The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings
Final Report
Introduction | Methods | Profile | Treatment Considerations | In-Program Behavior | Subsequent Criminal Behavior | Subsequent Criminal Behavior Among Graduates | Conclusions and Implications | Report Authors
In order to conclude that differences in outcome are not the direct result of individual differences within the two samples, social demographic data were collected. This section will profile the two groups based on basic demographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, marital status, education level, employment status, and criminal history. Knowing the population served by the drug court allows researchers to determine whether and how case outcome is influenced by any of these factors. The following question will be addressed: How do the drug court participants compare to the comparison group members with regard to demographics, current offense, disposition, and prior history factors?
Table 1 compares the two groups with regard to race, gender, age, martial status, education level, and employment. The two groups are very similar with regard to all above mentioned characteristics. Specifically, the typical offender in both the treatment and control group is African-American, male, 32 years of age, not married, has a high school diploma or less, and is employed full time. Although random assignment to the treatment and control groups was not possible, these results allow us to be optimistic that members of the two groups do not differ significantly on factors known to be associated with relapse and criminality.
As illustrated by Table 2, the two groups are also similar with regard to charge or offense information. Both groups were likely to be incarcerated at the time of their assessment. However, individuals were not likely to be under supervision at the time of the arrest. In addition, the experimental group was more likely to be arrested on a drug related charge than the control group, however, these results should be viewed with caution due to missing data. Table 2 also shows that individuals in both groups are likely to be arrested on multiple charges. Figure 1 illustrates that a statistically significant difference exists between the two groups with regard to being charged with multiple counts at arrest. Although the majority of participants in both groups were not charged with multiple counts, drug court participants were more likely to be so charged than comparison group participants. And finally, the majority of offenders in both groups have only one case against them at the time arrest, however, the mean number or average is two.
Sentencing information was collected via the drug court docket. Due to resource limitations in the court, comprehensive sentencing information was collected on all drug court participants but not on all comparison group cases. The information provided for the comparison group should be viewed as a trend of the sentencing practices. Table 3 illustrates that the majority of the offenders in both groups were sentenced to pay both court costs and fines. Furthermore, 61 percent of the drug court participants were required to pay fees during their participation. In contrast, only 1 percent was required to pay restitution. As indicated in Figure 2, a statistically significant difference exists with regard to whether the defendant was sentenced to probation. Specifically, 92 percent of the drug court participants were sentenced to probation in contrast to 74 percent of comparison cases. The majority of offenders in both groups had their license suspended as the result of their criminal activity. Moreover, 100 percent of the drug court participants were required to undergo drug testing. As a standard feature in this drug court model, participants are routinely drug tested throughout their participation. Few offenders in either group were sentenced to community service or ISP. Not surprisingly, 100 percent of the drug court participants were required to attend drug treatment. Since the development of a female facility in 1996, both men and women are served in the ADAPT program. Finally, on average individuals in both groups attended two case hearings prior to disposition.
Typically, drug court participants have a prior arrest and incarceration record. Nationally, within the 361 existing courts, over 75 percent of the participants have been previously incarcerated (NADCP, 1998). Similarly, a statistically significant difference exists between the two groups with regard to prior record in Hamilton County. Figure 3 reveals that 89 percent of the experimental group has a prior record in comparison to 79 percent of comparison cases. Table 4 illustrates the type of prior charges for each group. For example, no one in the experimental group, and only 2 percent in the comparison group, have been arrested for a violent felony charge. Similarly, only 10 percent of the experimental group and 11 percent of the control group have a prior record involving a violent misdemeanor charge. However, 35 percent of the experimental group and 39 percent of the comparison group have been arrested for a prior felony charge. As expected the majority in both groups have had a prior misdemeanor arrest. Although significantly more individuals in the control group have been arrested previously for a DUI (see Figure 4), a significantly higher proportion of offenders in the experimental group have a previous arrest for a drug related charge (see Figure 5).
Drug court and comparison group participants' profiles are very similar. The following section summarizes the above mentioned results.
How do Drug Court participants compare to comparison group participants with regard to demographics, current offense, disposition, and prior history factors?
• 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 •