The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) Author(s): John S. Goldkamp ; Michael D. White ; Jennifer B. Robinson Document No.: 194124 Date Received: 05/05/2002 Award Number: 98-DC-VX-K001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. R CRIME AND JUSTICE RESEARCHINSTITUTE .---- PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in , Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) Phase II Report,fiorn the National Evaluation of Drug Courts (I) Johi S. Goldkamp Temple University Michael D. White University of North Florida Jennifer B. Robinson University of Ottawa c Approved By: Bate: The researc scribed in this report was supported by grant #98-DC-VX-K001 from the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. The points of view expressed in the document do not represent the official positions of the National Institute of Justice, the local justice agencies in Multnomah County and Clark County, nor the Federal Government. 520 N. Columbus Blvd.. Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19123 215-627-3766 FAX: 215-627-7810 email: [email protected] www.cjri.com This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) Phase 11 Report from the National Evaluation of Drug Courts 0 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ v I. Introduction: The Scope of Phase I1 Research in Clark County. Nevada. and Multnomah County. Oregon ............................................................................................ 1 Phase I1 Findings: The Content of This Rep0rt .................................................................. 2 PART ONE Productivity 11: Participant Outcomes and Service Delivery 11 . Assessing the Impact of the Drug Court Innovation in Two Jurisdictions: Do Drug Courts Work? .................................................................................................................... 7 Impact as a Comparison ...................................................................................................... 8 Study Design ..................................................................................................................... 10 I11 . Recidivism among Drug Court Participants One. Two. and Three Years after Entry ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Measuring Reoffending as Rearrest .................................................................................. 15 Rearrest among Multnomah County Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Defendants over One. Two and Three Years ............................................................................................... 15 . Rearrest among Clark County Drug Court Participants and Non-Drug Court Defendants over One. Two. and Three Years ...................................................................................... 19 Implications of Comparative Public Safety Outcomes ..................................................... 22 Controlling for Sample Differences .................................................................................. 23 Controlling for Sample Differences in the Clark County Analysis .................................. 28 The Implications of Sample Difference Findings in the Clark County Drug Court Study29 Controlling for Sample Differences in the Portland Analyses .......................................... 31 The Implications of Sample Difference Findings in the Multnomah County Drug Court Study.................................................................................................................................. 33 Controlling for Risk and Sample Differences ................................................................... 33 Rearrest among Drug Court and Comparison Group Defendants in Clark County Controlling for Risk .......................................................................................................... 38 Rearrest among Drug Court and Comparison Group Defendants in Multnomah County Controlling for Risk .......................................................................................................... 39 Controlling for 66Time at Risk".......................................................................................... 40 Controlling for Time Free ................................................................................................. 42 Implications of the Rearrest Findings: Variation over Time and Arrest Type ................. 44 IV. Treatment Performance by Participants Two Years after Entering Drug Court .... 47 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 47 Increasing Participation in Substance Abuse Treatment among Offenders ...................... 47 Phase I Findings Highlighted: Participation in Treatment ............................................... 49 Clark County: Treatment Outcomes Two Years from Entry into Drug Court ................. 55 Multnomah County: Treatment Outcomes Two Years from Entry into Drug Court ....... 61 Crime and Justice Research Institute 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Predicting Treatment Outcomes Two Years after Entry in Clark County and Multnomah County Drug Courts .......................................................................................................... 66 Themes and Implications from the Analysis of Treatment Outcomes in the Two Sites ... 95 PART TWO Drug Court Operation: Selected Issues V . Courtroom Workload as a Measure of Drug Court Development ......... :................. 105 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 105 Issues Raised from the Drug Court Workload Analyses ................................................. 127 VI . Judicial Staffing and ItsEffect on Participant Outcomes in Multnomah County .. 131 The Assumption of the Central Importance of the Dedicated Drug Court Judge ........... 131 The Impact of Judicial Staffing in the Multnomah County Drug Court: Taking Advantage of a “Natural Experiment” ............................................................................ 134 Measuring the Impact of Judicial Staffing on Participant Outcomes .............................. 139 Developing Alternative Measures of Judicial Exposure ................................................. 148 Judge Exposure as Longest Period Seeing One Judge Controlling for A Priori Risk of Rearrest and Sample Period (199 1-1995. 1996-1997) .................................................... 148 Measuring Judge Exposure as a Rate: Number of Judges per 100 Days in the Drug Court ......................................................................................................................................... 154 vu . The Effect of Acupuncture in Treatment in the Clark County Drug Court ........... 159 Acupuncture and the Drug Court Model ......................................................................... 160 Acupuncture in Treatment in the United States .............................................................. 163 Acupuncture in the Clark County Drug Court: Issues of Study Design ........................ 165 . Use of Acupunctw-e and Outcomes among Participants Entering the Clark County Drug Court. I 993- 1997 ............................................................................................................ 169 The Acupuncture Experiment ......................................................................................... 178 Acupuncture versus Relaxation: Comparative Treatment Outcomes ............................ 185 Comparative Criminal Justice Outcomes within Six Months ......................................... 187 VI11 . Participant Fees for Treatment in the Clark County Drug Court: 1993-1997 ....... 195 Paying for Drug Court Treatment Services ..................................................................... 195 Assessment and Payment of Treatment Fees in the Clark County Drug Court .............. 197 PART THREE Drug Courts in Context Ix . Competition for the Drug Court