This study examined adult drug treatment courts.
Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of
drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts
provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems
by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. In drug
courts the presiding judge oversees the progress of addicted offenders
through treatment, drug testing, supervision, and compliance management.
Previous research provided little information on the nature of drug
courts' treatment services or on their impact on client outcomes. This
study attempted to address these issues by examining the delivery of
treatment services and offender outcomes in four drug courts. The
following specific research questions were addressed: (1) What types of
treatment services are offered by each drug court? (2) Is treatment
delivery integrated into the drug court? (3) How do the philosophies and
interventions of treatment counselors coincide with the goals of the drug
treatment court? (4) What impact do drug treatment courts have on
offenders' outcomes?
Data for this study were collected between February
2001 and May 2002. Researchers collected data on drug court
participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved
in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California,
Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish,
Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism
and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were
enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December
2000. Recidivism data for all subjects were obtained from the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC). None of the four courts had a
management information system that maintained complete documentation of
drug court participants' activities while in the program. Various
resources in each jurisdiction were used to gather this information. In
Bakersfield, these data were obtained from a database maintained by the
Kern County Department of Mental Health that was designed specifically
for the drug court. For Jackson County, data on treatment services, drug
testing, sanction information, and treatment attendance were obtained
from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking System Automated Treatment
Tracking System (HATTS) and from spreadsheets maintained by the
treatment provider. Demographic and discharge information were obtained
from HATTS, a prosecutorial database, spreadsheets maintained by the
Drug Court Coordinator, and from hardcopy forms. In Creek County,
participant data were obtained manually from a review of case files
maintained on hard copy by one of the treatment providers. For St. Mary
Parish, demographic information was obtained from a database maintained
by staff at the treatment provider, and participant case files were
reviewed to collect treatment attendance records, drug test results, and
discharge information. Data for Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, were
collected during site visits from May through July 2001. During each
site visit trained observers were assigned to treatment meetings at the
various programs in the jurisdiction. Attempts were made, in
jurisdictions with more than one provider, to have the same rater
attend all of the meetings at a single site in order to increase
clients' comfort with being observed. The observational technique used
in this study was based on previous work by Taxman and Bouffard (2000).
Using a standard data collection instrument, observers recorded at
five-minute intervals the amount of time spent on each of several
possible treatment topics and activities. In an attempt to ensure the
consistent application of item definitions, observers met after each
day's observations to discuss any ambiguities they might have
encountered during those observations. Counselors had previously
informed their clients of the researchers' upcoming visit and no client
in any program refused to participate in a meeting under observation.
Observers also completed several summary scales to further describe the
exact nature of the services being offered. For Part 3, Staff Survey
Data, 54 treatment service staff members completed surveys. Surveys were
distributed to previously identified staff members during site visits.
The surveys were returned by mail, and respondents were paid 25 dollars
for returning a completed survey. The survey included items on
respondents' demographic information, treatment program characteristics,
and a Philosophy of Drug Abuse Causation and Treatment Survey.
The sites were selected after an examination and survey of
the substance abuse treatment components of drug courts across the
country. Emphasis was placed on selecting sites that were mature and
where the same treatment providers had been providing services to drug
court participants for two years or more. Sites were selected to
represent a broad range of geographic areas, socioeconomic status of
participants, and treatment components. Bakersfield is a relatively
large, single-site court in a medium-sized California city that used
multiple, pre-existing treatment providers within the local community.
Jackson County is a large, multi-site court in a medium-sized Midwest
city (Kansas City) that used a single treatment provider that was part
of the court and run by the local government. Creek County is a small,
single-site, rural court that at the time of the study was using two
private treatment providers in the community. St. Mary Parish is a
rural, single-site court that used a single treatment provider that was
run by the local government. To create a sample for Part 1,
Retrospective Analysis Data, information was initially obtained on 4,003
individuals who were enrolled in one of the four drug courts for at
least one day between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000. Of these,
366 were excluded from the study because they were still active at the
time fieldwork was conducted. An additional 617 who were assessed but
not admitted into the drug courts were also excluded. Of the remaining
3,020 drug court participants 385 were not matched with NCIC records,
and of those who were matched an additional 278 were excluded because
less than 12 months had passed since their discharge date. For Part 2,
Treatment Observation Data, researchers chose treatment sessions to
observe by developing a schedule that maximized the number of meetings
that could be observed during the four days spent at each site. For Part
3, Staff Survey Data, the researchers contacted treatment program
administrators prior to each site visit and asked them to provide a list
of staff who were directly involved in the delivery of services to drug
court clients.
Part 1: Individuals enrolled in one of the four drug courts
between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2: Treatment sessions held
by the drug courts' treatment providers from May through July 2001. Part
3: Staff employed at the drug courts' treatment providers from May
through July 2001.
Parts 1 and 3: Individuals. Part 2: Treatment sessions.
Data for Part 1 were collected from administrative
records. Data for Part 2 were collected by observing treatment sessions.
Data for Part 3 were obtained through self-enumerated questionnaires.
administrative records data
medical records
observational data
survey data
Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, variables
include drug court site, whether participant completed treatment,
criminal history, date of admission to drug court, date finished with
drug court, number of arrests while in drug court, offenses and dates of
arrests after drug court, length of program participation, number of
urinalyses administered and number positive, number of treatment
sessions attended, drug use history, demographic variables, and several
derived variables. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, variables include
drug court site, date of observed session, treatment provider code
number, scheduled length of session, actual length of session, session
type, number of participants, amount of time spent on 73 different
treatment activities, number of missing clients, number of male and
female clients, ethnicity of group members, whether the session was part
of a specific sequence of treatment, format of the session, purpose of
the session, treatment style, involvement of group members, and several
derived variables. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, variables include staff
member's position, demographic variables, staff member's treatment
activities, treatment program characteristics, including treatment
services and drug testing, use of rewards and sanctions, the program's
interaction with the drug court, and answers to questions related to
staff views on drug abuse causation and intervention.
Part 3: 60 percent
Drug Abuse Treatment Philosophy Causation and Intervention
scales and several Likert-type scales were used.