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 drug court model is based on the premise that a more flexible approach to treating drug addicted offenders, in combination with increased court involvement and oversight of offender's treatment progress, will result in less drug dependency and lower rates of recidivism. To assess these claims, we conducted an outcome evaluation of the Hamilton County Drug Court.
Overall, this research provides supportive evidence that the drug court program was effective in reducing criminality. Specifically, the study examined outcome associated with two comparable drug addicted offender populations. The groups were comparable on many social demographic factors known to be associated with relapse and criminality. The results of the outcome study are positive as drug court participants had a lower proportion of arrests during the follow-up period than comparison group members. Moreover, drug court participants were less likely to be arrested multiple times. A separate analysis revealed that program graduates consistently exhibited low arrests rates (e.g., average 30 percent). Further, of those graduates who were arrested, the majority were not likely to be arrested multiple times during the 18-month follow-up period. The results support the effectiveness of the drug court model in reducing criminal recidivism through supervision and community based treatment. And finally, in addition to outcome, the drug court program appears to successfully retaining clients in treatment. Similar to the national average, the Hamilton County Drug Court is able to retain better than 75 percent of its participants in treatment.
Additional evaluations of drug courts are finally beginning to emerge in the literature base. Previous research, as well as the findings from this study, indicates that drug courts can be effective in reducing recidivism. Even in light of these positive findings, it is our position that the drug court model could further increase their success by considering the following recommendations. First, to increase the likelihood of effectively targeting resources to the appropriate population, a standardized risk and needs assessment should be included in the treatment or service delivery decision. Programs that target the criminogenic needs, or factors directly related to recidivism (e.g., attitudes, companions, personality, etc.), have been found to be successful in reducing recidivism rates (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). The assessment instrument should be used to identify the needs of the population and match appropriate treatment services to target those needs. Hamilton County has recently adopted the Level of Service Inventory-Revised, a standardized risk and needs instrument. Although the drug court Judge is made aware of the assessment scores, there is no evidence that the scores are being used in treatment planning. The drug-addicted offender often presents multiple needs or problem areas not addressed in 12 step or educational services. These needs must be identified, addressed, and reassessed at termination in order to deliver the most appropriate services to the participant. Previous research has found that drug courts can be successful in matching appropriate services to clients through the use of these measures (Granfield, Eby, Brewster, 1998). Finally, not only would classification be important to match appropriate services to the appropriate clients, but also to recognize and organize resources to address the needs of clients who are likely to fail.
Second, drug courts will have a better chance at success if they can facilitate participation in treatment programs that are appropriate. Reducing criminality and addictions begins with the recognition that drug addiction is a chronic relapsing condition that will not be effectively reduced by applying short term, education-based treatment services. The success of a treatment program rests with the selection of an empirically validated and theoretically driven treatment model (Prendergast, et al., 1995). Although drug abuse is considered the primary need of many drug court participants, the majority have multiple needs that may include, among other factors, attitudes supportive of criminal behavior, interpersonal relationships with criminal associates or a lack of educational and vocational skills. Treatment services must first take into consideration the offenders' specific needs and then apply the most effective model to remedy the needs. Research is now indicating that the most effective programs aimed at changing offender behavior are those based on cognitive, social learning, multisystemic family, and radical behavioral (e.g. operant conditioning) strategies (see, e.g., Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, Cullen 1990; Antonowicz & Ross 1994; Gendreau 1996; Gendreau & Andrews 1990; Henggeler & Borduin 1990; Izzo & Ross 1990; Lipsey 1992; Van Voorhis, Braswell, & Morrow 1997). These strategies attempt to change behavior by addressing thinking errors or values and attitudes supportive of crime, providing a means for the offender to observe and imitate prosocial behavior, including the family and community in the rehabilitation of the offender, and decreasing inappropriate behavior through reinforcement for appropriate behavior. The Hamilton County Drug Court could increase their effectiveness by including these treatment models into drug court programming.
Although this study was more comprehensive than the original outcome study conducted in 1997, a few limitations remain. First, random assignment procedures were not utilized. Although matching procedures were developed to increase the similarities between the treatment and comparison group, random assignment procedures would allow for a more definitive measure of their similarities. Second, supervision data were not made available for the comparison group members. We are unable to control for supervision or treatment the members may have received while under supervision of a traditional court or probation unit. Third, the level of data collection by treatment staff at ADAPT should increase. Our staff collected much of the treatment data and review of the case files limits the analysis. And finally, given the chronic and relapsing nature of drug abuse, a longer follow-up period would allow us to better discern the long-term effects of drug court participation.
• 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 •