36.7
1 23 85
6.3 50.0 54.5
11 13 8
14.5 12.1 10.7
28 27 4
19.7 22.0 13.3
1 14 49
6.3 30.4 31.4
Note: Observations with missing risk data have been excluded from the risk level analyses. a Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 41.28, df = 2) p .001 (all subjects). b Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 9.72, df = 4) p .01 (subjects with risk data). c Significant Overall Chi-square test: (x2 = 118.83, df = 4) p .001. d Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 16.76, df = 2) p .001. e Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 24.62, df = 2) p .001. f Significant Overall Chi-square test: (x2 = 71.72, df = 4) p .001. g Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 7.30, df = 2) p .05. h Significant Chi-square test: (x2 = 14.72, df = 2) p .001.
diversion sample. However, for those classified at medium or high risk, the re-arrest rate for drug court participants was significantly below those of the diversion and/or felony defendant groups. Similar results were obtained for drug related re-arrest. Among both medium and high risk subjects, drug court participants had significantly lower rates of drug related rearrest compared to one or both of the two comparison groups, while no clear differences emerged for the low risk strata. 3.3. Time to new arrest Survival analyses were conducted, controlling for risk level at intake, to determine number of days to arrest and drug related arrests (Table 4). Overall, mean days to any new arrest were significantly longer for drug court participants than those in comparison groups. The average difference between the drug court and drug diversion groups was about seven months. Results were consistent for all risk strata. There were no significant differences between diversion cases and felony defendants in time to new arrest in the two risk groups with a large enough sample size for comparisons. 3.4. Time to new drug arrests Table 5 shows that the time to new drug arrest, among those arrested, was significantly longer in the drug court group than either of the comparison groups. This pattern of results did not vary by risk level. Overall, drug court participants with subsequent drug arrests had an average
Table 4 Survival statistics for time to any new arrest Experimental PC 1000 diversion Felony defendant drug court comparison group comparison group (N = 258) (N = 295) (N = 218) Low risk (n)a Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days Medium risk (n)b Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days High risk (n)c Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days Overalld Mean days
76 22 54 71.1% 564.4 ± 197.1 107 21 86 80.4% 434.1 ± 235.9 75 16 59 79.7% 474.3 ± 259.3
142 48 67 66.2% 293.4 ± 203.6 123 50 73 59.4% 280.0 ± 246.4 30 11 19 63.3% 266.4 ± 133.6
16 1 15 93.8% 4.0 ± 0.0 46 23 23 50.0% 263.2 ± 197.8 156 85 71 45.1% 257.2 ± 219.7
493.2 ± 232.7 284.6 ± 217.6
265.1 ± 241.8
Censored participants were those not arrested at the end of the study period, uncensored participants were rearrested during the study period. a Low risk Wilcoxon Rank Test – Overall comparison (12.001*); Experimental vs. diversion (9.417*); Experimental vs. felony (0.945); Diversion vs. felony (3.441*). b Moderate risk Wilcoxon Rank Test – Overall comparison (23.032*); Experimental vs. diversion (16.074*); Experimental vs. felony (20.504*); Diversion vs. felony (1.188). c High risk Wilcoxon Rank Test – Overall comparison (30.792*); Experimental vs. diversion (6.918*); Experimental vs. felony (29.973*); Diversion vs. felony (2.948). d Significant p .000. * Significant Wilcoxon rank tests at p .05.
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224 Table 5 Survival statistics for time to any new drug arrest Experimental PC 1000 diversion Felony defendant drug court comparison group comparison group (N = 258) (N = 295) (N = 218) Low risk (n)a Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days Medium risk (n)b Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days High risk (n)c Uncensored Censored Percent Mean days Overalld Mean days
76 11 65 85.5% 533.6 ± 202.6 107 13 94 87.9% 488.0 ± 245.4 75 8 67 89.3% 413.1 ± 197.7
142 28 114 80.3% 305.6 ± 196.0 123 27 96 78.1% 306.9 ± 270.0 30 4 26 86.7% 262.8 ± 169.8
16 1 15 93.8% 4.0 ± 0.0 46 14 32 70.0% 230.7 ± 155.3 156 49 107 68.6% 267.0 ± 233.5
485.7 ± 218.7 302.4 ± 277.7
253.8 ± 218.2
Censored participants were those not arrested at the end of the study period, uncensored participants were rearrested during the study period. a Low risk Wilcoxon Rank Test: Overall comparison (4.804); Experimental vs. diversion (3.627); Experimental vs. felony (0.032); Diversion vs. felony (0.766). b Moderate risk Wilcoxon Rank Test – Overall comparison (8.577*); Experimental vs. diversion (3.353); Experimental vs. felony (8.7664*); Diversion vs. felony (2.076). c High risk Wilcoxon Rank Test – Overall comparison (10.419*); Experimental vs. diversion (0.788*); Experimental vs. felony (9.507*); Diversion vs. felony (1.861). d Significant p .005. * Significant Wilcoxon Rank Tests at p .05.
of 183 days longer in ‘‘time to failure’’ than the diversion group and 232 days longer than the felony defendant group. 3.5. Failure rates Of the drug court participants who graduated, 80% remained free of any new arrests throughout the study period, compared to 63% of participants in a drug diversion education program (with no treatment, drug testing, or court supervision) and 49% of the felony defendants who had no program exposure. Of those offenders who had participated in the drug court program but did not graduate, 67% remained free of any new arrests. Furthermore, only 13% of drug court participants were arrested on drug-related charges in the year following entry into the program, while 20% of offenders in the drug diversion education program and 30% of offenders with no program participation had drug-related re-arrests. 3.6. Program costs The average yearly cost per client for drug court graduates ranged from $3,706 to $8,924 among the 11 drug courts including in this study. Cost computations included admin-
223
istrative, planning and development, salary, equipment, and drug testing and treatment cost associated with the drug court program. This cost is substantially lower than the estimated average yearly cost of prison ($16,500) or residential drug treatment ($13,000) (Deschenes et al., 2000).
4. Discussion The study results suggest that drug court participation and graduation decrease the likelihood of repeated arrests and thus reduce participant contacts with the criminal justice system. The success of drug courts in Los Angeles County is similar to that of the Miami drug court, which reported a 33% reduction in re-arrests for drug court graduates compared with the arrest rate for drug-abusing offenders (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1998). Observed re-arrest reductions are associated with savings in criminal case processing, re-arrest, and jail costs, and also help to reduce jail overcrowding. The low recidivism rates for drug court graduates also point to the effectiveness of the drug court program in assisting offenders to achieve abstinence from illicit/illegal drugs. The success of drug court participants in reducing future arrests suggests the effectiveness of the program’s emphasis on promoting self-sufficiency and empowering substance abusers to become productive and responsible members of the community. Differences in recidivism among participants with differing risk levels highlights the need for additional research to examine the use of this intervention among arrestees with varying backgrounds. Unfortunately the small number of low risk felony defendants did not allow for a more in-depth examination of these differences. However, study results indicate that for both medium and high risk arrestees, drug court intervention led to significantly fewer re-arrests and increased time to both arrests and drug related arrests. The program appears to have a favorable ratio of dollar benefits to costs. This finding is in line with the results of two comprehensive reviews of drug court programs that found drug courts result in net savings by preventing rearrests and related costs (Finigan, 1999; Harrel, Cavanagh, & Roman, 1999). The California Drug Treatment Courts estimated a savings of $7 in criminal justice, welfare, and health care costs for every $1 invested in drug courts (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1998). One of the limitations of this study is the possibility of selection bias affecting the comparability of groups. Although the drug court and drug diversion groups operated simultaneously in the County and had comparable eligibility criteria, differences in sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes of judges to these programs, and other factors may have differentially affected the population offered each of these programs and their decision whether or not to join them. Higher percentages of Hispanics and of low risk
224
J.E. Fielding et al. / Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 23 (2002) 217–224
participants in the drug court group compared to the other groups may be a reflection of the different locations of the courts offering these respective programs. The use of a common scale to rate the risk levels permits more appropriate comparisons between groups but unappreciated systematic bias affecting results cannot be excluded. However, the fact that other studies have shown a reduction of recidivism associated with drug court introduction lends weight to the validation of the observed results (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997). Important next steps in evaluation of Los Angeles County drug courts would include the use of more powerful statistical methods to examine the potential contribution of these risk and other background characteristics. Collection of a broader range of participant characteristics on input and as part of followup, including such variables as employment and social role functioning, would provide a richer picture of program effects. In depth description of program content would also be helpful if effective programs are to be replicated with fidelity (Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2001). Drug courts have served as the model for voter initiatives to provide drug treatment to non-violent drug offenders as an alternative to incarceration. In 1997, Arizona voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act to expand services for drug offenders and utilize probation for non-violent drug offenders. More recently, California voters passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, that serves as a complementary system to established drug courts. Proposition 36 expands the availability of treatment services to eligible non-violent offenders and allows dismissal of charges following successful completion of drug treatment. This initiative will provide an interesting comparison to the locally based pre-plea drug court system for future evaluations.
Acknowledgments The data on which this article is based was prepared at the request of the Los Angeles Countywide Criminal Justice Committee for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in May 2001 under the direction of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. The authors wish to acknowledge Elizabeth Deschenes, Tom Foster, Eve Castellonos, Cam Ha, Kristin Michaels, and DeSondra Ward from the Center for Applied Local Research, who conducted the evaluation and prepared the data used in preparing this article.
References Barthwell, A. G., Bokos, P., Bailey, J., Nisenbaum, M., Devereux, J., & Senay, E. C. (1995). Interventions/Wilmer: a continuum of care for substance abusers in the criminal justice system. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 27, 39 – 47. Belenko, S. (1999, Winter). Research on drug courts: a critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 1 – 58. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 2001 Update. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. www.casacolumbia.org/usr_doc/researchondrug.org (August 31, 2001). Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), 177 – 201. Curley, R. (1999). Treatment’s last frontier? The criminal justice system is trying to build a culture of compassion. Will it promote recovery? Behavioral Health Tomorrow, 8 (2), 10 – 15. Deschenes, L., Imam, I., Castellonos, E., Ha, C., Ward, D., Coley, C., & Michaels, K. (2000). Evaluation of Los Angeles County Drug Courts. Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research. Finigan, M. (1999). Assessing cost off-sets in a drug court setting. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 59 – 92. Finn, P., & Kewlyn, A. K. (1993). Miami’s drug court: a different approach. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice (National Institute of Justice Publication No. 142412). Goldkamp, J., & Weiland, D. (1999). Assessing the impact of Dade County’s felony drug court (Final report). National Institute of Justice Research Report. Washington, D.C. Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), 27 – 72. Harrel, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1999). Final report: findings from the evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court drug intervention program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Knight, K., Hiller, M. L., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Evaluating corrections-based treatment for the drug-abusing criminal offender. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 31 (3), 299 – 304. Leukefeld, C. G., & Tims, F. M. (1990). Compulsory treatment for drug abuse. International Journal of Addiction, 25 (6), 621 – 640. Schwartz, J. A., & Lurigio, A. J. (1995). Final thoughts on IMPACT: a federally funded, jail-based, drug-user-treatment program. Substance Use and Misuse, 34, 887 – 906. Schwartz, J. R., & Schwartz, L. P. (1998). The drug court. A new strategy for drug use prevention. Obstetrical and Gynecological Clinics of North America, 25 (1), 255 – 268. Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frensel, E. D. (2001). Drug court and recidivism: the result of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), 149 – 176. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. (1998, June). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. (2000). Drug court implementation and enhancement grants, Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug Courts: overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Wexler, H. K. (1995). The success of therapeutic communities for substance abusers in American prisons. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 27, 57 – 66.
