Do Drugs. Do Time: An Evaluation of the Maricopa County Demand Reduction Program.


MENU TITLE: Do Drugs. Do Time
Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: October 1994
13 pages
22,167 bytes

NCJ 149016

Do Drugs. Do Time:
An Evaluation of the Maricopa County
Demand Reduction Program

by John R. Hepburn, Ph.D., C. Wayne Johnston, and
Scott Rogers
---------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Evaluation Bulletin:
Maricopa County, Arizona, adopted a new approach to
reducing use of illegal drugs, which targeted casual
users of marijuana as well as regular users of potent 
drugs. The research study assessed the programs's 
first 2 years of operation, 1989-1991.

Key issues: A consortium of 26 municipal, county, 
State, and Federal law enforcement agencies established 
the Maricopa County Demand Reduction Program to enforce 
zero tolerance for use of illegal drugs and hold all 
users accountable for their actions. The program's 
slogan, "Do drugs. Do time." alerts users to the risk 
of sanctions under Arizona's laws whre possession of 
an illegal drug is a felony.

Since the program's aim is to reduce demand, it offers 
diversion to treatment for offenders who are drug 
users with no prior felony criminal history. Ineligible 
offenders and those elegible offenders who fail to 
complete the 6- to 12-month treatment program are 
prosecuted.

The program requires payment of fines and treatment 
costs. Revenues generated are contributed to the 
county's general fund.

Major findings. The researachers found that the program
achieved its two principal objectives during its first 
24 months of operation.

o Creating community wide awareness of the severity of
the drug problem and the need to hold all users
accountable.

o Increasing and coordinating law enforcement activities in
combination with increased prosecutions or participation
in drug treatment programs.

These objectives were acheived by:

o A major public education campaign, which depended entirely
on public/private effort for funds, equipment,
and materials.

o High profile arrest operations of a task force
of representatives of all participating agencies.

o Retention within the criminal justice system of
drug cases that might otherwise have been dismissed.

o Diversion of a large number of drug-use offenders
into treatment, most at the prefiling stage.

Target audience: Policymakers, local government officials
law enforcement administrators, treatment professionals,
and community leaders.

----------------------------------
-----------------------------

"Do drugs. Do time." That's the warning given by a
program in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, that has
put into practice a new approach to reducing use
of illegal drugs--arresting casual users as a
deterrent to others and as a means of getting them
into counseling and treatment. The Maricopa County
Demand Reduction Program was evaluated under a
National Institute of Justice grant during its
first 24 months of operation (March 1989 to
February 1991). This Evaluation Bulletin outlines
the program and the evaluation study.

A call for user accountability

Early efforts to reduce the demand for drugs
emphasized education, prevention, and treatment,
especially among young people. More recently, law
enforcement and punishment--which had been
associated only with efforts to reduce supply--
became a part of the strategy to reduce demand.
With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988, a national policy of "user accountability"
was established, and law enforcement came into use
as a means of dealing with users of marijuana as
well as more potent drugs. Even casual drug use
became viewed as an integral and contributing part
of the national drug problem. A broad-based range
of social and legal sanctions were to be used to
hold all drug users accountable for their
behavior. Viewed in this light, drug users pose a
criminal justice problem because they provide the
customer base for illegal drug sales. Drug users
are in effect co-conspirators, and therefore legal
remedies should be applied to both the supply and
demand sides of the conspiracy.

On the basis of this concept, a consortium of 26
municipal, county, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies initiated the Maricopa County
Demand Reduction Program in March 1989. The
consortium immediately captured the national
spotlight with the program's emphasis on zero
tolerance and user accountability. Legislators,
prosecutors, and police administrators
visited Phoenix to see the program in
operation.

The program's two principal objectives were:

o    To create a communitywide awareness of the
severity of the drug problem--to develop a moral
consensus--and to alert drug users to the
increased risk of legal sanctions. Thus the
slogan, "Do drugs. Do time."

o    To increase and coordinate law enforcement
activities, in combination with either full
prosecution or diversion to treatment in lieu of
prosecution, to reduce the demand for drugs.

The primary purpose of the NIJ study of the
Maricopa County Demand Reduction Program was to
determine how well the program achieved these
objectives during its first 2 years. These were
positive findings:

o    The "Do drugs. Do time." campaign received
broad and sustained acceptance in the community as
a public education and general deterrence program.

o    The program met its objective of making
illegal drug users accountable by retaining within
the criminal justice system drug cases that might
otherwise have been dismissed.

o    The Demand Reduction Program succeeded in
diverting a large number of drug-use offenders
into treatment, the vast majority at the prefiling
stage.

o    The program generated revenue for the
Maricopa County General Fund through booking fees
and additional fees paid by arrestees who chose
treatment as an alternative to prosecution.

o    During the study period, offenders who
completed the TASC (Treatment Assessment Screening
Center) program had the lowest rates of rearrest
for a new charge of any offender category. 

Features of the Demand
Reduction Program

Five general features characterize this program.
It is first of all a comprehensive program that
integrates education, law enforcement, and
treatment into a unified campaign against drug
use.

Second, there is participation by all law
enforcement agencies, thereby ensuring a singular
voice, a unified program plan, and a pool of
personnel, equipment, information, and other
resources designed specifically for this program.
The level of involvement, however, varies
considerably among the many participating
agencies.

Third, the program enjoys a high level of
community support. Public opinion favors strong
legal sanctions against drug users, but also
supports diversion to treatment for first-time
offenders. Local media provide support by
extensive news coverage and favorable editorials.

The "Do drugs. Do time." campaign depends on a
public/private partnership, which has contributed
more than $500,000 in time, equipment, and
materials to produce and distribute "Do Drugs. Do
Time." posters and television announcements.
Placards on city buses, billboards (see example of
poster, page 2) above major streets and highways,
and televised public service announcements
proclaim that persons who "do drugs" can expect to
"do time." This message is directed to
stereo-typical casual or recreational users: young
white adults with a high level of education and a
comfortable style of living.

Fourth, the program is aided by tough laws that
provide latitude to the prosecutor and increase
the likelihood that offenders will accept
diversion to the treatment program. In Arizona
possession of even the smallest amount of an
illegal drug is a felony. 

Finally, the program generates revenues. Every
person who enters the diversionary treatment
program pays $50 for jail processing, $500 to
$1,200 (depending on type of charge) to the
Arizona Drug Enforcement Fund, and $135 to $1,800
(depending on the program) for the treatment
itself, with a sliding fee schedule for lower
income and indigent offenders.

How the program works

A step-by-step process that is triggered 
when a user is arrested.
The user accountability program has four
components. The first two consist of heightened
law enforcement efforts leading to arrest, one
component under the direction of a multiagency
task force and the other directed by uniformed
patrol officers. The third component is increased
prosecution, and the fourth is diversion to
treatment.

The task force approach. In addition to providing
visibility for the program, the consortium plays
an integral part in its operation. The consortium
formed a task force made up of 1 or more
representatives of each of the 26 participating
agencies, with the size made more manageable by
dividing the county and its many agencies into 3
regions: East, Central, and West. Each region has
its own task force commander, who works with the
task force coordinator in obtaining the necessary
assistance in personnel and equipment to carry out
specific operations in their respective areas.

The task force coordinates and directs two types
of operations. The "reverse sting" is used where
street drug sales take place. Drug sellers are
arrested and replaced by undercover officers;
anyone attempting to buy drugs from these
undercover officers is arrested. The second
operation targets known sites of heavy public drug
use, such as nightclub parking lots, rock
concerts, and recreational areas, for police
surveillance and arrests. In both cases, the
operations have been infrequent and irregular, but
their high local visibility and media coverage
have publicly reinforced the "Do drugs. Do time."
message.

Prosecution or diversion to treatment. The
consequences of arrest results in different
options. Under the policy of zero tolerance, the
County Attorney's office assures the law
enforcement community that it will prosecute all
offenders who do not qualify for, accept, or
successfully complete the diversion program.

At a minimum, persons arrested for drug use are
expected to spend a few hours in the county jail
while they are booked and awaiting an initial
hearing. It is hoped that the prospect of arrest,
formal booking, and short confinement in a holding
cell will be a sufficient sanction to deter many
of the middle-class casual users targeted by this
program.

Qualifications to enter the drug treatment program
vary somewhat depending on the drug possessed, but
the general purpose is to offer diversion only to
casual users with no prior felony criminal
history. Arrestees who are diverted to the
treatment program can be seen as "doing time"
during the 6 to 12 months they are in the
outpatient treatment program. 

Treatment program operations. The Maricopa County
Attorney/TASC Drug Diversion Program is a
community-based treatment strategy designed to
reduce subsequent drug use. Those who enter it
must agree to meet all program conditions
including random urinalysis monitoring. 

The program incorporates four drug-specific
treatment programs, which vary in duration,
objectives, and methods. But all involve some
combination of random urine testing and an
educational seminar, and all but the program for
marijuana possession involve some degree of
individual or group counseling. Those who enter
the program must attend all required seminars,
lectures, and counseling sessions.

In addition to meeting all requirements of the
diversion program, participants must pay in full
all fees assessed them. Each offender booked and
held at the county jail must pay a jailhouse
processing fee of $50. The offender must also pay
an Arizona Drug Enforcement Fund fee, which varies
by drug type from $500 for possession of marijuana
to $1,200 for possession of cocaine. The offender
is also assessed a fee equal to the costs of the
treatment program; the fee ranges from $135 for
the 90-day possession of marijuana program to more
than $1,600 for 12-month programs for possession
of either cocaine or illegal prescription drugs. A
sliding schedule of fees is used for lower income
offenders, and a total waiver of all fees is
available for indigent cases. The payment of fees
may be spread over 24 months.


Further, all program participants, including those
charged with possession of marijuana, must provide
a written statement of facts admitting the instant
offense and agreeing that this statement would be
admissible in court if they fail to complete the
treatment program.1 Ineligible offenders and those
eligible offenders who fail to complete the
treatment program are prosecuted.2

Evaluation findings

The findings reported in this Evaluation Bulletin
focus primarily on the implementation of the
program and on the program's effects on such
issues as net widening and recidivism.

Program implementation and support. The survey of
1,200 patrol officers found the majority aware of
the program, and many indicated they had increased
their own enforcement efforts. An even larger
number felt that the department was making a
greater effort in enforcing drug use laws. The
survey findings indicated that many officers knew
little about the program. It appears that
uniformed officers would benefit from periodic
information and training sessions regarding the
program and from systematic updates on its
operations and on the outcomes of cases.

Task force operations. The task force played a
small but highly visible role in the program. It
conducted 38 operations, nearly evenly divided
between reverse stings and sweeps, producing a
total of 730 arrests during the first 2 years.
"Attempt to possess a narcotic drug" was the most
frequently cited charge, accounting for 41 percent
of the task force cases. Possession of marijuana
was also common, representing 32 percent of the
cases. 

If the value of task force operations were based
simply on the number of persons arrested and
either prosecuted or diverted to treatment, the
730 arrests could not justify the task force's
very high costs in time, resources, and personnel.
But the value of the task force resides in its
ability, especially when aided by local electronic
and print media, to provide the requisite
high-profile activities designed to alert the
public that drug users are being arrested.
Occurring at a rate of more than one a month,
these operations are sufficiently frequent and
dispersed around the county to achieve their
intended purpose. In sum, task force operations
are the visible presence of the "Do drugs. Do time."
campaign.

Net widening. The program served to "widen the
net" of the criminal justice system. Although
there was a decrease in the percentage of cases
filed for prosecution at submission, there was
also a decrease in the percentage of cases
dismissed at submission, suggesting that many
diverted cases would not have been retained in the
system were it not for the commitment to zero
tolerance. That is, had there been no program,
some cases that were diverted to treatment
seemingly would have been dismissed entirely. The
inclusion of these cases widens the net in terms
of both the number and types of offenders.

Prosecutors basically make two decisions: one, the
initial decision that the case is prosecutable;
that is, that the strength of the case warrants it
to be accepted for prosecution rather than be
rejected and returned to the submitting agency.
The second decision is whether the case is or is
not eligible for deferred prosecution pending
successful completion of the treatment program.
Persons referred to the community-based drug
treatment program have tended to be young, white,
male first offenders charged with a single count
of possession of marijuana or cocaine. 

The outcomes of these decisions show that prosecutors 
declined to prosecute fewer than one-fifth of the cases. 

It is important to note that although nearly 73
percent of prosecutable cases were deemed eligible
for diversion to treatment, only 35 percent of
those eligible accepted the initial offer. This
means that only 1,452 (or about 25 percent) of the
5,737 prosecutable offenders were both eligible
for and accepted the offer of treatment.

Relatively few people actually refused the
treatment option. Rather, they simply failed to
respond to the letters of information about the
diversion program sent by the County Attorney,
either because they did not receive the letters or
because they ignored or refused to take delivery
of them. Nonresponse meant that the case was filed
and a warrant issued.

A small percentage (10 percent) of this group were
later diverted to treatment after being arrested
under the warrants that were issued.

Despite this indication that more offenders could
have entered the treatment program than actually
did, the Demand Reduction Program has succeeded in
diverting a large number of drug-use offenders
into treatment, the vast majority at the prefiling
stage.

Of those who entered the treatment program at this
initial stage, three out of four successfully
completed the program. This ratio is related to
the type of drug used. Marijuana users were
significantly more likely to be diverted to
treatment, to enter treatment when eligible, and
to complete the program they entered than other
drug users, especially users of cocaine. This
result may be influenced by two factors. One has
to do with the different effects of marijuana and
cocaine on users' ability to stay drug-free and to
adhere to the rules and regimen of treatment. The
second factor relates to differences in the
marijuana and cocaine treatment programs
themselves. The marijuana program is less
expensive and of shorter duration than programs
for other drugs, making it a more attractive
alternative to prosecution and an easier program
to complete successfully.

Recidivism. Recidivism is defined as any new
charge submitted to the County Attorney's office
after the initial offense that first brought the
offender to the attention of the Demand Reduction
Program. Of the 7,012 offenders referred to the
County Attorney's review, approximately one out of
five were re-arrested during the period of
observation; of these, 44 percent were charged
with a drug offense, 29 percent with a property
offense, and 12 percent with a crime against a
person. The mean length of time between entry into
the Demand Reduction Program and recidivism was
177 days, or nearly 6 months.

Recidivism rates were different for persons who
accepted and persons who refused the treatment
option. Of the offenders deemed eligible by the
County Attorney's Office for diversion to
treatment between March 1989 and March 1990, the
following committed another crime before May 1,
1991:

o    26 percent of those who did not respond to
the offer of treatment.

o    18 percent of those who refused
treatment.

o    11 percent of those who entered
treatment.

Further, the evaluation results indicate that
defendants who choose to enter treatment,
especially those who then complete the treatment
program, have a significantly slower return to
recidivism than those eligible defendants who do
not enter treatment.

These findings may be due to the success of the
treatment program, or they may result from the
offenders' self-selection into the program. That
is, the same reasons that motivated persons to
enter and succeed in treatment may have been the
reasons that motivated them to cease future
criminal activities. It is clear, however, that
entering the program and completing treatment were
significant indicators of differential lengths of
time to recidivism. 

Generation of funds for treatment. The Demand
Reduction Program has resulted in the flow of
substantial funds to the Maricopa County General
Fund, in addition to the fees paid for the
treatment program itself. While the personnel and
resource costs of the program are not known, it is
known that $39,342 was collected in jailhouse
processing fees and $850,411 in the Arizona Drug
Enforcement Fund during the first 2 years of the
program. These revenues were independent of the
fees assessed to cover the costs of the users'
participation in treatment.

Conclusion

In its first 2 years of operation, the Maricopa
County Demand Reduction Program resulted in
increased use of treatment as an option to either
a case turndown or filing of charges. Cases that
would have been actively prosecuted previously
continue to be actively prosecuted within the
program. Due to the net widening of the "zero
tolerance" policy, those cases that would have
been rejected for prosecution previously are now
accepted into the program and diverted to
treatment.

Comparisons of those who are eligible for
treatment illustrate that exposure to the TASC
treatment significantly prolongs the time to
recidivism.
-------------

The authors are with Arizona State University.
John R. Hepburn, Ph.D., is a professor in the
School of Justice Studies; C. Wayne Johnston is a
research analyst; and Scott Rogers is a computer
specialist. Contributions to this report were also
made by Celesta Albonetti, Ph.D., Texas A&M
University, and Scott Decker, Ph.D., University of
Missouri-St. Louis. 

The evaluation is based on data obtained by
the Arizona Institute for Criminal Justice under
NIJ grant 89-DD-CX-0055. Findings and
conclusions reported here are those of the
researchers and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

For more information on the Maricopa County Demand
Reduction Program, or for a copy of the
implementation manual, contact the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office, 602-506-7799.

The full report of this evaluation, The Maricopa
County Demand Reduction Program: An Evaluation
Report, can be obtained for a fee from the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box
6000, Rockville, MD 20850 (telephone 800-851-
3420). Ask for NCJ 138225. 

The data sets are available from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research (ICPSR), University of Michigan.
Call Christopher Dunn at 800-999-0960 or 313-763-
5010.

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assist-ance, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.


                                                

Evaluation methodology 

As noted, the objectives of the Maricopa County
Demand Reduction Program are to alert potential
drug users to their risk of arrest and to increase
and coordinate law enforcement, prosecution, and
treatment activities to reduce the demand for
drugs. NIJ's evaluation looked for answers to
these questions: Was the program implemented as
designed? Did the program conform to the standards
established at the outset? Did decisions to defer
prosecution pending treatment adhere to stated
eligibility criteria? Did the program result in
significant changes in arrests, bookings, and
prosecutions?

The evaluation consisted of the following
activities:

o    A two-wave survey of nearly 1,200 uniformed
patrol officers throughout the county in March
1990 and March 1991 to assess the level of
officers' knowledge of the program, support for
its goals, and behavior consistent with those
goals.

o    A study of 7,012 persons against whom
criminal charges were submitted and reviewed by
the County Attorney during the Demand Reduction
Program's first 24 months, from March 1989 through
February 1991. The purpose was to study the flow
of cases and their outcomes.

o    A time-series analysis of aggregated data to
discover changes in arrest and prosecution
practices over time that could be attributed to
the program.