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
An effective outcome evaluation depends on whether the researcher knows what happened to the client while under drug court supervision. This may include documenting whether a participant moved to different phases based on progress and the outcome of treatment. This information is crucial in order to determine how well the program in operation matched the program that was planned. Throughput data allow us to document the drug court treatment and determine how differences in treatment are related to differences in case outcome. The purpose of this section is to address treatment considerations. Specifically, what treatment needs are presented among drug court participants? What are the treatment retention rates among participants as they proceed through the three phase system in the ADAPT program?
Logically, drug-abusing offenders most often exhibit a drug and alcohol problem, however, they also exhibit multiple needs in the areas of housing, mental and physical health, family circumstances, employment, and education. Each drug court participant was asked to provide information relevant to each of these areas and the counselor rated whether the problem was chronic, frequent, situational, or non-existent. Table 5 illustrates that 71 percent exhibited signs of chronic or frequent disruption in the area of alcohol abuse. Moreover, 98 percent exhibited signs of chronic or frequent disruption in the area of drug abuse. A smaller proportion, 56 percent, presents either chronic or frequent disruption in the area of employment. Although the majority of individuals in this sample reported being employed, the quality and consistently of employment may be better measured here. Similarly, 52 percent experience a level of disruption in the family.
Table 5 illustrates that 33 percent are experiencing problems in the area of education and 30 percent in the area of housing. Finally, in the area of physical and mental health, 23 percent and 18 percent respectively exhibit chronic or a frequent disruption in this area. Figure 6 illustrates these results graphically in order of most to least serious problem or need area.
The retention rate among drug courts across the nation averages 70 percent for drug court participants (Drug Court Programs Office, 1999). The ADAPT treatment program was asked to collect data on the type, duration, and outcome of services experienced by drug court participants. The majority of offenders began treatment in the residential phase. For example, Table 6 reveals that 72 percent of the drug court participants began treatment in the long-term residential phase and 27 percent began treatment in the intensive outpatient phase. A full 75 percent of this group completed this phase of treatment. Reasons for not completing the phase can include: being referred to another level of care (e.g., move from outpatient to residential), non-compliance, absconsion, revocation, or other. As illustrated by Table 6, 43 percent of those who did not complete the phase were referred to another level of care. We may speculate that a portion of the intensive outpatient group required more services than expected and were referred to attend residential. Finally, 23 percent did not complete the phase due to non-compliance and 27 percent had either absconded or were revoked from the program.
Given the drug court treatment program is a three-phase treatment system, the placement and outcome of the second phase is also presented in Table 6. The data indicate that 62 percent progressed to intensive outpatient care. Further, 27 percent progressed to aftercare as would be expected of those successfully completing the intensive outpatient phase. Table 6 illustrates that 84 percent of the group in the second phase completed the treatment. However, 16 percent did not successfully complete the treatment requirement. Among those who did not complete, 33 percent were referred to another level of care, 44 percent were deemed non-compliant, and 22 percent absconded from the program. Figure 7 reveals the completion rates for phase 1 and phase 2 of the treatment program.
Finally, as illustrated in Table 7, in the third phase of treatment, 11 percent were participating in the intensive outpatient program and 86 percent in aftercare. Of this group, only 23 percent completed the phase. Although this result may appear as if participants dropped out of the program, we see the majority of participants are still engaged in the drug court program. Ten individuals did not complete the treatment in this group and 38 percent were referred to another level of care. Another 38 percent were declared non-compliant, and 25 percent absconded from the program. Missing data precludes a definitive assessment of phase 3 results.
In addition to participation in the treatment phases detailed above, drug court participants are also required to attend judicial status review or treatment hearings to review progress in treatment. The typical offender experienced three treatment hearings while in the program, however, 30 percent appeared more than five times.
Progress and participation in treatment may impact the outcome of participant's criminal activity. This section summarizes the above mentioned results.
What are the treatment needs presented among drug court participants?
* The majority of participants in the drug court program exhibited signs of chronic or frequent disruption in the areas of alcohol and drug abuse.
* Although a smaller percentage, participants also have employment, family, education, and housing needs.
What are the treatment retention rates among participants as the proceed through the three phase system in the ADAPT program?
* The majority of drug court participants began treatment in the residential phase, and progressed to the outpatient phase.
* Hamilton County has a similar retention rate to the national average. Specifically, 75 percent of the participants completed the first phase and 84 percent completed the second phase.
* The typical offender experienced three treatment or status review hearings while in the program, however, 30 percent experienced more than five.
[1] Missing data due to incomplete treatment records limited treatment phase status information on some cases. This data, although informative, should be viewed with this consideration.
• 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 •