Program Profile: Oregon Drug Courts

These statewide drug court programs were designed to provide comprehensive management for persons convicted of drug offenses—through increased treatment, monitoring, and interactions with the court judge—to achieve reductions in reoffending and better drug treatment outcomes for substance users. This program is rated Promising. Individuals who participated in drug court programs had statistically significant reductions in recidivism rates and number of rearrests, compared with the control group.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Program Theory

The Oregon Drug Courts offer an alternative to a traditional court by providing intensive and comprehensive management of persons convicted of drug offenses, through increased treatment, monitoring and interaction with the Drug Court Judge, to achieve reductions in reoffending and better drug treatment outcomes for substance users. Reduced recidivism and improved treatment outcomes also help to achieve significant reductions in future costs to the criminal justice system and the health care system while increasing public safety.

Drug courts differ from the traditional criminal justice process by including a strong treatment and supervisory component to the person’s sanction. The objective is to treat the underlying substance abuse issues, which are related to continued criminal activity. By acting upon their addiction problems, the drug courts aim to prevent future offending and reduce recidivism.

Target Population/Eligibility

The target population of the Oregon Drug Courts is persons who have substance use problems. Referrals to the drug court are made by defense attorneys, prosecutors, and probation officers. The exact eligibility criteria vary from county to county.

Participation in the drug courts is voluntary. In Douglas County, Ore., for example, the deputy District Attorney working with the drug court screens defendants upon arrest and identifies those who meet the program criteria, which vary by particular drug court. After the program is explained to them, defendants have 2 weeks to decide whether to accept or decline entry into the Drug Court program. Those who are eligible but decline are routed through the traditional criminal justice system.

Program Components

The program uses a nonconfrontational arrangement between defense attorneys and the prosecution to determine the best course of action while maintaining their right to due process. A treatment specialist assesses the participant to establish a treatment plan. To graduate from the program, the participant is expected to meet all the treatment objectives and undergo drug screening, including intensive abstinence monitoring for at least 6 months. The participant is also expected to attend a set number of Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (or AA/NA) meetings and have regular meetings with the drug court judge. While individual interventions are adapted to the individual after assessment by treatment professionals, the program requirements also vary by county, depending on how the program is implemented.

The program consists of at least 1 year of:

• Intensive treatment and other services required for the participant to get and stay clean and sober
• Participant accountability to the drug court judge for meeting obligations to the court, society, themselves, and their families
• Regular and random testing for drug use
• Frequent court appearances with the drug court judge to review progress

Participants receive rewards for doing well or sanctions for not meeting requirements. Again, these vary by drug court.

Key Personnel

The drug courts team varies, depending on how the program is implemented. Commonly, the key personnel consist of defense attorneys, prosecutors, drug court judges, treatment specialists, law enforcement officers, and case managers.

Study

Carey and Waller (2011) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate Oregon’s 20 adult drug courts—in Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Crook, Douglas, Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Linn, Malheur, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Umatilla, Union, Wasco, Washington, and Yam–Hill counties—to investigate whether the adult drug courts were cost-beneficial and to identify best practices across Oregon’s Drug Court program. The overall sample comprised 13,035 participants, with an average of 244 participants per court program. Sixty-seven percent were male, 84 percent were white, 9 percent were Latino, and 5 percent were Black. The majority (75 percent) reported their drug of choice as methamphetamine, followed by marijuana (54 percent), alcohol (39 percent), cocaine (12 percent), and heroin (6 percent).

The treatment group of 5,655 drug c­ourt participants comprised all who entered into the programs between January 2000 and December 2006, with recidivism tracked through May 2010. The data was gathered from the drug court database of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. The comparison group of 7,380 was chosen in two stages. All drug court–eligible individuals were identified for the same period as the treatment group. Those who had previously been entered into drug courts or who were legally barred from participating were excluded after being identified within the Oregon Judicial Information Network database. The treatment group was then matched to the potential comparison sample (on aggregate within county) according to demographics and criminal history (county of residence, drug court–eligible charge, age, gender, race/ethnicity, prior drug charges, prior property charges, and prior person/violence charges). The treatment group was routed through the Oregon Drug Courts program, while the comparison group remained within the traditional criminal justice system.

Recidivism was analyzed based on rearrest data. Univariate analyses of covariance were used to compare the means of rearrest, as well as the means for time spent on probation, on parole, in jail, and in prison for both treatment and comparison group 3 years after the entry into the program (and comparison group equivalent). The analysis controlled for both demographics and criminal history, with the adjusted means being used to calculate costs. Crosstabs and chi-square analysis was used to identify differences in rearrests between the treatment and comparison group.

The study also looked at 335 aspects of adult drug court program implementation, part of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts (National Association of Drug Court Professionals 1997), which are the operational guidelines for drug court implementation. Data on these practices were obtained through Web-based surveys completed by the drug courts. The researchers performed quantitative analysis to identify and measure practices that were conducive to lower recidivism, higher graduation rate, and greater cost savings. Many court practices were the same in all drug courts, making it impossible for this study to detect their potential positive effects. Where variation was deemed sufficient (if more than 15 percent of drug courts varied in the practice), however, these could be examined in relation to outcomes. Bivariate correlations were also used to examine the effects of demographics on the outcomes. T-tests were used to determine what court-level practices affected court-level outcomes.

The analysis of costs was calculated using budget information from fiscal year 2010. Carey and Waller (2011) used Transactional Institutional Cost Analysis (TICA) to calculate cost per transaction; costs associated with the drug court program (in seven drug court sites); costs associated with outcomes, that is, costs for transactions other than, and subsequent to, those associated with the drug court program (in all 20 drug court sites); and cost savings related to lower recidivism. The average initial cost of the drug court program was $16,411 per participant. The average cost for processing a person in the traditional criminal justice system (“business as usual”) was $9,389, about half the drug court program cost. This latter calculation underestimated the total cost, since it did not include any treatment expenses. The results of the study showed average 3-year cost savings to the State of $6,812 per person relative to the cost of doing “business as usual.” This figure increased to savings of $16,933 per person when victimization costs were included. The study also concluded that cost savings occurred from the beginning of participation in the program. Factoring in the initial program costs, as well as taxpayer and victimization costs, savings of $2.41 accrued in the public safety system for every $1 invested in the drug court program after 3 years. After 5 years, savings of $4.02 accrued for every $1 invested. The net savings of only the cohorts in this study throughout the 21 Oregon Drug Courts was estimated at nearly $120 million.

Subgroup Analysis

Despite the study by Carey and Waller (2011) showing significantly less recidivism for drug court participants, results varied considerably between different drug courts across Oregon. Thirty-eight practices were identified as showing the most promise in achieving higher graduation rates, lowering recidivism rates, and/or producing cost savings. These best practices ranged from how drug courts integrated alcohol and other drug treatment services into the justice system case processing to how abstinence was monitored. For example, the researchers found that drug courts where the judge, coordinator, both attorneys, probation, treatment, and law enforcement attended court sessions had less than half the recidivism and achieved 25 percent higher cost savings.

The inclusion of participants with prior or current violence charges was not related to program outcomes, indicating that the drug courts are equally effective for these individuals. Similarly, accepting non–drug use charges (drug trafficking, property offenses, and forgery) was significantly related to lower recidivism.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Court Programs Office.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205621.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. N/d. “NADCP.” Accessed Feb. 26, 2011.

http://www.nadcp.org/

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Adult Drug Courts

Drug courts are specialized courts that combine drug treatment with the legal and moral authority of the court in an effort to break the cycle of drug use and drug related crime.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?