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
The purpose of this section is to address behavior while in the drug court program as well as participant satisfaction with the process. In-program behavior, as measured by technical violations and satisfaction, can have a significant impact on treatment retention and behavioral change. Data were only available on drug court participants. Questions addressed in this section will include: What are the court reported violation rates among drug court participants? Among those charged with a violation, what are the sanctions given for those violations? What services are drug court participants receiving while in the program? What is the level of satisfaction with the process among drug court participants?
Figure 8 illustrates the type of court reported violations received by drug court participants. Specifically, according to records kept by probation, 56 percent had at least one positive urine while in the program and 17 percent absconded. In addition, 13 percent were rearrested for a new charge during participation in the drug court program. Moreover, 8 percent were non-compliant with treatment and charged with a technical violation as result. Surprisingly, only 2 percent were charged with a failure to appear in court. It is not uncommon for a degree of relapse to occur among drug court participants. In fact, research indicates that programs that recognize that drug abuse is a chronic and relapsing condition are more successful (Anglin and Hser; Prendergast, Anglin, and Wellisch, 1995). In addition to court reported violations, Table 8 also illustrates the sanctions received for the violations. In 18 percent of the cases a bench warrant was issued and in 41 percent of the cases jail time was used as a sanction. The court uses a number of possible sanctions, however, time out was the only other sanction listed of any importance.
The services received by the participants while in the drug court program were also collected. Figure 9 presents the type of services typically received by drug court participants ordered similarly to the presenting needs displayed in Figure 6. Specifically, Table 9 indicates that 100 percent received drug treatment services. In addition, 82 percent received employment services, while 89 percent received some level of family services. Moreover, 73 percent received education services, 52 percent housing, 76 percent medical, and 15 percent medical. Given the findings illustrated in Figure 6, it appears the majority are receiving the appropriate referrals.
Drug court clients were asked to complete a self-report survey of their level of satisfaction with the drug court process. Specifically, satisfaction with the judge, the probation staff, the treatment staff, and with the various components of the program. Only drug court clients who graduated from the program were asked to complete the 36-item survey. As illustrated by Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, the satisfaction among those reporting is very high with regard to all the above-mentioned components. Specifically, Table 10, and Table 11 indicate that that the participants felt the judge, probation, and treatment staff treated them with respect, was fair, concerned, helped them stay drug free, and did not expect too much. Figure 10 displays the results graphically to compare satisfaction with each component. Moreover, Table 12 indicates that the majority of participants felt that it helped them to appear in court, to probation, and to treatment on a regular basis. This finding is especially relevant to drug courts considering the level of reporting requirements. Interestingly, the majority of drug court participants indicated they felt the drug court was easier than jail or prison (illustrated by Figure 11), however, as expected the only a slight majority felt the drug court was easier than regular probation (as illustrated by Figure 12). Again, given the level of reporting is often more intensive than regular probation, it is understandable to find the drug court is perceived as a more difficult alternative. However, the majority still reported that they believe the drug court will help them in the future, that they are better off for participating and were personally helped through their participation.
Finally, as illustrated by Table 13 and Table 14, participants were asked to rate each service received as either excellent, good, or poor. Figure 12 graphically illustrates that the majority rated drug testing, AA/NA, outpatient, probation, and residential treatment as either good or excellent. Options such as intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, and community service are infrequently used by the court.
What is the court reported violation rate among drug court participants?
* Specifically, 13 percent were arrested for a new charge, 56 percent tested positive at least once, 17 percent absconded, and 8 percent were non-compliant with treatment.
Among those charged with a violation, what were the sanctions given for those violations?
* For those charged with a violation, 41 percent served time in jail, 18 percent received a time out, 9 percent were subject to increased supervision, and 8 percent experienced a change in treatment intensity.
What services did drug court participants receive while in the program?
* All participants received drug treatment services while participating in the drug court
* The typical drug court client also received employment, educational, housing, family, and medical services.
What is the level of satisfaction with the process among drug court participants?
* The typical drug court participant reported being satisfied with the drug court program including the judge, the treatment provider, and probation.
• 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 •