The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates:

Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report

Author(s): John Roman ; Wendy Townsend ; Avinash

Singh Bhati Ph.D.

Document No.: 201229

Date Received: July 2003

Award Number: OJP-99-C-010

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded 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.
Prepared by:

John Roman

Wendy Townsend

Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D.

RECIDIVISM RATES FOR DRUG

COURT GRADUATES: NATIONALLY BASED ESTIMATES

Final Report

The Urban Institute
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was produced by the Urban Institute and Caliber Associates under the Estimates of Drug Court Recidivism Rates project funded by the National Institute of Justice through

the Analytic Support and Program, Contract No. OJP-99-C-010. John Roman of the Urban Institute, Wendy Townsend of Caliber Associates, and Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D., of the Urban

Institute were the authors of this report.

The authors would like to thank Adele Harrell, Ph.D., Terrence Dunworth, Ph.D. at the

Urban Institute, and Daniel Felker, Ph.D. at Caliber Associates for their senior leadership. At

Caliber Associates, Stacey Sexton, Ann MacConnachie, and Scott Leary provided invaluable

support on this project. At the Urban Institute, William Turner and Caterina Gouvis Roman supplied thoughtful assistance in the final report production. Duncan Chaplin at the Urban Institute

and Eric Grodsky at University of California-Davis offered helpful suggestions on model specifications. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft for their insightful comments. A special note of thanks to Marilyn Roberts and Janice Munsterman for their

support and assistance in conducting this study.

This study required that data from a number of sources were integrated and analyzed, and

the authors benefited greatly from the knowledge of those with expertise in those data systems.

The project was greatly assisted by David Lavessa of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who

provided us with timely access to recidivism data. Robert Morrison at the Federal Bureau of Investigation contributed a significant investment of his time to help us understand the FBI’s

criminal history databases. Caroline Cooper, at the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse & Technical

Assistance Project at American University, provided survey data and patiently responded to numerous queries. Any errors in interpreting these data are solely the authors’.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 10

REPORT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 11

1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 11

1.1 Variation Between Drug Courts................................................................ 12

1.2 Recidivism Definitions.............................................................................. 13

2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................ 14

2.1 Sample and Site Selection......................................................................... 15

2.2 Data Collection.......................................................................................... 19

2.3 Sampling.................................................................................................... 21

2.4 Univariate Analysis................................................................................... 22

2.5 Multivariate Analysis ................................................................................ 25

3. RESULTS.............................................................................................................. 27

4. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 42

5. FURTHER ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 43

APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B SERIOUS CHARGES IN THE FBI DATABASE

APPENDIX C OFFENSES EXCLUDED FROM THE FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY FILE

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 1

RECIDIVISM RATES FOR DRUG COURT GRADUATES:

NATIONALLY BASED ESTIMATES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a general estimate of recidivism among a nationally representative

sample of drug court graduates. The study was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice

in order to assist policymakers by developing a single estimate of recidivism rates from a consistent data source. Recidivism rates reported in existing evaluations of drug courts vary widely.

This variation reflects the diversity across drug courts in the characteristics of their participants

(i.e., in the severity of their addiction, the types of drugs used, and their criminal history) and in

how the drug courts operate (i.e., program eligibility, treatment availability and quality, and court

monitoring policies).

In this study, recidivism was measured as any arrest for a serious offense resulting in the

filing of a charge. A major contribution of this study is the use of a single, consistent measure of

recidivism across drug courts located in many states and jurisdictions drawn from a consistent

data source; the internal FBI criminal history database. The FBI database uses the Integrated

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), through the criminal history arrest segment known as the Interstate Identification Index (III), to link individuals to their criminal justice

history. The internal criminal justice history files include arrests reported to the FBI from reporting agencies. Discussions by the authors with FBI researchers suggest that at least 95 percent

of police agencies consistently report data to this database.

To measure the average recidivism rate for drug court graduates, the estimates in this

study are based on a sample of 2,020 graduates in 1999 and 2000 from 95 drug courts. Each of

these drug courts:

 Received Federal funds from the National Drug Court Program Office (NDCPO);

 Had been in operation for at least one year; and

 Had at last 40 program graduates.

In total, the sample is designed to be representative of approximately 17,000 annual drug court

graduates.

The characteristics of the drug courts attended by the sample of graduates are described

in Table 1. More than a third of sample members participated in a drug court that was more than

five years old, and more than half of the sample had a graduation date early in 1999. Once the
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 2

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY DRUG COURT CHARACTERISTICS (N=95)

Percentage

Unweighted

Percentage

Weighted

Number of graduates (thru July 1, 2001)

< 50 2.7% 1.1%

51-99 6.4 4.3

100-249 32.9 31.4

250-499 26.6 14.2

>499 31.3 49.0

Number of annual graduates (estimated)

< 50 9.9% 3.1%

51-99 20.1 9.5

100-249 44.0 31.1

250-499 20.5 31.0

>499 5.6 25.3

Date Court Opened

1989-1994 32.7% 36.8%

1995 19.1 9.4

1996 19.4 14.3

1997 24.5 32.9

1998 4.3 6.6

Date of graduation

January–March, 1999 33.4% 39.7%

April–June, 1999 27.3 29.3

July–September, 1999 14.0 12.2

October–December, 1999 8.3 6.6

January, 2000– 17.1 12.3

sample was weighted1 to reflect the distribution of all graduates, almost half of the sample is

drawn from the largest drug courts—the drug courts with the most graduates.

The study estimates that within one year after graduation, 16.4 percent of drug court

graduates had been arrested and charged with a serious offense2

. Within two years, the percentage rises to 27.5 percent (Figure 1). These estimates represent the expected outcomes for those

who succeed in drug court: one year after graduation, one out of six drug court graduates would

 

1

 A stratified sample was drawn to facilitate collection of sufficiently large samples from smaller drug courts to

allow for statistical analysis across a broad cross-section of drug court graduates. Weights were used to approximate the population of drug court graduates from this sample.

2

 Serious crimes were defined as any arrest and charge with a crime that carries a sentence of at least one year upon

conviction. As crimes meeting this definition vary across states, the study used the FBI definition of serious crime

throughout.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 3

FIGURE 1

ESTIMATE OF POST-GRADUATION RECIDIVISM (N=2021)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

First Year First Two Years

be expected to be re-arrested and charged with a serious offense. On average, it would also be

expected that these rates would be lower than rates for all drug court participants.3

In addition to estimating the probability that any drug court graduate would be rearrested, the study also estimated the number of serious offenses committed by drug court graduates. In the first year after graduation, drug court graduates average 0.23 serious crimes per person and 0.50 serous crimes per person in the first two years after graduation. Among those drug

court graduates that do commit a crime, drug court graduates average 1.42 new serious offenses

in the first year, and 1.83 serious offenses in the first two years after graduation (Figure 2).

 

3

 The extant drug court literature consistently finds that participants who drop out of drug courts before graduation

have higher rates of recidivism than those who graduate. For a review of the drug court literature, see Belenko, S.

“Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 Update.” National Drug Court Institute Review. Vol. 2. no 2.

1-58. Percentage Re-arrested
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 4

FIGURE 2

ESTIMATE OF POST-GRADUATION RECIDIVISM (N=2021)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

All Graduates Graduates with at least 1 Arrest

First year

First two years

The sample of drug court graduates was selected from 95 of the 110 drug courts eligible

for selection (86%). The average drug court in this sample had about 20 drug court graduates

included in the sample. While samples sizes for individual drug courts are small, the study suggests wide variations in the recidivism rates of graduates from different drug courts (Figure 3). Number of Re-arrests
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 5

FIGURE 3

POST-GRADUATION RECIDIVISM BY COURT(N=2021)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30% +

Recidivism Rate

One Year Two Years

 Figure 3 shows that in the first year, most drug courts have relatively low recidivism

rates. For instance, 38 drug courts had an average recidivism rate under 10% for graduates in the

first year after graduation. A few drug courts had much higher recidivism rates: seven drug

courts had an average recidivism rate over 30% for graduates in the first year after graduation. In

the first two years after graduation, there is less variation across courts. The average recidivism

rate was 27.5% for the first two years after graduation, and Figure 3 suggests most drug courts

had a recidivism rate relatively close to that average.

These data should not be interpreted as suggesting that drug courts that perform particularly well and drug courts that perform poorly are easy to identify. There is no reason to assume

that drug courts with the highest recidivism rates are the lowest performing drug courts. Rather,

it appears that most of the high recidivism rate drug courts are serving the most difficult to reach

populations. Bivariate analysis comparing drug court recidivism rates to the severity of the

population admitted to the court suggests that the two are correlated. The drug courts with the

lowest recidivism rates tend to accept offenders with the least severe problems, including participants whose primary drug used is alcohol or marijuana, and who are classified by the drug courts

as having ‘minimal’ drug problems. In contrast, the drug courts with the highest recidivism rates Number of Courts
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 6

tend to accept offenders who are primarily cocaine and heroin users, and who are classified by

the drug courts as having ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ drug problems. Therefore, it is important that

these estimates be applied in the appropriate context: as a benchmark for recidivism among drug

court graduates, and not as a benchmark for recidivism among drug courts.

Recidivism among drug court graduates appears to be related to the size of the drug

court. The groups displayed in Figure 4 represent the 2-year recidivism rates for five groups of

drug courts, divided into five equal groups by the number of drug court graduates. Recidivism

was higher among graduates of largest drug courts, defined as drug courts with more than 832

total graduates, than any other group. Graduates of the largest drug court cohort had a 2-year recidivism rate of 30.8 percent, compared with 2-year recidivism rates between 22.5 percent and

24.0 percent for the other four cohorts.

FIGURE 4

RECIDIVISM RATES BY DRUG COURT SIZE (N=2021)

(TWO-YEAR RECIDIVISM)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< 255 255-470 471-610 611-832 >832

Number of Drug Court Graduates

Recidivism Rate
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 7

Regression analysis confirms these findings.4 Drug court size is significantly positively

related to recidivism risk: in general the largest drug courts have the highest recidivism rates.

Other analysis suggests that these drug courts tend to be located in the largest metropolitan areas,

and tend to accept populations with the most severe drug problems. These findings are consistent with the data that suggests that drug courts accepting a population with the most severe drug

problems has the highest rates of recidivism.

Regression analysis also supports relationships between demographic characteristics and

recidivism found in many other studies. Overall, women do significantly better in drug courts

than men. Whites have lower rates of recidivism than non-Black minorities, and Blacks have

higher recidivism rates than non-Black minorities. Younger participants do significantly worse

than older participants, and the oldest participants appear to have the best outcomes. The youngest quartile of sample graduates (those 24 years old and younger) have significantly higher rates

of recidivism than does the median age quintile (those 30 to 36 years old). In some models, the

oldest quintile (those over the age of 42) do significantly better than the median cohort.

Comparison to Other Studies

Once a benchmark recidivism rate for drug court graduates has been established, it is

natural to attempt to compare these rates to other measures of drug court outcomes. One approach would be to compare the recidivism rates for drug court graduates to results from other

studies. However, these comparisons must be interpreted cautiously in light of the differences in

sample characteristics noted in the Table 2. The comparisons shown in Table 2 are the best

available, given that drug court eligibility rules vary widely among drug courts, and records are

generally not maintained on the pool of eligible drug court candidates or even on the pool of offenders offered drug court.5

A sample of the most rigorous drug court evaluations conducted to date suggests the difficulties in making these comparisons. In each of the evaluations in Table 2, comparison groups

were drawn from different sources and studied over varying time periods. The evaluations that

show the lowest recidivism rates tend to include the period during which the treatment group was

directly under the supervision of the drug court. Rates for the year after disposition (analogous to

 

4

 Hierarchical linear models were used to estimate recidivism rates controlling for individual- and court-level characteristics.

5 It was impossible to construct a nationally representative sample of eligible offenders who would have graduated

from drug courts had they been offered the chance to participate. Such a sample would require uniform data to

identify defendants eligible for drug courts, or those who were offered drug court but declined to participate.

These data do not currently exist.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 8

the first year after graduation) generally suggest that the recidivism rates for all drug court participants are substantially higher than the rates for graduates reported here.

TABLE 2

RECIDIVISM FINDINGS FROM SELECTED DRUG COURT EVALUATIONS

Name of Program

(Authors, Date) Design

Group Composition &

Recidivism Rates Follow-Up Period

The Baltimore City (Maryland) Drug Treatment Court:

Year 1 Results (Gottfredson

and Exum, 2002)

Randomized

Experiment

Treatment – Drug court (48% rearrested )

Comparison – “Treatment as usual”

(64% re-arrested.)

Follow-up for the treatment

and comparison groups was

24 months after randomization (included time spent

in drug court)

Maricopa County (Arizona)

First Time Drug Offender

Program (Deschenes et al.,

1995)

Randomized

Experiment

Treatment – Drug court (31% rearrested)

Comparison – Standard probation,

with and without drug testing (33% rearrested)

Follow-up was 12 months

for the treatment and comparison groups following

randomization

Chester County (Pennsylvania) Drug Court (Brewster,

2001)

Strong

QuasiExperimental

Treatment – Drug court (5.4% rearrested)

Comparison – Comparable offenders

placed in probation prior to the inception of drug court (21.5% re-arrested)

The follow-up period was

12 months following drug

court entry for the comparison and treatment groups

Dade County (Florida) Drug

Court (Goldkamp & Weiland,

1993)

Strong

QuasiExperimental

Treatment – Drug court participants

(33% re-arrested)

Comparison – Four comparison

groups (48% re-arrested)

The follow-up period was

18 months for the treatment

and comparison group after

drug court entry

DC Superior Drug Court

Invention Program (Harrell,

Cavanagh, & Roman, 1998)

Strong

QuasiExperimental

Treatment – Treatment docket (26%

re-arrested); sanctions docket (19% rearrested); Comparison – 27% rearrested.

Follow-up period was 12

months for the treatment

and comparison group following drug court exit

Limitations

Several caveats to this study should be noted. This study includes biases that both underestimate and overestimate the true rate of recidivism for drug court graduations. As there is no

extant literature addressing these issues, the magnitude and direction of bias cannot be determined. This study underestimates the recidivism rates in two ways:

 Not all arrests are counted. The FBI data, while the best single source of criminal

history data available, do not include every arrest that occurs nationally; and,

 Not all participants can be matched to their FBI records. Whenever possible, an

FBI number or fingerprint data was used to match drug court graduates to the FBI’s

criminal history file. Not all participants can be matched to their FBI records. Where

no FBI number or fingerprint was available, an algorithm based on name, date of
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 9

birth, and gender was used to identify matches. It is very likely that some drug court

graduates could not be matched to their FBI file. In these cases, it was assumed that

no re-arrest occurred. To the extent that re-arrests were missed due to this matching

problem, recidivism rates are underestimated.

This study may overestimate the recidivism rate due to definitional issues. For the purpose of

this analysis, recidivism was defined as any arrest (and charge) reported to the FBI, regardless of

the disposition. It is therefore almost certainly the case that some proportion of the arrests reported in this analysis did not result in a conviction. Inclusion of these cases will yield a higher

recidivism rate than would be the case if only arrests leading to a conviction were included.

Conclusion

This study estimates recidivism rates for the average drug court graduate which are intended to be used as benchmarks in later research. These estimates should not be considered in

isolation: drug courts are complicated endeavors operating in multifaceted environments. Law

enforcement policies and community attributes may make it relatively more difficult for some

jurisdictions to meet these benchmarks. In addition, some drug courts will target very difficult

and hard to serve populations. For these drug courts, achieving a recidivism rate that is much

higher than these benchmarks may actually demonstrate a large reduction in criminal offending.

Therefore, no single estimate can, or should, be used to measure whether an individual drug

court is successful.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 10

DRUG COURT RECIDIVISM RATES: NATIONAL ESTIMATES

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Estimates of drug court graduate recidivism rates were developed in response to a request

by the National Institute of Justice to create a benchmark for drug court practitioners and researchers. The reported rates of recidivism from extant drug court outcome evaluations vary

widely, as do those reported by individual drug courts, contributing to a debate over the effectiveness of drug courts. This study provides, for the first time, nationally representative estimates

of recidivism from drug court graduates, drawn from a consistent data source and calculated in a

consistent manner. This analysis is not an evaluation of drug courts, is not an evaluation of all

drug court participants, and does not employ a comparison group in the analysis. Nonetheless,

we believe these estimates will provide useful information for assessing one aspect of the impact

of drug courts.

The approach used was to identify all drug courts funded by the Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) that had been in operation for at least one year as of January 1, 1999, and had at last

40 program graduates. Each drug court meeting this standard was asked to submit a list of program graduates, and random samples were drawn from the list provided by each drug court. Individual identifiers were submitted to the FBI for a criminal justice history check to gather data

on any arrest in the first two years following graduation. The FBI reported arrests that met two

conditions: 1) an arrest for a serious offense, where a serious offense was defined as an arrest for

an offense with a minimum sentence upon conviction of at least one year; and 2) the arrestee was

ultimately charged with a serious offense. Once these data were collected, sample data from

large drug courts were weighted so that the analysis would approximate the distribution of all

drug court graduates nationally.

The final sample included data about graduates from 95 of the 110 drug courts that met

criteria for inclusion in the analysis (86%). The criminal justice history of 2,021 drug court

graduates were analyzed to estimate the likelihood of re-arrest for all drug court graduates during

the first year after graduation, and were weighted to represent all graduates of the 95 courts during this period. Within a one-year follow-up period, 16.4% of the sample had been arrested and

charged with a serious offense, and within a two-year follow-up period, 27.5% of the sample had

been arrested and charged with a serious offense.

These estimates may underestimate the likelihood of re-arrest in the population of drug

court graduates in two ways. First, FBI data used in this analysis include only those arrests reported by individual states. To the extent that states do not report all arrests to the FBI, this
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 11

number represents an underestimate of the true recidivism rate. Second, whenever possible an

FBI number or fingerprint data were used to match drug court graduates to the FBI’s criminal

history file. Where no FBI number or fingerprint was available, an algorithm was used to identify likely matches. In total, 86% of drug court graduates were matched to an FBI record6

. Where

no match was found, it was assumed that no arrests had occurred. It is therefore likely that some

drug court graduates who could not be matched to their FBI file had an arrest during the followup period. To the extent that new serious arrests were missed due to this matching problem, recidivism rates are underestimated.

However, these estimates may alternatively overstate recidivism rates. For the purpose of

this analysis, recidivism was defined as any arrest (and charge) reported to the FBI, regardless of

the disposition. It is therefore almost certainly the case that some proportion of the arrests reported in this analysis did not result in a conviction. Inclusion of these cases will yield a higher

recidivism rate than would be the case if these arrests were excluded. There is no extant literature addressing these issues, and the magnitude and direction of bias created by these apparently

contradictory biases can not be determined.

We do believe that these benchmark estimates will assist in efforts to measure drug court

impact. However, these estimates should not be considered in isolation: drug courts are complicated endeavors operating in multifaceted environments. Law enforcement policies and community attributes may make it relatively more difficult for some jurisdictions to meet these benchmarks. In addition, some drug courts will target very difficult and hard to serve populations. For

these drug courts, achieving a recidivism rate that is much higher than the benchmark level may

actually demonstrate a large reduction in criminal offending. Therefore, any single estimate can

not, and should not, be used to measure whether an individual court is successful.

REPORT STRUCTURE

The remainder of this report is divided into five sections. The first section describes the

theoretical framework used to identify, define and isolate drug court program effects. This theoretical framework was used both to develop the analysis, as well as to identify the limitations of

our approach, which are described in the fourth section. The second section is a synopsis of the

methods used to draw and analyze the sample of drug court graduates. The third section details

the study’s findings, which is followed by a discussion of the studies limitations. The fifth section presents a brief discussion of areas for further research.

 

6

 Many drug courts expunge arrest records following successful completion of drug court. Therefore, it would be

expected that some drug court graduates would have no FBI arrest record.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 12

1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The task of developing a benchmark recidivism estimate begins by identifying the differences in approaches to calculating recidivism rates, in the extant literature. In particular, differences in measuring recidivism arise from numerous factors including variations in criminal justice systems and community context, differences in drug court structure and operation and differences in recidivism definitions. The following sections describe issues in calculating recidivism

that are associated with 1) variations in the environment in which drug courts operate and the

populations that they serve, and 2) differences in defining recidivism.

1.1 Variation between Drug Courts

Drug courts are multifaceted organizations integrated into their community, treatment

and social service networks, and the larger criminal justice system. Drug court graduate recidivism is at least partially a function of how the drug court is integrated into that system. In the

narrowest terms, the context within which the drug court operates will affect how the drug court

intervention will be structured, which will in turn affect what population is targeted. The interplay between each of these three actors will have an important affect on individual recidivism.

 Community and Criminal Justice System. Drug courts structure interventions in

response both to the availability of local resources (such as treatment modalities and

ancillary services) and to drug problems of particular concern to that community

(such as methamphetamine or heroin). Policing strategies, prosecutor practices, and

parole and probation policies, along with other variations across criminal justice systems, would cause different kinds of drug courts to have different rates of recidivism.

The characteristics of a community can also effect likelihood of recidivism: local

crime rates and drug markets, unemployment levels, housing availability, social

norms, and access to diverse treatment resources and social services will all effect the

behavior of program participants. These structural differences can then cause drug

courts to target a particular population either because they perceive a need to serve a

particular group or because they have the resources available to target a particular

population. Targeting different populations due to resource availability (or constraints) or specific community problems will necessarily affect eligibility, yielding

drug court participants with varying risks of recidivism.

 Drug Court Intervention. Variation in the policies and practices adopted by the

court will affect recidivism. Variation in recidivism rates may be related to drug

court characteristics, such as size, intensity of service provision, duration, and location. Drug courts may also target specific populations based on how well they are expected to do in drug court. Some drug courts serve first-time offenders only or misdemeanor cases only, while others admit those with long criminal histories and felony

charges, based on different perceptions of who is likely to succeed in drug court.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 13

Program eligibility criteria, especially individual criminal justice history/risk and the

severity (and type) of substance abuse, may have a large effect on recidivism rates,

especially if highest (or lowest) risk clients are systematically excluded from participation. In addition, program inclusion (or exclusion) of populations with special

needs (such as co-occurring mental health disorders may effect recidivism rates.

 Target population. Once a target population is identified and eligibility criteria are

determined, the risk of recidivism among court participants is directly related to the

characteristics its participants bring with them into the court. Criminal history, substance abuse severity, family functioning, as well as the demographic characteristics

of offenders entering the court all influence recidivism. For example, it seems reasonable to assume that a drug court that admits only first- or second-time misdemeanant

drug possession cases would not have the same recidivism rates as a drug court that

admits clinically diagnosed felony drug offenders. These factors create variation in

the expected level of recidivism of an individual participant both independent of, and

in combination with, programming.

Drug courts can, therefore, be expected to have quite different recidivism rates for reasons

wholly unrelated to the ‘quality’ of the intervention. The structural dissimilarity across drug

courts necessarily yields different recidivism rates. In this study, two measures of structural dissimilarity were identified and included in the analysis: differences in the size of the court (average number of annual graduates) and drug use severity of the target population.

1.2 Recidivism Definitions

In prior studies, measurement of recidivism has not been consistently applied. Holding all

else constant, if two drug courts used two distinct measurement strategies, it is quite likely that

the reported recidivism rates would be different. As a result, the methodology used in evaluating

a drug court may also directly affect the reported recidivism rate. An examination of reported

recidivism rates suggests that studies vary across four key factors7

:

 Differences in the definition of recidivism. Recidivism is defined inconsistently:

any arrest; any arrest on a specific set of charges (such as all crimes or drug charges

only); or any arrest that leads to a conviction. The definition may or may not include

probation violations. Recidivism rates will vary according to the definition.

 Criminal records. The criminal history data used by researchers to measure the incidence and prevalence of re-offending may include varying combinations of data

 

7 The review of differences in methodological approaches was conducted as part of an ongoing review of adult drug

court evaluations as part of a meta-analysis of drug court evaluations being conducted at the Urban Institute on

behalf of the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Review Group.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 14

from local, state and national enforcement agencies. Such differences in recordkeeping among law enforcement agencies will affect reported recidivism.

 Variations in sample timeframe. The period over which recidivism is measured affects estimates and drug court evaluations vary widely in selecting a timeframe.

Evaluations that measure recidivism while program participants remain under the

drug courts jurisdiction would be expected to have different recidivism rates than

studies measuring recidivism once all sample members are out of the program.

 Sample status. The sample of drug court participants included in drug court recidivism research is inconsistent across studies. Sample status can include 1) all defendants who became eligible for the drug court, 2) only participants who entered treatment, 3) only participants who completed within a specific period of time allotted for

evaluation, or 4) only program graduates. Some comparisons that are routinely used,

such as the comparison of drug court graduates to drug court failures or eligible refusers, are inappropriate. These groups are generally not equivalent and would not be

expected to have similar outcomes, with or without a drug court intervention.

There are virtually unlimited combinations of these four factors that could be used to create an

estimate of recidivism. The drug court literature contains many variants. It is therefore not surprising that there is considerable confusion about drug court recidivism rates.

This study applied a consistent methodology to create recidivism estimates for drug court

graduates. The estimates are based on a standard data source (criminal justice history from the

FBI’s research database), a consistent definition of recidivism (arrest and charge with a serious

offense, as defined by the FBI), and a consistent time frame (the first two years after drug court

graduation). This approach allows for a robust estimation of the prevalence rate of recidivism

among the graduates of DCPO funded drug court programs. These estimates can be therefore be

used by drug courts in understanding how their performance compares to similar drug courts.

However, as is discussed in the limitations section, given that there are many and varied recidivism estimates in the drug court literature, these results may not be consistent with other published recidivism estimates.

2. METHODOLOGY

The estimates of recidivism in this study were developed through a five step process:

 Sample and site selection. Criteria were developed to identify eligible drug courts,

before any data were collected. These criteria were based on the proportion of all

drug court graduates represented by each drug court, the length of time the program

had been operational, and the accessibility of program data. One hundred and fifteen

drug courts were initially identified as eligible for study participation.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 15

 Data collection. After drug court sites had been selected, each eligible drug courts

was sent a survey requesting information on a sample of each drug courts’ graduates.

Of the 115 drug courts initially eligible, six drug courts were found to no longer be in

operation, and one court had split into two separate drug courts. One hundred of the

remaining drug courts responded to the survey and provided data on drug court

graduates.

 Sampling. A sample of drug court graduates was randomly selected from within the

pool of graduates reported by each court. Once the random sample of drug court

graduates had been drawn, a request for criminal justice histories on this sample was

submitted to the FBI. Data from five drug courts were determined not to include sufficient information for the FBI to be able to process. Criminal justice history records

were received from the FBI on a sample of drug court participants from 95 drug

courts.

 Univariate Analysis. Criminal justice history data for each drug court graduate was

proportionately weighted so that the full sample was representative of the distribution

of graduates across all drug courts in the sample. These weighted estimates were then

used to create estimates of the likelihood and frequency of recidivism rate for all drug

court graduates.

 Multivariate Analysis. Court level data from the 1999 Adult Drug Courts Survey,

conducted by the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at

American University, were collected and merged with the FBI data described above.

Court level data were matched for 72 out of the 95 drug courts. A multilevel statistical analysis was conducted to isolate court and individual level effects on drug court

graduate recidivism.

2.1 Sample and Site Selection

2.1.1 Sample Selection

Section 1.2 described the confusion in the drug court field that has resulted from the inconsistent status of drug court participants included in prior recidivism research. Each cohort of

drug court participants (e.g. graduates, failures, all participants) are important subjects of research. Drug court graduates were selected for this study both because it is sensible to begin establishing benchmarks by focusing on the most successful drug court participants, and because

this population presented the fewest methodological difficulties. Developing recidivism estimates for the full population of drug court participants would present several challenges. Foremost, given the wide range of time in program across drug courts, it is not clear when to start

measuring recidivism. For example, a study beginning at twelve months post-entry would have

found some sample members as active program participants and others who had long since been

terminated. In general, allowing a fixed period for participation is likely to result in estimates
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 16

inflated by the effects of early dropouts, while a design using a greatly extended period of program participation may attenuate the gains of drug court graduates by not capturing their behavior during their first year out. If data could be collected that precisely identified exit and entry

dates, consistent follow-up periods could be identified. However, one of two problems would

remain. If the sample was identified at a concurrent entry period, then graduates would remain in

the long after the program failures were on the street. Thus, the period during which recidivism

was measured would be inconsistent. If the sample were identified at a concurrent exit period,

than graduates would have been in drug court long before program failures entered, and might

have been exposed to a drug court intervention that was quite different.

Choosing a population of graduates avoids these problems. As the data in 2.4 will show,

most of the graduates exited drug court at about the same time, and were followed over generally

the same period. However, by limiting research subjects to graduates, the study is likely to find

lower recidivism estimates than would have been the case for a sample that included all drug

court participants. As described earlier, drug court research has consistently found that drug

court graduates have lower rates of recidivism than drug court failures. This is probably due both

to the individual characteristics of the cohorts (drug court graduates likely have more motivation

to complete drug court and to avoid future offending) and to program characteristics (the programs are designed to hold offenders accountable and therefore to identify and remove those

who are at highest risk of future offending and are not able to successfully complete the program).

2.1.2 Site Selection

Site selection began by identifying drug courts which had received an enhancement, implementation, or continuation grant from DCPO. This approach was taken both to achieve administrative efficiencies (the solicitation required rapid project completion) and to improve survey response rates. Drug courts that received DCPO funding agreed to participate in national

evaluation efforts as a condition of their funding, and therefore would be more likely to respond

to the survey than would non-DCPO funded drug courts.

DCPO funded drug courts were identified from the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse &

Technical Assistance Project and from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). A total of 261 drug

courts were identified that had received one of the three types of DCPO funding. These drug
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 17

courts reported a total of more than 68,000 graduates, as of June, 2001.8 The study limited eligibility for this study to drug courts that met two additional criteria:

 Program operations began on or before January 1, 1998;

 At least 40 program graduates between January, 1999 and September, 2000.

In selecting a start date for the sampling frame, the length of drug court participation was the

primary consideration. Most drug court evaluations examining recidivism as the dependent variable, have studied participants for a period (generally 12 to 24 months after drug court entry).

This approach conflates the effects of intensive drug court supervision with the persistent effects

of the drug court intervention. That is, it would be expected that recidivism rates in the period

when a drug court participant continued in programming would be meaningfully affected by the

courts oversight. More intensive court supervision could lead to more crimes being detected (increasing recidivism rates) or to re-offending leading to fewer new charges formally being filed as

new arrests came under the drug courts supervision (decreasing recidivism rates). Focusing on

the period after supervision avoids this problem. It also allows the study to focus on the more

interesting question of whether drug court participation leads to changes in behavior that persist

after the participant has left the courts supervision.

 The study selected two years as the length of the follow-up period to allow estimates of

the persistent effects of drug courts. A longer follow-up period would have faced three problems:

1) more drug courts would likely have ceased operations, merged with another court, or otherwise been transformed from the original drug court structure; 2) more court would have been unable to produce data on graduates; 3) since more courts begin operations each year, a smaller

proportion of courts in operation today would have been eligible for the study. A shorter followup period would have produced a set of findings that were more limited.

In order for two years worth of data to be collected about drug court graduates, it was

necessary to work backwards from the date when data was to be submitted to the FBI, which

would be the end date for any new arrest information. September 1, 2002 was selected as the end

date. Therefore, to be eligible, sample members would have to have graduated by September 1,

2000, which also allowed thirty days for new arrest data to ‘catch up’ in the FBI database.9

 

8

 OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. The American University. Summary Information on All Drug Court Programs and Detailed Information on Adult Drug Courts. June 20, 2001.

9

 Subsequent discussions with researchers at the FBI suggested that the lag in reporting data to the FBI criminal

justice history database was far shorter than anticipated. As a result, only a lag of a single month was used in the

analysis.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 18

In selecting the earliest date a drug court participant could graduate and be eligible for

participation, the study sought to balance the tension between 1) establishing a long enough follow-up period to allow for the recruitment of a sufficient sample size and 2) the difficulties associated with the retrospective study of a sample that had graduated too long ago to provide meaningful information to current drug courts. For both pragmatic and theoretical reasons, the study

therefore extended the earliest eligible graduation date back 21 months, beginning January 1,

1999. Drug court graduates were therefore eligible if they had graduated between January 1,

1999 and September 1, 2000.

The study also excluded drug courts that were very new at the time drug court graduates

began participating. The drug court literature suggests that the average period of successful

treatment retention (e.g. time to graduation) for a drug court client is 12 to 15 months.10 Therefore, it would be expected that drug court participants who had graduated by September 30,

2000, would have had to have begun participating in drug court prior to July 1, 1999. A drug

court participating on January 1, 1999 would likely have begun participating in drug court at the

end of 1997. In order to avoid capturing the effects of start-up issues on program outcomes, the

study would have required that at least one year had passed between the beginning of court operations, and the date of the first eligible graduate. Therefore, all eligible drug courts had to have

begun operations by January 1, 1997. However, the number of drug courts was increasing rapidly enough at this time that such a restriction would have overly limited the population of eligible drug court graduates. Therefore, a date of January 1, 1998 was selected as the latest possible

date an eligible drug court could have commenced operations.

Drug courts meeting these eligibility requirements range in size from drug courts with

more than 5,000 graduates to small drug courts with fewer then five reported graduates. In order

to select a sample that best represented the total population of graduates, while limiting the resource-intensive data collection process, we chose to select only those drug courts with more

than 40 graduates (116 drug courts). The minimum of 40 graduates was selected through an iterative process that sought to maximize the number of eligible drug court graduates while minimizing survey resource requirements. This strategy yielded a sample of graduates which account

for over 97 percent of all drug court who graduated from the 95 drug courts included in the sample.11

 

10 Belenko, Stephen R. (2000). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 Update. National Drug Court

Institute Review. Volume II(2): 1-58.

11 Number of graduates were missing from the AU data on 15 percent of drug courts. For these courts, we created

estimates of the expected graduation rates for annual cohorts (where cohorts were defined by the age of the court

on July 1, 2000). These estimated graduation rates were then multiplied by the total enrollment to create an esti-
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 19

2.2 Data Collection

The survey of eligible drug courts was designed with the intention of collecting identifying information that could be used to match drug court graduates with FBI criminal history records. As shown in Table 2, these data elements were limited strictly to characteristics that

would allow for that matching process. Our past research experience suggested that other data,

even basic demographic data such as employment or marital status, was not available from many

drug courts.

The number of graduates for whom information was requested from each site was a

function of the size of the court. Overall, the survey requested data on about 2,500 graduates.

This sample size was selected to produce a narrow confidence estimate for recidivism estimates

while not presenting an overly burdensome request for the FBI. Smaller drug courts were asked

to provide identifying data on the first 40 graduates with a graduation date after January 1, 1999.

Larger drug courts were asked to provide a sample of 80 drug court graduates. Because a very

small number of drug courts have relatively large numbers of graduates, we placed an upper

bound on the number of subjects from each court, to limit the data collection burden placed on

larger drug courts and therefore increase survey response rates. Information from graduates of

large drug courts was later weighted to reflect the true distribution of graduates across drug

courts by size.

Use of this criterion (e.g., selecting the first n graduates in the sampling frame) introduces

one potential bias, but removes another. By requiring drug courts to submit the first group of

graduates in a given year, no subjective criteria were used to select the panel, and there is no a

priori reason to expect that the sample selected is biased with respect to individual, court or

community characteristics. However, because the sampling frame begins in January, the sample

is disproportionately more likely to have graduated in the winter or early spring. Forty-five percent of the sample graduated in January, February, March or April of 1999. Therefore, to the extent that there are seasonal effects on offending, the estimates may be biased.

In June 2002, packets were distributed to the 115 drug courts meeting the criteria described above. They included a letter from NIJ endorsing the study, a set of instructions for completing the survey, and a copy of the survey instrument (Appendix A). Five drug courts were

subsequently excluded from the sample, because: 1) the court was no longer operational, and no

data were available; 2) the court did not have a sufficient number of total graduates; 3) the court

did not meet minimum data requirements because they did not track their clients.

 

mate of the number of graduates. In addition, nine courts established as DWI or DUI courts were excluded from

the sample.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 20

These conversations also led to the discovery of an additional court that was able to respond to the survey. In total, between June and August, data were obtained from 100 of the 110

eligible drug courts.12 The data provided for individual graduates were:13

TABLE 3

SURVEY DATA ELEMENTS

 Name

 Gender

 Race

 DOB

 Place of birth

 Social Security number

 Drug court entry date

 Drug court graduation date

 FBI number

 Fingerprint number

 Aliases

Data collected from the drug courts were kept in secure files, in a secure room. The data

security plan that directed the development and analysis of study data was approved by the Urban Institute Institutional Review Board.

2.3 Sampling

Once data were received, a random number generator was used to select cohorts from

each court’s submission. On average, the process was designed to select half of the sample submitted by each drug court. For small drug courts, the expected mean number of graduates selected was 20 out of 40, and for larger drug courts the expected mean number of graduates selected was 40 out of 80.

Data were delivered to the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) for

a search of the internal criminal justice history database. The system uses the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) through the criminal history arrest segment, the

 

12 Recidivism data from one court was obtained directly from that court. Rather than providing the researchers with

identifying information for a subsequent FBI criminal history check, the site conducted the FBI criminal history

check and submitted those results. A random process was used to select a sample from within the cohort.

13 Requests for data were generally sent to the drug court administrator. Survey data are therefore assumed to be

official court records, but the source of data for each graduate is not known.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 21

Interstate Identification Index (III), to link individuals to their criminal justice history. The internal criminal justice history files include arrests reported to the FBI from reporting agencies.14

Arrests are only included in this database if they meet a standard as a ‘criterion offense.’ Criterion offenses exclude any arrest for a crime that does not have a minimum sentence of at least

one year. A list of offenses that are excluded from this database, and are therefore excluded from

this analysis, can be found in Appendix B. In addition, a criminal history event is entered into

the database only if an individual has been both arrested and charged for that offense.15

It is important to note that the FBI maintains two separate systems for identifying arrest

information. The second database is generally referred to as NCIC, which is commonly assumed

to be synonymous with ‘FBI data.’ It is not. This database is queried through terminals in participating police agencies, and includes data from both the FBI criminal history files described

above, and a separate query of state databases. State databases may include criminal histories of

arrests that would not be eligible for inclusion in the internal FBI database. Because the quality

of State databases may vary widely, and the types of offenses reported therein may also vary

widely, this database was not used in this analysis.

Hard copies of arrest records were promptly received from the FBI. For any particular

graduate, it was possible to receive numerous “potential” records. Records received from the

FBI included multiple matches on about fifteen percent of the sample. Researchers at Caliber

Associates manually went through these records to match on the key characteristics listed above,

in order of reliability of the variable used for the match: fingerprint number, FBI number followed by social security number. If a conclusive match could not be made, the individual was

assumed to have had no serious arrests during the study. Drug court graduates for whom no

criminal history was received were also assumed to have had no serious arrests.16

In total, researchers were able to match more than 85% of graduates to an FBI record.17

The following additional data elements were collected for each graduate from the FBI data:

 

14 Discussions with FBI researchers suggest that at least 95 percent of police agencies consistently report data to

this database.

15 According to FBI researchers, this database includes disposition information for only about half of all arrests.

Because there may be systematic bias in the distribution of dispositions within the database, dispositional information was not considered in this analysis.

16 To the extent that a drug court graduate could not be conclusively matched to an FBI record detailing an arrest

that did occur, the report will tend to underestimate the true recidivism rate.

17 Given that many drug courts expunge a conviction upon graduation, and given that all sample members had

graduated from a drug court, it is not surprising that no criminal history records existed for some graduates.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 22

 Count of prior arrests (before drug court)

 Arrest date for 1st arrest date after graduation from drug court (if applicable)

 Number of charges related to arrest

 Type of charge (drug, property, violent, other)

 Total number of arrests after graduation from drug court

 Total number of charges after graduation from drug court

2.4 Univariate Analysis

The resulting sample consisted of 2,146 graduates from 100 drug courts.18 Of these, several graduates included in the data submitted from the drug courts had graduated either earlier

than January 1, 1999 or later than September 30, 2000. These records were dropped from the

sample. In excluding records from outside the sampling frame, it was evident that four drug

courts had provided cohorts entirely composed of records for graduates who graduated after the

end of the sampling frame. Therefore, these drug courts were dropped from the analysis. This

resulted in a final sample of 2021 graduates from a total of 95 drug courts.

Table 4 shows the distribution of the sample on key court characteristics. Most of the

drug courts in the sample had begun operations relatively recently, with more than 60 percent

having begun operations in 1996 or later. Even though many were new, they had a substantial

number of graduates. More than 80 percent of the sample had at least 100 graduates by July,

2001, and almost 20 percent had more than 500. The median annual graduation was slightly

above 100 graduates per year. As noted earlier, most of the sample had graduated early in the

sample frame, with more than half having graduated by June 1999.

 

18 The random number generator used in defining the size of the sample to be drawn from each court cohort assigned a sample size of zero to one court. No subsequent data were analyzed from this court.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 23

TABLE 4

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE DRUG COURTS (N=95)

Number of graduates (thru July 1, 2001)

 Less than 50 6.3%

 51-99 13.7%

 100-249 41.1%

 250-499 20.0%

 More than 499 19.0%

Number of annual graduates (estimated)

 Less than 50 17.9%

 51-99 24.2%

 100-249 39.0%

 250-499 15.8%

 More than 499 3.2%

Date Court Opened

 1989-1994 21.1%

 1995 17.9%

 1996 25.3%

 1997 28.4%

 1998 7.4%

Graduation Date

 January-March, 1999 33.4%

 April-June, 1999 27.3%

 July –September, 1999 14.0%

 October-December, 1999 8.3%

 January, 2000 - 17.0%

Due to the sampling process, the final sample does not represent the true population of

graduates from these 95 drug courts. The sampling process described in 2.2 and 2.3 resulted in a

sample that under-represents drug court graduates from small drug courts, and over-represents

drug court graduates from large drug courts. To account for the over-sampling of some drug

courts and under-sampling from others, we next computed weights that could be applied to subsequent analysis. By weighting individual records, we are able to approximate the full population

of drug court graduates during the sampling frame.

The weighting procedure involved two steps. The weights were computed to represent

the population of individuals graduating from the 95 relevant drug courts during the year from

which the exit cohort was derived. A count of the total number of individuals graduating from a

court in any given year was not available from any source. To create an estimate of the number

of graduates in each year, we first computed the average monthly graduation rate since operation

(i.e., number of graduates per month since the court opened) and then used this number to estimate the number of graduates in any given year. Data on the total number of graduates since the

court opened were not available from five of the 95 drug courts. For these drug courts, the aver-
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 24

age number of graduates from drug courts that were operational for comparable periods of time

were used to estimate the number of graduates.

The estimated number of graduates for all 95 drug courts resulted in a population size of

17,962 graduates for the period in the sampling frame. Weights were therefore constructed to

make the available sample of 2,021 graduates represent these 17,962 graduates. The court specific counts of the population of graduates (the desired distribution) were divided by the court

specific distribution of the sample of graduates (the current distribution) and the resulting ratio

was used in all subsequent analysis as the weights.

The analysis examined four dependent variables:

 The likelihood a drug court graduate had any arrest (and charge) with a serious offense in the first year after graduation;

 The likelihood a drug court graduate had any arrest (and charge) with a serious offense in the first two years after graduation;

 The number of times a drug court graduate was arrested and charged with a serious

offense in the first year after graduation;

 The number of times a drug court graduate was arrested and charged with a serious

offense in the first two years after graduation.

These descriptive statistics were generated by standard univariate techniques, with weights, in

SAS 8.0.

2.5 Multivariate Analysis

Once the final dataset had been collected and analyzed, a subsequent process was undertaken to collect and analyze court- and individual-level effects on the four dependent variables

described in 2.4. Data were collected from the 1999 Adult Drug Court Survey, conducted by the

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse & Technical Assistance Project at American University. These

data provide a wealth of information about drug court-level characteristics, including participant

demographics, court eligibility, and court structure. The 1999 Survey provides particularly relevant data, as most of the drug court participants in this study were enrolled in drug courts at

about the time the data in the 1999 Survey were collected.

The study matched drug courts in the 1999 Survey to drug courts eligible for this study.

In total, 72 of 95 drug courts responded to the 1999 Survey. Unfortunately, the data in the survey

was of only limited utility. The data were designed to answer a different set of research questions
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 25

than those posed by this study, and as a result, few data items were available for analysis.19 In

addition, many respondents had missing data for some items. Given the small sample size of our

court cohort, this limited further the number of items that were amenable to analysis.

However, two items of particular interest were included in this analysis. First, drug courts

reported the number of drug court participants that had graduated by 1999. Combined with data

about the beginning date for drug court operations, we were able to construct an annual graduation rate variable, to test whether drug courts with more graduates had differential recidivism

rates. It should be noted that the mean number of annual drug court graduates is almost double

the median presented in Table 5 (203) due to the presence of a few very large courts.

In addition, the 1999 Survey did contain consistent information about the primary drug

used by each drug courts participants (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, heroin, methamphetamine, poly-drug), and the severity of their drug problems (minimum, moderate, severe). 20 Although these data did not describe the proportion of drug court participants in each category, we

were able to construct 18 dummy variables, one for each combination of primary drug and severity level. From these data, we constructed a simple binary measure of the severity of drug use

problems among court participants. Courts were assigned a high value if they accepted participants with severe cocaine/crack and severe heroin problems or severe methamphetamine problems. All other courts were assigned a low value. As Table 5 shows, almost all courts accept

participants with severe cocaine/crack problems. Therefore, any measure that simply assigns

high severity of problems if any population with severe problems with a serious drug (heroin,

cocaine, methamphetamine) will have almost no variation in this sample.

 

19 For instance, the 1999 Survey asked courts to identify the primary source for eligible participants (i.e., diversion,

post-adjudication, probation, etc.). We had hoped to be able to determine whether courts with different eligibility

had different rates of recidivism. However, these categories were not mutually exclusive, and therefore we could

not determine what proportion of participants came to the court from each source, and therefore analysis would

not have yielded meaningfully findings.

20 Significant data were missing for eight of the 72 courts.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 26

TABLE 5

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE DRUG COURTS (N=64)

Median Number of annual drug court

graduates (thru July 1, 2001) 113.2

Primary Drug Used by Drug Court Participants

Alcohol (minimum) 20.3%

Alcohol (moderate) 64.6%

Alcohol (severe) 51.6%

Marijuana (minimum) 21.2%

Marijuana (moderate) 56.3%

Marijuana (severe) 64.1%

Cocaine/crack (minimum) 15.8%

Cocaine/crack (moderate) 35.9%

Cocaine/crack (severe) 81.2%

Heroin (minimum) 17.2%

Heroin (moderate) 39.1%

Heroin (severe) 51.6%

Methamphetamine (minimum) 23.4%

Methamphetamine (moderate) 28.1%

Methamphetamine (severe) 46.9%

Poly-drug (minimum) 17.2%

Poly-drug (minimum) 43.8%

Poly-drug (minimum) 51.6%

Severe Drug Use Scale (1=high) 0.55

The survey does not report individual-level data. No other source of individual level data

about the drug court graduates included in this study could be identified. Therefore, data describing the drug court graduates in the sample were limited to those data elements collected

from individual drug courts (age, race, gender) as described in Table 6.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 27

TABLE 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF DRUG COURTS PARTICIPANTS

Mean age n=2017 33.3 years

 Under 24 21.6%

 24-30 18.8%

 30-36 19.8%

 36-42 17.3%

 Over 42 22.6%

Gender (1=male) n=1963 68.6%

Race n=2004

 White 30.6%

 Black 55.2%

 Non-Black Minority 14.2%

The analysis modeled the effects of the three individual-level independent variables (age,

gender, and race categories)and the two court-level independent variables (average annual number of drug court graduates and drug use severity score) on the four dependent variables. The

study used a multilevel model to account for the nested data structure. Modeling was conducted

using SAS 8.0, by applying the PROC MIXED procedure and the GLIMMIX macro. The two

binary dependent variables were modeled using a binomial error distribution and the two count

dependent variables were modeled using a log link and a poisson error distribution.

3. RESULTS

Within a 1-year follow up period, 16.4 percent of the sample had been rearrested and

charged with a serious offense (Table 7). Without using the weights, 14.4 percent of the nonrepresentative sample had been rearrested and charged with a serious offense within the one-year

follow up period. Within a 2-year period, 27.5 percent of the sample had been re-arrested and

charged with a serious offense. Without using the weights, 25.5 percent of the non-representative

sample had been rearrested and charged with a serious offense within the two-year follow up period.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 28

TABLE 7

ESTIMATE OF RECIDIVISM RATES (N=2021)

One Year Recidivism

 Weighted 16.4%

 Un-weighted 14.4%

Two Year Recidivism

 Weighted 27.5%

 Un-weighted 25.5%

Recidivism rates vary by court size, with larger drug courts tending to have higher recidivism rates. Drug courts were grouped into approximately equal quintiles based on the average

annual number of graduates and recidivism rates were computed within each of these groups.

The groupings were created using the un-weighted graduation class sizes, but the recidivism

rates are weighted to reflect the full population of drug court graduates. The resulting group rates

are presented in Figure 5. The four smallest groups had a weighted recidivism rate between 11.2

percent and 14.6 percent The largest court grouping had a one-year recidivism rate of 19.3 percent.
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 29

FIGURE 5

RECIDIVISM RATES BY COURT SIZE (N=2021)

(ONE-YEAR RECIDIVISM)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

< 255 255-470 471-610 611-832 >832

Number of Drug Court Graduates

An analysis of the 2-year recidivism data (Figure 6) by the size of court produces a similar finding. Groupings of drug courts with a small or medium number of graduates had two year

recidivism rates between 22.5 percent and 24.0 percent. The largest 19 drug courts had an average 2-year recidivism rate of 30.8 percent. For both sets of analyses, the drug courts with the

largest number of annual drug court graduates, represented nearly half the weighted sample of

drug court graduates. Weighted Recidivism Rate
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 30

FIGURE 6

RECIDIVISM RATES BY COURT SIZE (N=2021)

(TWO-YEAR RECIDIVISM)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< 255 255-470 471-610 611-832 >832

Number of Drug Court Graduates

Since the recidivism rates were found to vary between court sizes, we further disaggregated the data to test whether the recidivism rates were stable across different drug courts.

Clearly some drug courts have very few graduates and rates computed from such small subsamples are unreliable. We, therefore, use group wise analysis only to investigate if there are discernable skews, e.g. tendencies for the recidivism rates to be clustered around a recidivism rate

with a few outliers in one direction or the other. If such skews are observed then caution should

be used in presenting a single recidivism rate (for example the weighted average) to represent all

drug courts.

As shown in Figure 7, the distribution of court-specific recidivism is skewed. Thirty-eight

of the 95 drug courts have an average recidivism rate of drug court graduates of less than 10 percent in the first year after graduation. Only seven of the 95 drug courts have an average recidivism rate of drug court graduates of more than 30 percent in the first year after graduation. Weighted Recidivism Rate
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 31

FIGURE 7

RECIDIVISM RATES BY NUMBER OF DRUG COURTS (N=2021)

(ONE-YEAR RECIDIVISM)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30% +

Recidivism Rate

The story is somewhat different for the first two years after graduation. The mean recidivism rate for drug court graduates in the first two years after graduation is 27.5%. The pattern of

recidivism rates for the average drug court graduate at the court level is much more evenly distributed after two years. While a few courts still have very low average graduate recidivism

rates, most courts have an average rate that approximates the group mean. Number of Courts
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 32

FIGURE 8

RECIDIVISM RATES BY NUMBER OF DRUG COURTS (N=2021)

(TWO-YEAR RECIDIVISM)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30% +

Recidivism Rate

If these few drug courts with high recidivism rates had disproportionately large numbers

of graduates, than these courts would tend to lead to a finding of a higher overall mean. This

does not mean that the estimate for the overall recidivism rate for drug court graduates is incorrect. Regardless of how many or how few drug courts account for most of the drug court graduates, the mean recidivism rate for the population of drug court graduates is estimated at 16.4 percent for the first year post-graduation. These data suggest, however, that the mean one-year recidivism rate for the average court would tend to be less than the recidivism rate for the full

population of drug court graduates. A few drug courts have very high rates, and these drug

courts, as was shown in Figures 6 and 7, tend to have higher recidivism rates than other drug

courts. Since these drug courts have large numbers of graduates they create most of the overall

pool of graduates. Therefore, these data suggest that the average court has a lower recidivism

rate than does the overall pool of drug court graduates, for the first year post program entry.

Next, to assess the stability of recidivism rates over time, we performed non-parametric

survival analysis. This survival graph (Figure 5) presents the average amount of time from

graduation until an arrest occurs. It is used to answer hypotheses about when graduates are most Number of Courts
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 33

at-risk for recidivating. For example, it has often been suggested that the period immediately after graduation, when participants are first released from court oversight, is the most important

period as graduates as it is perceived as the time when graduates are at the greatest risk of committing new crimes. Figure 9, however, shows a fairly linear and stable downward trend, thereby

indicating stable recidivism rates over time (at least over a one year follow-up period). In other

words, for the 1-year follow up period, graduates that were arrested for a serious offense were

arrested at a fairly constant rate. Therefore, the risk of failing at any point in time is fairly stable.

The data in Figure 9 are the data for the un-weighted sample.

FIGURE 9

PROBABILITY OF A RE-ARREST IN 1ST YEAR AFTER GRADUATION

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of Days to Rearrest

Data presented in Figure 10 show the non-parametric survival analysis for the first two

years after graduation. These data also suggest that there is a linear trend in re-arrest likelihood,

and that there appear to be no periods during which a drug court graduation is substantially more,

or substantially less, at-risk for a new arrest. Percentage not re-arrested
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 34

FIGURE 10

PROBABILITY OF A RE-ARREST IN 1ST TWO YEARS AFTER GRADUATION

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

0 150 300 450 600

Number of Days To Re-Arrest

A multilevel analysis was conducted to test whether three individual level characteristics

(participant age, race and gender) and two court level characteristics (size of the court as measured by the annual number of drug court graduates, and severity of the drug use problems of

court participants) affected recidivism rates. The analysis examined four dependent variables:

 The likelihood a drug court graduate had any arrest (and charge) with a serious offense in the first year after graduation;

 The likelihood a drug court graduate had any arrest (and charge) with a serious offense in the first two years after graduation;

 The number of times a drug court graduate was arrested and charged with a serious

offense in the first year after graduation;

 The number of times a drug court graduate was arrested and charged with a serious

offense in the first two years after graduation.

Percentage not re-arrested
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 35

The analysis used a two-level model designed to correct for the nested structure of the data (individual drug court graduates nested within drug courts). The analysis was conducted in SAS 8.0,

using the PROC MIXED procedure and the GLIMMIX macro. The two binary dependent variables were modeled using a log link and a poisson error distribution (Table 10). The two count

dependent variables (counts of the numbers of arrests in the first year and first two years) were

modeled using a binomial error distribution (Table 11). A significance level was established

where α=0.10. While this significance level is higher than the alpha level specified in most literature, the approach taken here was a descriptive one, and was not designed as hypothesis testing.

TABLE 8

ESTIMATES OF INDIVIDUAL AND COURT EFFECTS ON

THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY ARREST (N=2021)

Individual One Year Two Years

Age

Under 24

0.45**

(0.19)

0.29*

(0.16)

24-30

0.19

(0.20)

0.17

(0.16)

30-36 -- --

36-42

0.12

(0.20)

-0.08

(0.16)

42+

0.05

(0.21)

-0.31 *

(0.17)

Race

Black

0.41***

(0.15)

0.44**

(0.13)

White

-0.08

(0.21)

0.04

(0.12)

Non-Black minority -- --

Gender

Female

-0.27*

(0.14)

-0.25**

(0.12)

Court

Annual number of graduates

0.00*

(0.00)

0.00*

(0.00)

*p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

The results in Table 8 support findings that appear in most drug court literature. Age was

negatively associated with recidivism risk in both periods, that is, older participants tended to

have lower rates of recidivism. More specifically, those drug court graduates under the age of 24

were significantly more likely to be re-arrested and charged with a serious offense than the median age cohort (30-36) which was defined as the reference group. Blacks were significantly
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 36

more likely to be re-arrested and charged with a serious offense than non-Black minorities.

Women were significantly less likely to be re-arrested and charged with a serious offense than

were men. In general, drug courts with larger annual graduating cohorts had significantly higher

re-arrest rates than smaller drug courts.

TABLE 9

ESTIMATES OF INDIVIDUAL AND COURT EFFECTS ON

THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS (N=2021)

Individual One Year Two Years

Age

Under 24

0.37*

(0.19)

0.36**

(0.14)

24-30

0.21

(0.20)

0.11

(0.15)

30-36

36-42

0.56***

(0.19)

0.16

(0.15)

42+

0.27

(0.21)

-0.26

(0.17)

Race

Black

0.21

(0.14)

0.13

(0.11)

White

-0.37*

(0.21)

-0.24

(0.16)

Non-Black minority

Gender

Female

-0.36**

(0.14)

-0.55***

(0.12)

Court

Annual number of graduates

0.00**

(0.00)

0.00

(0.00)

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

With respect to the number of re-arrests in Table 9, the results generally follow the results

from Table 8. The youngest cohort was significantly more likely to be re-arrested with a serious

offense more times than the reference group in both follow-up periods. Women were re-arrested

with a serious offense significantly fewer times in both follow-up periods. However, in terms of

the number of re-arrests, Blacks were not more likely to be re-arrested more times than nonBlack minorities with a serious offense. Whites were re-arrested significantly fewer time with

serious offenses than non-Black minorities in the first year after graduation. The size of the annual graduating drug court cohort was associated with significantly more arrests with a serious

offense only in the first year after graduation. Finally, it is interesting to note than the cohort of
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 37

graduates aged 36-42 were arrested with a serious offense significantly fewer times in the first

year after graduation.

Other models were run using data collected from the 1999 Adult Drug Court Survey conducted by the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse & Technical Assistance Project. Seventy-two of

95 drug courts were matched to this survey and included in this analysis. Six drug courts were

missing data on the primary drug used indicator, and were not included in this analysis. The total

weighted sample of drug court graduates included in this analysis was 1,056. Repeated models

did not converge, and no estimates could be generated from these model specifications.

4. LIMITATIONS

The goal of this project was to develop an estimate of the average recidivism rate for drug

court graduations. These estimates are therefore not intended to develop an estimate of the average recidivism rate of a drug court. A study with that goal would likely have employed a very

different sampling strategy, focusing on collecting data on a representative sample of drug

courts, rather than collecting data on a representative sample of drug court graduates, as was the

approach in this study. Therefore, it is important that these recidivism estimates be applied in the

appropriate context: as a benchmark for recidivism among drug court graduates, and not as a

benchmark for recidivism among drug courts.

Drug court graduates have many characteristics that differentiate them from other drug

court participants. Some of these differences can be identified at the time these individuals enter

a drug court; some of them can not. As a result, estimates of drug court graduates recidivism is

likely to be very different than would be the recidivism rates for all drug courts participants. Using these benchmark estimates as a standard with which to compare the recidivism rates of all

drug court participants is equally inappropriate. Just as a drug court evaluation that compares

graduates to failures is not making an appropriate comparison, comparing recidivism rates for

drug court graduates to other (sub)groups of drug court participants will lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Many factors contribute to these recidivism rates. Developing any estimate of the outcomes for a single group at a single point in time creates an opportunity for those data to be misused. In this case, it would be easy to use these estimates to conclude that drug courts work, or to

conclude that drug courts do not work. Neither conclusion can be drawn from these data. Without a comparison group drawn who are comparable to drug court graduates along multiple di-
Drug Court Recidivism Rates: National Estimates

Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute 38

mensions, no conclusions about how effective or ineffective drug courts are should be drawn

from these estimates.

5. FURTHER ANALYSIS

This analysis could be augmented in several ways that will provide the opportunity to

seek answers to several policy relevant questions.

Variation in Drug Court Type. The drug courts included in this study can be divided in

several different ways to test whether different drug court models are associated with differential

outcomes. For example, pre- and post- adjudicatory models are hypothesized to result in variations in leverage over clients. Drug courts may also be of varying intensity which can be instrumented by the program’s graduation rate.

Variation in Community Context (Direct). The drug courts in this study are situated in

distinct cities and hence the graduates are being released to different structural and socioeconomic environments. An important policy question is to assess the impacts that these characteristics may have on the recidivism rates of the graduates released therein.

Variation in Community Context (Indirect). The impacts of the characteristics of the

community may be indirect (mediated through drug court types and/or demographic characteristics). For example, the unemployment rate may be an important correlate of recidivism rates only

for males and not for females. Or, the poverty level may be an important correlate of recidivism

only under certain policy regimes (where drug courts with less intensive protocols may graduate

participants who are particularly at-risk given the relative disadvantages of their community).
i . 

APPENDIX A: 

SURVEY MATERIALS 
June 7,2002 

Memorandum 

TO: Past and Present Drug Courts Program Office Grant Recipients 

FR: Marilyn M. Roberts, Director, Drug Courts Program Office 

RE: Survey of Drug Courts to Produce a National Estimate of Drug Court Recidivism Rates 

I am writing to ask that you participate in an important study designed to provide 

estimates of recidivism among drug court graduates. As a DCPO grant recipient, your court has 

been selected to be part of a national sample of courts. As part of the study sample, you are being 

asked to provide a list of graduates during specific years with identifying information to be used 

to match to arrest records. 

The study is being conducted by Caliber Associates and their subcontractor, the Urban 

Institute, with funds from the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) through the National Institute 

of Justice. The data you provide will be protected under a data security plan approved by a 

certified Institutional Review Board and no data identifying individuals will be released by the 

research team. Results will not be presented for individual courts. 

I hope you will agree with me that a national recidivism estimate will benefit the entire 

drug court field. The study will take approximately six months to complete and the results will be 

available relatively soon to assist you in your efforts to demonstrate drug court effectiveness. For 

the study to succeed in drawing a nationally representative sample, all DCPO courts will need to 

remember their agreement to participate in national evaluation efforts. Caliber Associates will be 

contacting your drug court for basic information about your program graduates. I encourage you 

to make every effort to be responsive when contacted by Caliber Associates. 

Thank you in advance for your contribution to this important effort. It should not be long 

before you see the results of your participation. 
June 7,2002 

Honorable Judge: 

Over the next six months Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute will be conducting a 

study of drug court recidivism for the National Institute of Justice with funds from the Drug 

Court Program Office. The goal of this project is to generate estimates of recidivism for drug ' 

court graduates and for selected subgroups of graduates during the first (and subsequent) year(s) 

after graduation. As you are well aware, reported rates of recidivism from individual drug courts 

vary widely, and this has contributed to an ongoing debate over the effectiveness of drug courts. 

The estimates from this project will provide a benchmark for assessing the impact of drug courts 

and understanding how recidivism varies by drug court practices and by the types of individuals 

participating in different courts. 

The sampling plan calls for selecting drug courts that meet certain criteria and then 

selecting graduates from these courts. The sample includes all courts that received a drug court 

implementation, continuation or enhancement grant from the Drug Court Programs (DCPO) 

office, were in operation as of January, 1998, and had at least 40 graduates between January, 

1999 and June, 200 1, as certified by the General Accounting Offce and DCPO. Each of these 

courts is being asked to provide information on graduates to be used to collect recidivism data 

from the FBI's NCIC database. We will make every attempt to minimize the burden on your 

staff from this data collection effort. 

As a sampled court, we are asking you to provide information for the first [forty] drug 

court graduates, whose graduation date was on or after January 1, 1999, regardless of their entry 

date, and regardless of their subsequent disposition, even if that includes a return to your court at 

a later date. Using the attached form, please provide as much identifying information on each 

graduate as possible. The items requested include full name, date of birth, gender, race, social 

security number, place of birth and alias name(s) that will be used to match these individuals to 

FBI data. To enhance the accuracy of the match to NCIC records, we are asking that you provide 

the fingerprint number (a ten (1 0) two-digit alphanumeric code), and/or an FBI number 

(generally a nine digit alphanumeric code) if at all possible. The FBI number (and fingerprint 

data) will be available if your jurisdiction has previously requested a criminal history check from 

the FBI. When you complete the list, please provide a name and phone number of the person we 

can contact if any follow up questions should arise (at the top of page 1 of the list). Please fax the 

completed forms to (703) 279-4671 (this is a dedicated fax machine for this project and is housed 

in a secured office). If you would prefer to mail this back, please use the enclosed self-addressed 

envelope. 

As you may be aware, the effectiveness of drug courts has been subject to more intense 

scrutiny of late and the need for recidivism estimates is urgent. In order for this study to be 

completed in a timely manner, we ask that you complete the survey by July 8,2002. You can be 

assured that no data identifying individual graduates or courts will be released by the research 

team. Information collected for this research is protected under a data security plan approved by 

a certified Institutional Review Board. 
Wendy Townsend of Caliber Associates is directing the data collection. She can be 

reached at (703) 219-4329. A member of the Caliber team will be contacting you shortly to 

discuss the survey and answer any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact us if 

you have any questions or concerns about the attached survey. 

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this very important project. 

Wendy Townsend 

Caliber Associates 

CC: Marilyn Roberts 

[COURT COORDINATOR] 

John Roman 

The Urban Institute 

-. . 
'.g*:m . 

Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 1 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Drug Court Contact Person and Phone # 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- 11 

First, 'Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

I 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: __._I_- 

I1 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

I 

FBI# Fingerprint - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: --- I1 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last - 
“yy, *t 1 

Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 2 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

I 

Name:” Sex M F Race: DOB: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Cityistate or country if not USA Monthbear Monthidaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -_. - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: 006: --- 11 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Cityistate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Cityistate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
1 'I 

Court Name: 

6 :., E 

Fax to: (703) 279-4671 3 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: --- I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation / I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I_ - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

Firsf, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I1 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# 

Alias: : Alias: : 

Fingerprint #I - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: --- I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Month/daylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

FBI# Fingerprint #I I_ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
Court Name: 

."?% 2- 

Fax to: (703) 279-4671 4 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I1 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Cityktate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - - - -_. - _. - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I1 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaytyear 

I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Graduation I 

FBI# Fingerprint t# - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name. Last First. Middle initial or name. Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- II 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation / / 

Mon t hlyea r Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint #I - - - - - - - - - - - I_ - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
:. m&# &' 

Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 5 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

It Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: -_I_- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthly ear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint #t - _. -- - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

I 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I1 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - -- -- - - - - __ _. - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drugcourt: entry I 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - __ - - __ - - - - - __ - - .- - - - 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Graduation I 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
LqyJ ' . ~ 

Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 G 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name-: Sex M F Race: DOB: I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# 

Alias: : Alias: : 

--- 

Fingerprint - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I1 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drugcourt: entry I - Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - - - _. - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - 

10 characters, 2 digits - each 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: -I_- I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 8 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOE: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint - - -- - - - - - - - - - I_ - - _I - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- 11 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I I 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SW Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint #I - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 11 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name:. Sex M F Race: DOB: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation / I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint - - -- - - - - -_. - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- I/ 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

FBI# Fingerprint# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: I I' 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation / I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint #I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
Court Name: Fax to: (703) 279-4671 14 

Drug Court Graduates: First 40 after January 1,1999 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: --- 11 

- First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I / 

FBI# 

Alias: : Alias: : 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

Fingerprint # - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Extra spaces 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Cityktate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint ## - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

10 characters, 2 digits each - Alias: : Alias: : 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 

Name: Sex M F Race: DOB: I I 

Place of Birth SS# Drug court: entry I Graduation I I 

--- 

First, Middle initial or name, Last (circle one) Monthldaylyear 

Citylstate or country if not USA Monthlyear Monthldaylyear 

FBI# Fingerprint # - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alias: : Alias: : 

10 characters, 2 digits each 

First, Middle initial or name, Last First, Middle initial or name, Last 
APPENDIX B: 

DRUG COURTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY 
4 DRUG COURTS PA 

-Thirteenth Judicial 

Circuit Court Mobile 

Jefferson County District 

court Birmingham 

Superior Court of Pima 

County Tucson 

Maricopa County 

Superior Court of 

Arizona Phoenix 

Mt. Sanhedrin Municipal 

Uluah & Fort Bragg 

Court (Santa Maria) I SantaMaria 

Pasadena Municipal I 

u court I Pasadena 

I Los Anneles Municipal I 

court (Van NU~S) Van Nuys 

El Cajon Superior Court 

(EastCoun ) El Ca‘on 

Fairfield 

MunicipaVSuperior 

San Diego County 

Superior Court (Southern 

Faufield 

Cointy) 1 ChulaVista 

Redlands I 

MunicipaVSuperior 

court Redlands 

. San Diego Superior 

Court worth County) I Vista 

Riverside Superior Court I Riverside 

Sacramento Municipal 

Municipal and Superior 

Santa Rosa 

Butte County Superior 

LTICWATING IN STUDY 

Date 

State Tmplemented Graduates 

I 

Alabama 2/11 1993 

Alabama 1/1/1996 

Arizona 4/ 1 / 1 992 

California 1 8/1/1996 53 

California 31111 996 77 

California 5/1/1995 84 

7’ 

California 6/1/19b7 98 

California 8/1/1 997 120 

California 3/14/1997 144 

California i oil11 997 

California 41111 997 

California 1/1/1997 180 

California 912711 995 197 

California 5/1/1 996 213 < ,% 

California 3/1/1996 233 

California 6/1/1995 259 

California 3/1/1995 269 

California 6/1/1995 282 

California 11/1/1995 298 

California 7/31 1995 343 

California 9/1/1 995 348 
4 

.--? 

DRUC 

Court Name 

San Bernadino CountySuperior Court (Central) 

Los Angeles Municipal 

Court (Downtown) 

Santa Clara County 

Municipal and Superior 

court 

Alameda County 

Superior Court (PrePlealFelony, Oakland) 

San Diego County 

Supziiu Court (Central 

Division) 

Santa Barbara Superior 

Bridgeport Superior 

court 

Sussex County Superior 

court 

New Castle County 

Superior Court 

Superior Court of D.C. 

Fourteenth Judicial 

District Court 

Volusia County Adult 

Drug Court 

Twelfth Judicial Circuit 

court 

Sixteenth Judicial Circuit 

court 

First Judicial Circuit 

court 

Fourth Judicial Circuit 

court ' 

Eleventh Judicial Circuit 

court 

Seventeenth Judicial 

Circuit Court 

Thirteenth Judicial 

Circuit Court, Tampa 

Pretrial Intervention 

Fulton County Superior .- 

court 

First Circuit Court 

Twenty-First Judicial 

Circuit Court Kankakee 

Countv 

Sixth Judicial Circuit 

court 

Seventeenth Judicial 

Cucuit Court 

COURTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY (CONT.) 

Date 

City State Implemented -Graduates 

San Bernardino California 11/1/1994 506 

Los Angeles California 5/20/ 1994 516 

San Jose California 9/1/1995 617 

Oakland California 1/ 111 99 1 2,724 

San Diego California 3/1/1997 -- 

Santa Barbara California 3/1/1995 -- 

Bridgeport Connecticut 11/1/1997 60 

Georgetown Delaware 5/1/1996 758 

Wilmington Delaware 411 11994 908 

Washington District of Columbia 12/1/1993 832 

Florida 1/1/1997 

71111 997 

Sarasota Florida 1 /1/1997 148 

Florida 1 O/ 1 / 1 993 

Pensacola Florida 101 111 993 

Jacksonville Florida 9/1/1994 

Miami Florida 9/1/1989 6308 

Fort Lauderdale Florida 7/1/1991 2,724 

Tampa Florida 1 / 1 / 1 994 -- 

Georgia 3/1/1997 125 

Honolulu Hawaii 12/1/1995 187 

Atlanta 

Kankakee I Illinois I 2/1/1997 50 I 

.Markham Illinois 3/1/1995 113 

Rockford I Illinois I 10/1/1996 1 203 
is 

District Court 

District Court 

I Twenty-Second Judicial 1 District Court 

Sixteenth Judicial 

District Court 

I Twenty-Fourth Judicial 

Franklin County District 

I===- Twenty-Second Judicial 

court 

Municipal Court of Santa 

Fe 

It 

Niagara Falls City Drug 

Suffolk County District 

court 

Amherst Town Court 

Rochester City Drug 

Brooklyn Treatment 

COURTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY (Corn.) 

Date 

City state Implemented . Graduates 

Terre Haute 1 Indiana I 9/1/1996 I 95 

Gary I Indiana I 9/16/1997 I 197 

Baton Rouge Louisiana 1/1/1998 48 

New Iberia Louisiana 1/1/1998 88 

Covington Louisiana 1/ 111 998 111 

Franklin Louisiana 1/1/1997 133 

New Orleans Louisiana 1/1/1998 212 

Gretna Louisiana 8/1/1997 197 

Baltimore Maryland 3/1/1994 755 

Greenfieldorange Massachusetts I/ 111 997 59 

Kalamazoo Michigan 2/ 1 11 992 254 

Minneapolis Minnesota 1/1/1997 1423 

St. Louis Missouri 4/1/1 997 278 

Kansas City Missouri 10/1/1993 1717 

Omaha Nebraska 41 111 997 245 

Las Vegas Nevada 10/1/ 1992 1859 

Santa Fe New Mexico 41111 996 113 

Las Cruces New Mexico 2/1/1997 277 

I I Albuquerque 9/1/1 995 -- I NewMexico 

Ithaca 1 New York 1/1/1998 50 

Syracuse I NewYork I 1/1/1997 I 109 

Lackawanna I NewYork 1/1/1996 119 

Buffalo I NewYork I 12/1/1995 I 164 

Niagara Falls New York 1/1/1998 207 

Central Islip New York 9/94 996 242 

Amherst New York 9/9/1996 308 

Rochester New York 1 /30/1995 I 484 

Brooklyn New York 6/1/1996 613 
6 

.. -. 

DRUG 

Court Name 

Twenty-First District 

court 

Wake County Superior 

court 

Mecklenburg County 

District Court 

Montgomery County 

Court of Common Pleas 

Akron Municipal Court 

Butler County Court of 

Common Pleas 

Payne County District 

court 

Twenty-Fourth District 

court 

Klamath Falls Circuit 

court 

Douglas County Circuit 

court 

Josephine County Circuit 

court 

Lane County Circuit 

court 

Multnomah County 

Circuit Court (STOP 

Drug Court) 

Chester County Court of 

Common Pleas 

First Judicial District of 

Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia Municipal 

court 

District Court 

Lexington County 

Circuit Court 

Davidson County 

District Court 

Dallas County District 

court 

Salt Lake County Felony 

Drug Court 

Twenty-Third Judicial 

Drug Treatment Court 

Thurston County 

Superior Court 

Spokane County Adult 

Felony Superior Drug 

court 

King County Superior 

court. 

COURTS PARTI( 

city 

Winston Salem 

Raleigh 

Charlotte 

Dayton 

Akron 

Hamlton 

Stillwater 

BristowISapulpa 

Klamath Falls 

Roseburg 

Grants Pass 

, Eugene 

Portland 

i West Chester 

1 Lexington 

I Dallas 

Salt Lake City 

I Roanoke 

i Olympia 

. Spokane 

i 

Seattle 

!LPATING IN STUDY (CON".) 

Date 

State Implemented Graduates 

North Carolina 61111 996 40 

North Carolina 5/1/1996 43 

North Carolina 2/1/1995 175 

ohlo 1/1/1996 I 274 

Ohio I 9/1/1995 392 

Ohio 911 11 996 

Oklahoma 5/1/1995 

Oklahoma 6/1/1996 

Oregon 31111 996 63 

Oregon 1/1/1996 123 

Oregon 3/1/1996 182 

Oregon 911 11 994 383 

Oregon 81111 991 2724 

Pennsylvania 10/1/1997 174 

I 

Pennsvlvania 1/1/1997 263 

Puerto Rico I 4/1/1996 I 49 

l South Carolina 7/25/1996 68 

1 Tennessee 5/1/1997 106 

Texas 11/1/1997 139 

Utah 611 511996 264 I 

I 

Virginia I 9/1/1995 I 211 

Washington 1/1/1998 46 

Washington 111 11 996 97 

Washington . 1 0/1/1994 386 
DRUG COURTS PARTI( 

Court Name City 

Twenty-First District 

court Wmston Salem 

Wake County Superior 

Court Raleigh 

Mecklenburg County 

District Cowl Charlotte 

Montgomery County 

Court of Conmon Pleas Dayton 

Akron Murucipa lCourt Akron 

Butler County Court of 

Common Pleas Hamilton 

Fayne Coung Gistrict 

court Stillwater 

Twenty-Fourth District 

court BristowISapulpa 

Klamath Falls Circuit 

court Klamath Falls 

Douglas County Circuit 

court Rosebure " 

Josephme County Circuit 

Court Grants Pass 

Lane County Circuit 

court Eugene 

Mulmomah County 

Circuit Court (STOP 

Drug Court) Portland 

Chester Cow Court of 

Common Pleas West Chester 

First Judicial District of 

Philadelphia Municipal 

court Philadelphia 

District Cow San Juan 

Lexington County 

Circuit Court Lexineton 

Pennsylvania, 

Davidson Cwnty 

District Court Nashville 

Dallas County District 

court Dallas 

Salt Lake County Felony 

Drug Court Salt Lake City 

Twenty-Third Judicial 

Drug Treabneot Court Roanoke 

Thurston Couaty 

SuDerior Comt I OlvmDia 

Spokane County Adult 

Felony Supaior Drug 

King County Superior 

Seattle 

WATING IN STUDY (CONT.) 

Date 

State Tmplementeb Graduates 

North Carolina 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 1 0/1/1997 174 

Pennsylvania 1/1/1997 263 

Puerto Rico 4/1/1996 49 

South Carolina 7/25/1996 68 

Tennessee 5/1/1997 106 

Texas 11/1/1997 139 

Utah 6/15/1996 264 

Virginia 9/1/1995 211 

Washington 1/1/1998 46 

1/1/1 996 

Washington 1 O/ 1/1994 
~ DRUG COURTS PARTICIPATING JN STUDY (CONT.) 

Circuit Court of Dane 

County Madison Wisconsin 6/11 1996 157 

Uinta County Drug Court Evanston Wyoming 11/1/1997 71 
_L .; -. . 

APPENDIX C: 

CRIMINAL HISTORY FILE 

OFFENSES EXCLUDED FROM THE FBI 
.. 

%: 

I. 

OFFENSES EXCLUDED PROM THE FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY FILE 

Abusive Language 

Alms Solicitation 

Amnesia 

Begging 

Breach of Peace 

Card Game Playing 

Careless or Reckless Driving (as long as driving 

under influence of drugs or liquor, hit and run, 

vehicular manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter 

NOT involved). 

Civil Commitment 

Criminal Registration 

Curfew Violation 

Detention Only 

Detoxification 

Dice Game Playing 

Disregarding Traffic Signals 

Disturbance 

Disturbing Public Worship 

Disturbing the Peace 

Dog Laws 

Drag Racing 

Driving while License Suspended or Revoked 

Drunk (not traffic charges) 

Dnrnk in or about Auto 

Drunk in Public Restroom or Restaurant 

Drunk on Highway 

Ex-Con Registration 

Failure to Give Good Account 

Failure to Identify 

Failure to Operate in a Prudent Manner (auto) 

Failure to Register in Hotel or Register in Hotel 

with Someone Other than Husband or Wife 

Failure to Yield for Emergency Vehicle, Blue Light, 

or Siren 

False Fire Alarm 

Felony Registration 

Fireworks 

Fishing Without a License 

Mandatory Appearance 

Material Witness 

Medical Treatment 

Mental 

Minor in Bar 

Minor in Consumption 

Minor in Gambling House 

Minor in Alcohol Possession 

Misrepresenting Age (Liquor) 

Mooching 

Narcotics Registration 

Negligent Driving 

No Driver's License (Note: Operating Auto with 

Altered License Considered as Serious Charge) 

No Inspection Sticker or Expired Sticker 

No Visible Means 

Obstructing Trafic 

Operating Auto Without License 

Panhandling 

Parking Warrants 

Patient (Note: Unless print pertains to MAJOR 

Charge, e.g., murder, rape, etc.) 

Peace Bond 

Peace Warrant 

Possession of Lottery Tickets, Policy Slips, or 

Numbers 

Possession of Open Bottle or Container 

Probation or Parole Check 

Profane Language 

Public Intoxication 

Public Nuisance 

Purchasing Liquor as a Minor 

Rebooked on Suspicion 

Runaway 

Safekeeping, Skusm, Sak 

Sleeper 

Sleeping in a Subway 

Sleeoer 
OFFENSES EXCLUDED FROM THE FBI CRII\IINAL HISTORY FILE (CON”.) 

:or Identification Purposes 

3eneral Principles 

3oing Through a Red Light 

Hitchhiking 

illegal Consumption of Beer 

[Ilegal Possession of Beer 

inadequate Brakes 

[nquiry (unaccompanied by criterion charge) 

Interview 

Intoxication 

Investigation (unaccompanied by criterion charge) 

Investigation Mental 

Jaywalking 

Juvenile Charge** 

Juvenile Commitment** 

Juvenile Offender** 

Late Hours 

Loafer 

Lodger 

Loitering 

Lottery Playing 

Lunacy (unless pertains to a major charge) 

Speeding 

State Work Furlough 

Suspect 

Suspicion (unaccompanied by a criterion charge) 

Suspicious Person 

Traffic Violations (minor traffic, vehicle, and 

licensing charges) 

Train-riding (hobo) 

Tramp 

Transient 

Truancy 

Trusty Commitment 

Urinating in Public 

Uninsured Motor Vehicle 

Unlawful Blood Alcohol Content or Count (alone 

only-NOT with driving charges) 

Vagabond or Rogue 

Vagrancy 

Venereal Control Registration 

Visiting a Common Nuisance 

Voluntary Commitment 

Walking on Highway 

Wayward 

* This list is not all inclusive-other charges similar in nature may not appear in the list. 

** Juvenile Arrests (charge) will be accepted as long as the offense for which the juvenile is charged or 

detained is clearly stated, e.g., “JUVENILE ARREST-BURGLARY.’’ 

Note: A state can make an offense serious based on Darticular statues.