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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: A Detailed Cost Analysis in a Mature

Drug Court Setting: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of

the Multnomah County Drug Court

Author(s): Shannon Carey, Ph.D. ; Michael Finigan, Ph.D.

Document No.: 203558

Date Received: January 2004

Award Number: 2000-DC-VX-K004

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.
www.npcresearch.com 

A Detailed Cost Analysis in a Mature 

Drug Court Setting: 

A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the 

Multnomah County Drug Court

Prepared for: 

Janice Munsterman 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

National Institute of Justice 

810 Seventh Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20531

Prepared by: 

Shannon Carey, Ph.D. 

Michael Finigan, Ph.D. 

NPC Research, Inc. 

5200 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 420 

Portland, OR 97239-3857 

(503) 243-2436 

Fax: (503) 243-2454 

E-mail: carey@npcresearch.com 

July 2003
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Acknowledgements 

This report was made possible through the cooperation and support of local criminal justice and 

substance abuse treatment agencies. NPC Research would like to offer our deepest appreciation 

to: 

• Valerie Moore, Craig Willadsen, Sharon Loeffler, Phoebe Burns, Roselee Jaffe and all the 

staff at InAct for their open and supportive attitude toward research and for aiding us 

throughout the study, giving freely of their time in spite of heavy workloads and budget 

crises. 

• Judge Harl Haas, Judge Douglas Beckman, Judge Edward Jones at the Multnomah County 

Courthouse for supporting this study, being available for questions and graciously allowing 

us into their court rooms. 

• Mike Schrunk and John Kavorinos at the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office; 

Kathy Erwin and Joyce Griffin at the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department; Ray Stout 

and Steve Beedle at the Portland Police Bureau; Nora Goya at the OADAP; David Wells at 

the Oregon State Probation Office and Jim Hennings, Shawn Neault, Chris Howard, Lynn 

Holguin, Rebecca Perin and other staff at the Metropolitan Public Defender’s Office for 

answering our constant questions and providing us with reams of data. 

Finally, we would like to thank the staff at NPC Research for their quality work on this study. 

• Dave Crumpton for introducing us to the TCA approach and for performing many cost 

calculations. 

• Chris Heiser, Becky Roth, Chris Neukom and Mark Waller for tracking drug court 

participants at sites throughout the community, entering data and sitting for many hours in 

the courtroom. 

• Jennifer Aborn for providing guidance on the functioning of the local court system, 

coordinating the data collection, designing the chart review database and conducting a very 

large number of chart reviews. 

• Lisa Lucas for coordinating the project and ensuring the happiness of project staff. 

• Teresa Young, Jodi Brekhus, Jerod Tarte and Lisa Lucas for performing many hours of data 

cleaning and analyses.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

ABSTRACT 

Assessing the costs of drug court in relation to its benefits has become an important issue for 

policy makers as budgets become tight and the perceived costliness of drug court implementation 

is weighed. Past cost-benefit studies have often relied on proxy estimates, client self-reports 

and/or non-local data to provide estimates of the cost advantages of drug courts. This is less than 

helpful to policy makers particularly at the local level who were trying to understand both the 

actual investment into drug court and the real local cost savings. In addition, researchers need to 

understand how accurate some of the less intensive methods of collecting these data are 

compared to more exact, but more resource intensive methods. 

This study is an intensive examination of investment costs and benefits resulting from the 

operation of a single court in Multnomah County, Oregon. The study was designed to provide an 

extensive level of detail on the use of local publicly-funded resources by both a sample of drug 

court clients and a sample of drug court eligible clients that received “business as usual” 

services. Offenders in both groups were tracked over a two year period in their use of court, 

district attorney, public defender, law enforcement, correctional and probation services. Data 

were collected in a manner that allowed costs and benefit to be assessed overall and agency-byagency, as well as to allow for an assessment of the value of less intensive approaches in 

providing similar estimates. The study used a Transactional Cost model that examines complex 

multiple agency contributions to client transactions with the system, and adds indirect institution 

costs to the model, as well. 

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that drug courts can be a cost effective use of 

taxpayer resources. In this court, the total investment cost per client of the drug court was 

actually less (by $1,441.52) than the investment cost per client of the “business as usual” 

process. The data also demonstrated that money is saved in outcome costs ($2328.89 per 

participant), although this savings is not spread equally among the agencies. Total cost savings 

over a 30-month period (including victimization costs) averaged $5071.57 per drug court 

participant. Data presented on the utility of less intensive means of gathering costs data showed 

that in many cases a medium intensity method, generally involving the use of client level 

administrative data, brought reasonably accurate results.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis I NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

n 2000, NPC Research secured a grant from the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to perform a 

cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County 

Drug Court (the second oldest drug court in the 

United States) in Portland, Oregon. Cost-benefit 

analysis of drug courts had in the past relied 

heavily on gross estimates (proxies) that did not 

rely on locally collected data. Such estimates were 

often criticized both as to their validity as well as their relevance to the local policymakers. NPC 

research proposed to gather data on drug court costs in a very intensive manner based on the 

offender’s actual behavior and based on locally collected data. 

We proposed to accomplish the following tasks under this grant: 

• Collect and examine data from a mature drug court using a high-intensity cost 

assessment protocols developed specifically for this study and report these findings in 

a manner relevant to local policy makers. 

• Examine the differences between the proxy measures that we might have used in this 

study with the actual costs generated by our detailed cost assessment protocols. 

• Develop preliminary cost and cost offset assessment protocols that can be used by 

other drug court sites. 

Research Design 

The overall research design was to collect highly detailed data on a small, randomly selected 

sample of individuals who were eligible for drug court. These individuals (some of whom 

participated in drug court and some who received traditional court processing) would be tracked 

intensively through both the criminal justice and drug court treatment system for the purpose of 

collecting more detailed data than is generally available in administrative datasets. These highly 

detailed data would then be used to augment administrative data collected at an individual level 

on a much larger sample of drug court and non-drug court participants. The detailed data were 

collected by tracking drug court eligible offenders into court sessions, attorney visits and 

treatment sessions. The court and treatment sessions were timed with stopwatches down to the 

I 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis II NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

second, in order to determine the exact amount of resources being used as each individual moved 

through the drug court or ‘business-as-usual’ system. 

This detailed information was used to supplement the administrative data gathered on the larger 

sample. The larger sample consisted of 1167 individuals who were eligible for drug court (594 

drug court participants and 573 non-drug court participants). These two groups were matched on 

demographics and criminal history1 removing these as potential sources of selection bias. Data 

were collected on the use of resources for each individual in each agency involved in drug court, 

including the court, the public defender, the district attorney, law enforcement, probation, drug 

court treatment, and treatment received by both groups outside of drug court. Total costs to the 

system/taxpayer were calculated, including “investment” and outcome costs for both the drug 

court and ‘business-as-usual’ process, for 30 months after the drug court eligible arrest. 

Results 

The results provided data that addressed a number of key policy questions, including the 

following: 

Q: Does it cost more for drug court than for “business as usual”? 

A: No. The total investment cost by the agencies involved in drug court2 averaged 

$5,927.80 per participant compared to $7,369.32 for “business as usual.” The 

“business-as-usual” offenders cost $1,441.52 more than the drug court participants. 

Thus, the drug court approach actually saved the taxpayer money in investment 

costs. This was in a large part due to the use of jail and probation time for “businessas-usual” processing, and is also due to significant use of treatment and court 

resources. 

Q: Do agencies save money up-front from drug court versus “business as usual?” 

A: Yes. Law enforcement/corrections and the public defender’s office received an 

immediate savings from the drug court approach. All agencies saved money in 

outcomes. 

 

1

 As these two groups were matched, there was no significant difference between the two groups on demographics, 

previous treatment episodes or criminal history. 

2

 The agencies included in this calculation were the court, the district attorney’s office, the public defender, law 

enforcement, corrections and treatment. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis III NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Q: Are there cost savings in outcomes due to drug court processing? 

A: Yes. When the outcome costs for drug court participants are compared to the outcome 

costs for “business as usual,” the drug court saved an average of $2328.89 per year 

for each participant. With victimization costs added, the average savings becomes 

$3596.92 per participant. 

Q: What are the total cost savings (investment and outcomes) that can be attributed to the 

drug court process? 

A: Combining the outcome cost savings with the investment savings, over a 30-month 

period, we find that the drug court saved an average of $5071.57 per participant 

including victimization costs. Multiplied by the 300 participants who enter this drug 

court each year, this is $1,521,471 in cost savings for the local taxpayers per year. This 

difference in total costs (investment and outcome costs combined) is truly the “bottom 

line” for the cost to the system of drug court participants versus the cost of non-drug 

court participants. 

Note: These savings are local taxpayer costs only (excluding any state or federal 

costs that might be saved by lessened welfare payments or Medicaid or by increased 

tax revenue from increased employment). 

Q: Can this kind of cost data be collected with less intensive techniques? 

A: Yes. Data on the utility of a number of less intensive means of gathering costs data 

showed that in many cases a medium intensity method, generally involving the use of 

client level administrative data, brought reasonable results. 

Overall, the results of this study established that drug courts can be a cost effective use of 

criminal justice system and taxpayer resources. Since this study was only performed on one site, 

some of the conclusions, particularly in terms of data gathering methodology, should be tested on 

at least one more site. At that point a complete guide to the use of these methods and protocols 

that could be used at other sites could be developed. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis i NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table of Contents 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. I

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF ISSUES IN COST RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS 2 

The link between substance abuse and crime ............................................................................. 2 

Drug courts as a response to this problem .................................................................................. 3 

The economic consequences of substance abuse........................................................................ 5 

Issues in a cost analysis of the effects of drug courts ................................................................. 6 

Project goals.............................................................................................................................. 11 

Key policy questions................................................................................................................. 11 

Importance of this study for treatment providers, policymakers, and researchers ................... 12 

RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 13 

Overall research strategy........................................................................................................... 13 

Data collection strategy............................................................................................................. 14 

Proxy assessment strategy......................................................................................................... 16 

Cost assessment strategy........................................................................................................... 16 

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 19 

Sample selection ....................................................................................................................... 19 

Cost analysis protocols ............................................................................................................. 23 

Proxy costs methodology.......................................................................................................... 36 

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 38 

The costs and benefits of drug court......................................................................................... 38

Results of data collection at three levels of intensity – What proxies work? ........................... 49 

Summary of results ................................................................................................................... 57 

Conclusion and future directions .............................................................................................. 58 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 59 

APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ................................. 62 

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF DRUG COURT AND NON-DRUG COURT 

PROCESSING .............................................................................................................................. 90 

 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis ii NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

 

 

List of Tables 

 

Table 1. Approaches to Costs and Cost Offset Data Collection................................................... 10 

Table 2: Demographic and Criminal History of Administrative Sample ..................................... 22 

Table 3. Proxy Methods: Low- to High-intensity data gathering methods to estimate service 

utilization costs and avoided costs................................................................................................ 37 

Table 4. Criminal Justice System Costs Invested in Drug Court.................................................. 39 

Table 5. Drug Court Investment Cost for Each Agency per Participant ...................................... 40 

Table 6. Investment Cost for ‘Business-as-Usual’ Process .......................................................... 41 

Table 7. Difference in Investment Cost for Drug Court and ‘Business-as-Usual’ Process per 

Transaction.................................................................................................................................... 42 

Table 8. Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Investment and the Difference in Investment for Each 

Agency .......................................................................................................................................... 43 

Table 9. Average number of transactions for each group after the eligible arrest........................ 45 

Table 10. Outcome Costs and Savings over 30 months................................................................ 46 

Table 11. Outcome and Investment costs for graduates and terminated participants................... 47 

Table 12. Costs or Savings Associated with Outcomes for Each Agency.................................... 47 

Table 13. Total Costs for Drug Court Participants and Non-Drug Court (both Investment and 

Outcome costs) for Each Agency over 30 Months ....................................................................... 49 

Table 14: Court Appearance Proxies ............................................................................................ 52 

Table 15. Results of number of treatment sessions using low medium and high-intensity 

approaches to data collection........................................................................................................ 54 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 1 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

INTRODUCTION 

n 2000, NPC Research secured a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to perform 

a cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court in Portland, Oregon (the 

second oldest drug court in the United States). Although NPC Research has performed a costbenefit evaluation of this drug court in the past (Finigan, 1998), this one is different in the 

comprehensive level of detail in the data being collected. 

Few comprehensive studies of the long-term costs and benefits of drug courts have been 

conducted. Part of the reason pertains to the serious difficulties in assessing both the costs and cost 

offsets in a drug court setting. Most studies have relied on some sort of proxy estimates of these 

costs. Additionally, the complex nature of the court and criminal justice systems in which drug 

courts operate creates barriers. Only an intensive study that tracks individuals through these 

systems and other community-funded agencies could accurately capture the system costs and 

benefits. This NIJ study will begin to remedy this situation by providing more detailed data on the 

costs of drug courts to the community. 

We proposed to accomplish the following tasks under this grant: 

1. Collect and examine data from a mature drug court using a high-intensity cost assessment 

protocols developed specifically for this study and report them in a manner relevant to 

local policy makers. 

2. Examine the differences between the proxy measures that we might have used in this study 

with the actual costs generated by our detailed cost assessment protocols. 

3. Develop preliminary cost and cost offset assessment protocols that can be used by other 

drug court sites. 

This report is organized into four main sections. The first section is a statement and discussion of 

the problem. The second section discusses our research strategy. The third section details our 

research methodology. The fourth section presents our results including a discussion of the 

implications of our results for policymakers. 

I 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 2 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF ISSUES IN COST 

RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS 

The following section discusses the link between substance abuse and crime, drug courts as a 

response to this problem, the economic consequences of drug abuse, issues in a cost analysis of 

the effects of drug courts, project goals and key policy questions to be addressed by this research, 

and finally, the importance of this research to policymakers, providers, and researchers. 

The link between substance abuse and crime 

There is a well-researched link between substance abuse and criminal behavior. Approximately 

68 percent of new arrestees test positive on a urine screen for one or more illicit drugs (National 

Institute of Justice, 1996). The combined impact of criminal activity and substance abuse is also 

well documented. Summary statistics gathered in 1996 from the Department of Justice suggest 

that nationally 36% of adult offenders were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their 

offense (Greenfeld, 1998). Data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program 

research indicates that two-thirds of convicted jail inmates were actively involved with drugs 

prior to their admission to jail. (Drug Use, Testing and Treatment in Jails, BJA, USDOJ, 2000.) 

Furthermore, there is evidence that treating substance abuse leads to a reduction in criminal 

behavior. For individuals receiving substance abuse treatment, The National Treatment 

Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES, 1997) found significant declines in criminal activity 

between the 12 months prior to treatment and the 12 months subsequent to treatment. Those 

declines included: 

• Self-reported incidence of selling drugs by 78 percent 

• Shoplifting by almost 82 percent 

• Supporting oneself largely through illegal activity by more than 48 percent 

• Arrests for any crime by 64 percent. 

Gerstein, Harwood, Suter, et al. (1994) found positive effects of drug and alcohol treatment on 

self-reported subsequent criminal activity in a statewide sample. In a study using administrative 

data, comparing those who completed treatment with a comparison group of those eligible but 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 3 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

not receiving treatment in the State of Oregon, Finigan (1996) also found significant reduction in 

police-report arrests for those who completed treatment. 

Drug courts as a response to this problem 

The prevalence of offenders with substance abuse issues in the criminal justice system was the 

primary impetus for the formulation of drug courts specifically designed to handle offenders who 

committed crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Drug courts represent a 

“combined systems” approach to treating offenders. Rather than the court system handing off an 

offender to the correction system and/or the treatment system and seeing the offender again only 

when the offender returned to the system as a re-offender, drug courts create a combined team 

effort involving resources from the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, 

probation and treatment providers, all under the leadership of a judge. This combined systems 

approach has the potential to provide greater efficiency as well as heightened accountability for 

the offender. On the other hand, it creates complexity in understanding both the costs of the 

program and the avoided costs that may accrue from the impact of the program. 

A limited number of impact studies have been conducted examining the outcomes of the drug 

court model. The quality of the research and the validity of their conclusions have varied 

depending on research design issues. First, and foremost, is the issue of comparison groups in 

quasi-experimental designs. Impact studies must be able to compare outcome results of drug 

court program participants to a valid comparison group that can represent the conditions of 

“business as usual” that would occur without a drug court. The major problem with comparison 

groups is the potential that some selection bias has been introduced in the development of these 

groups that will bias the comparison. For example, some drug courts have wanted to compare 

their graduates with those that enrolled in drug court but were terminated before completion. 

This clearly introduces a selection bias since those who graduated by definition represent those 

who succeeded at drug court and those terminated represent a group that failed. The graduates 

and those that were terminated belong to the same group, i.e., drug court participants. There is no 

comparison group. It’s of little value to learn that “succeeders succeed, and failures fail” 

(Goldkamp, personal communication, 2002). 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 4 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Most of the better research designs have used some sort of “business as usual” comparison group 

that is similar in fundamental characteristics to those who receive the program. While unable to 

completely remove selection bias, this design is nonetheless particularly useful to policy makers 

trying to make decisions about alternative models. Belenko (1998) suggests examples of 

comparison groups used in valid drug court designs, including the following: 

• Similar drug offenders, adjudicated before the drug court began 

• Drug court eligible offenders who were referred to drug courts but did not enroll 

• Matched samples of drug court offenders assigned to probation 

Although selection bias (such as motivational issues3

) cannot be completely ruled out in these 

samples, matching these groups to a drug court sample (e.g., on criminal history, demographics) 

can produce a reasonable comparison for the policy maker between “business as usual” and drug 

court. 

A few studies (e.g. Gottfredson, 2003) have been able to conduct random assignment into 

treatment and control conditions. Although this approach provides the best ability to rule out 

potential selection bias (including motivational issues) in the development of a comparison 

group, it is not entirely free from problems. Random assignment is an artificial condition placed 

on a system and not truly a “business as usual” comparison. Also, assignment to groups early in 

the drug court referral process may result in mis-assignment.4 However, Gottfredson’s study 

using random assignment did find positive effects of the drug court program similar to those 

using the comparison group methods outlined by Belenko, lending credibility to positive effects 

found in these research designs. 

Belenko (1998) provides a summary review of drug court research. He suggests that the research 

findings are consistent with the following: 

 

3

 Some researchers have questioned whether individuals who are eligible for drug court but choose not to go are less 

motivated to change their drug habits than those who choose drug court. Others have argued that the coercive nature 

of drug court brings some non-motivated offenders into program where they then gain motivation (e.g., Harrell, 

2003). 

4

 Gottfredson’s (2003) well-controlled assignment conditions nonetheless experienced some mis-assignment as 9% 

of the treatment group did not participate in drug court and 7% of the comparison group were enrolled in drug court. 

Random assignment is a difficult condition to maintain in real system settings. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 5 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

1. Drug courts are successful in engaging and retaining offenders in treatment, 

2. Drug courts provide more comprehensive supervision of offenders, 

3. Drug use is reduced for offenders who participate in drug court, 

4. Criminal recidivism is reduced for offenders, 

5. Drug courts can generate cost savings, 

6. Drug courts can successfully bridge the gap between multiple publicly funded systems. 

He also suggests that cost research modeled on the approach used by Finigan (1996) would 

provide useful information on the costs and benefits of drug court. 

In a meta-analysis of drug court impact studies, Wilson, et al. (2002) found that 34 of 40 

evaluations using comparison groups (such as the ones outlined by Belenko) reported lower rates 

of crime among drug court participants. The pooled results also showed significantly lower 

amounts of recidivism. These data suggest that good comparison groups matched in 

characteristics to drug court participants provide a consistent picture and one consistent with the 

results found in randomized studies. This argues that well matched comparison groups, while 

unable to completely remove the threat of unknown selection bias, can produce consistent and 

valid results. 

The economic consequences of substance abuse 

The economic consequences to society of drug and alcohol abuse have long been detailed. From 

a health perspective, untreated substance abusers produce tangible costs to health systems from 

both the health complications of substance use, as well as increased accidents that result from the 

use of alcohol and drugs. In addition, substance abuse leads to other negative social behaviors 

that have cost consequences to other systems, such as the criminal justice system. French (1995) 

described an array of tangible and intangible costs of substance abuse. This underscores the 

fundamental reasoning of a cost-benefit approach to substance abuse treatment: untreated 

substance abuse is very costly both to the individual, the individual’s family and friends, and to 

taxpayers who must, in one way or another, fund the consequences of the negative social 

behaviors that result from substance abuse. Policymakers and practitioners need cost-benefit 

information because substance abuse treatment and the court’s increasing involvement in the 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 6 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

treatment system (e.g., drug court) is perceived as expensive to implement, and data are needed 

to demonstrate that such treatment reduces costs in the long run. 

Cost-benefit analysis is sometimes confused with cost effectiveness analysis. Cost effectiveness 

analysis compares the relative cost of several programs to achieve some given outcome. It is 

easier to accomplish than cost-benefit analysis since it does not require that the outcomes of the 

programs be expressed in economic terms. Cost-benefit analysis places economic value both on 

the cost of a program and the benefits that its outcomes might produce. 

Much of the literature on cost and cost-benefit research has been focused on assessing the impact 

of substance abuse treatment alone. This is somewhat easier, since the costs are incurred 

primarily in one system (the treatment system). However, with the advent of drug courts in the 

last few years there is a growing need to identify cost-benefit approaches that can be applied to 

drug courts with all the complexities involved in a combined systems model. 

Issues in a cost analysis of the effects of drug courts 

The purpose of this section is to describe some of the issues that arise in determining costs in 

drug courts. These issues require decisions to be made by the researcher that affect the research 

design. We will discuss some of these issues and the strategies we have adopted in our research 

design in order to address them. These issues are as follows: 

• Use of Client Self-Report Data 

• Recipient of the Cost or Benefit 

• Opportunity Resources 

• Linkage Between Publicly Funded Systems: The Transaction Cost Approach 

• Continuum of Treatment 

• Use of Proxies 

• Intensity of Cost Data Collection 

Use of Client Self-Report Data 

Some cost-benefit research has relied on self-reported data to assess services utilized in 

substance abuse treatment and also to assess subsequent cost outcomes such as arrests and 

incarcerations. Analysis based on the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (1997) 

and the California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) study are examples. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 7 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

While there are clear advantages to the extensive data that can be collected with a self-report 

instrument, it is difficult to use such data to address the actual costs spent by local treatment and 

criminal justice systems. In addition, there are troublesome issues such as the respondent’s 

telescoping of time periods, memory issues, misperceiving police contacts as arrests, and 

providing “socially desirable” answers. 

The approach taken in this study is not to rely on client self-report for data but instead uses 

information from administrative databases, budgets, staff interviews and direct tracking of clients. 

Recipient of the Cost or Benefit 

The concept of cost-benefit begs the question of “benefit or cost to whom?” Some recipients of 

benefits and costs may be of less interest to policymakers in the public realm. Koenig, et al. (2000) 

contrast an approach focused on benefits to society as a whole and an approach that focuses on 

benefits to the non-treated population (i.e., taxpayers). The “society as a whole” approach, for 

instance, would look at food stamps, welfare receipt, or even robbery as transfer of income without 

net gain or loss. The “cost to the taxpayer” approach focuses on the expenditures of taxpayer 

dollars and looks at costs solely from the point of view of the taxpaying public. In this approach, 

food stamps, welfare receipt, and robbery all have obvious costs to the taxpaying public. 

The “Cost to Taxpayer” approach was used in this research. It focused on the expenditure of 

economic resources in the publicly funded arena. Therefore, for example, although it might be of 

interest to examine the increase in income for clients of substance abuse treatment, the interests 

of this analysis focused on the expenditure of costs within the public budgets of the treatment, 

court, and correctional systems. 

Opportunity Resources 

Many policymakers have failed to see any declines in actual budgets as a result of the linkage 

between criminal justice and substance abuse treatment. For instance, while substance abuse 

treatment and drug courts have been linked to a reduction in re-arrests in the criminal justice 

system, many police and jail budgets remain unchanged, and jails remain full. 

The approach used in this analysis viewed publicly funded costs as opportunity costs. The 

concept of opportunity cost from the economic literature suggests that system resources are 

available to be used in other contexts if they are not spent on a particular transaction. For 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 8 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

example, if drug court reduces the number of times that a client is subsequently incarcerated, the 

local sheriff may see no change in his or her budget, but an opportunity cost resource will be 

available to the sheriff in the form of a jail bed that can now be filled by another person. The 

term “opportunity resources” may be preferable to describe these costs, because it implies that 

costs saved are less in dollars than in budgeted resources (people’s time, jail bed space, 

residential beds) that can be used in another manner to better fulfill the mission of the public 

budget-spending agency. 

Linkage Between Publicly Funded Systems: The Transaction Cost Approach 

Cost-benefit researchers have looked at avoided costs in various publicly funded systems, 

considering each system separately. Little effort has been made to understand the cost 

implications of the linkages among systems. Specifically, the substance abuse treatment system 

is often intertwined with the court and correctional systems. The proliferation of drug courts, day 

reporting centers, in-jail treatment, and pre-treatment programs is an indication that the court and 

correctional systems have made the need for substance abuse treatment part of their mission. 

The approach used in this research examined the provision of opportunity resources by publicly 

funded agencies as a set of transactions. The approach follows some trends in the literature of 

organization theory that suggest that organizations can be best understood as contributing their 

resources to sets of transactions (Martinez & Dacin, 1999; Moe, 1984). This transaction cost 

analysis assumes that clients make contacts with multiple systems and use resources from all 

those systems. In order to understand the costs that are spent and to place economic value on the 

complexity of reduced costs that accrue due to the benefits of a program, one must focus on the 

interaction of multiple systems. In particular, the focus in this study is on the treatment system, 

the court system, and the corrections system. This approach is described in more detail in a 

subsequent section. 

Continuum of Treatment 

Following traditional program evaluation approaches, substance abuse treatment has been 

viewed as a discreet event with a specific start date and a specific end date after which the client 

can be assessed a success or failure, and subsequent benefits can be measured. In fact, substance 

abuse treatment, when seen as a continuum of treatment, operates in fits and starts, and can have 

several “completions” before the impact can be assessed. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 9 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

In this study we are collecting actual treatment start and end dates in order to obtain the total 

amount of time in treatment for each individual. 

Use of Proxies 

In the absence of the ability to directly collect local, client-specific data on cost, most studies 

have relied on proxy data to estimate these costs. For example, the CALDATA study (Gerstein, 

et al., 1994), which did not collect specific data on local police cost per arrest per client in their 

sample, instead used a proxy estimate which divided the total police cost in the State of 

California by the total number of arrests statewide to estimate the average cost per arrest. 

Although useful, these kinds of proxies have two significant shortcomings. First, they are not 

relevant to local public policymakers, as they need information about costs in their setting. 

Second, little is known about how accurate these estimates are as proxies for the actual treatment 

or drug court settings. That is, we do not know which proxies can be safely estimated more 

globally without too much error. This study compares easily gathered proxy data to intensively 

gathered data in order to determine what proxies are reasonably accurate 

Intensity of Cost Data Collection 

Although there have been attempts to provide cost information as part of drug court evaluations, 

most have been low intensity data gathering with results of questionable accuracy. Low intensity 

cost data collection is often based on very crude proxy estimates. For example, when 

ascertaining the number of hearings per client for a sample, a researcher may simply ask the 

judge to give his or her best estimate, on average, per client. To ascertain the cost of the drug 

court program, one might simply consult the budget of a funding source, ignoring resources 

contributed by other agencies, e.g., the district attorney’s office or probation. This tends to give a 

crude and often erroneous picture of the costs and benefits of drug courts. Indeed, one of the 

charges sometimes leveled by legislators toward such research is that the costs are based on such 

gross proxy estimates as to lack credibility. 

In one sense, cost studies are fairly simple in design. The researcher needs only to determine the 

system service units that are utilized (or which are avoided on the benefit side) and match them 

with accurate per unit costs. However, this is difficult to accomplish with accuracy without a 

great expenditure of resources. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 10 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Three levels of cost data collection intensity can be identified. These are described in the 

following table. For each level of intensity, a description of the methodology is included as well 

as the advantages and limitations of each approach. 

Table 1. Approaches to Costs and Cost Offset Data Collection 

Approach Description Pros Cons 

Low intensity Service utilization based on 

program descriptions-all 

clients are assumed to 

receive whatever services 

program provides 

Unit costs determined by 

average costs based on state 

or national data 

Very low cost to 

implement. Can be 

done by all 

programs. 

Validity of data 

questionable. 

Long term outcomes 

and avoided costs 

difficult to assess 

Cannot determine what 

aspects of programs or 

types of clients produce 

the best outcomes 

Modest intensity Service utilization-based on 

program MIS. Can get client 

level data. 

Unit costs based on 

interviewing key informants 

about their estimates 

Low cost. Can be 

done by programs 

with reasonable MIS 

Local unit cost 

estimates 

Long-term outcomes 

and avoided costs 

difficult to assess 

Unit cost estimates of 

unknown accuracy 

Cannot determine what 

aspects of programs or 

types of clients produce 

the best outcomes 

 High Intensity Service utilization on a client 

level based on a identifying 

and following clients as they 

appear for hearings and 

treatment plus a variety of 

administrative data-sets 

Validated proxies 

can be developed 

Can determine 

some aspects of 

programs or types 

of clients that 

produce the best 

outcomes 

Resource intensive 

The high-intensity approach can produce the most valid results, but it is expensive to conduct. It 

should be used when there is an important need to assess cost and benefits that are both locally 

relevant and provide a high degree of validity. Alternatively, the high-intensity approach can be used 

to validate some of the lower intensity strategies, by indicating whether low intensity methods get 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 11 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

tolerably similar results. This study is designed to implement a high-intensity approach to cost data 

collection in a single drug court site. 

Project goals 

We proposed to accomplish the following tasks under this grant: 

1. Collect and examine data from a mature drug court using high-intensity cost assessment 

protocols developed specifically for this study for both a sample of drug court program 

participants and for a matched comparison group of those who were eligible for the drug 

court but who received standard court processing. We proposed to collect this data for up 

to 24 months subsequent to the arrest that made them eligible for drug court and to 

determine the relative cost-benefit of the drug court option as compared to traditional 

processing. 

2. Examine the differences between the proxy measures that we might have used in this 

study with the actual costs generated by our detailed cost assessment protocols. This 

suggests where a lower intensity approach to cost assessment can be as useful at 

producing valid data as a higher intensity approach. 

3. Develop preliminary cost and cost offset assessment protocols that can be used by other 

drug court sites across the country with the ability to provide valid and reliable data on 

both program costs and avoided costs for drug courts compared to traditional court 

processing. 

Key policy questions 

There are seven key policy questions that this research is designed to answer: 

1. What are the total criminal justice system costs invested in drug court, not just for 

graduates but for all participants? 

2. What are the costs for each agency that invests in drug court? 

3. What are the investment costs in drug court over and above the costs for the ‘business-asusual’ process? 

4. What are the costs or savings associated with outcomes for drug court as compared with 

“business as usual” participants? 

5. What are the costs or savings associated with outcomes for each separate agency that 

contributes to drug court? 

6. Are there some offices/agencies (e.g., district attorney, public defender) that never 

reclaim their costs? 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 12 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

7. What costs and avoided costs can be effectively measured by easy to gather proxies (data 

collection methods that are easier and less resource intensive but give reasonable 

approximations of real cost data) at drug court sites and what costs need to be measured 

directly to achieve valid and reliable data? 

Importance of this study for treatment providers, policymakers, and researchers 

Policymakers and practitioners are challenged to implement innovative approaches to addressing 

the problem of substance abuse and its relation to criminal activity. These include drug courts, 

family courts, mental health courts, day-reporting centers, in-jail treatment programs, drug-free 

zones, and more substance abuse-focused supervision. These innovations are occurring in 

difficult cost environments. Budgets are tight, with little additional funding available to fund 

programs. In other words, what is the best use of available dollars? 

Increasingly, the criminal justice system (with its court and correctional components) has 

accepted the link between substance abuse and criminal justice activity. Nonetheless, substance 

abuse treatment is perceived as expensive, and court-involved treatment (e.g., drug courts) is 

perceived as particularly expensive.5 A cost-benefit approach makes particular sense in that it 

provides data on the actual value of this response to substance abusing individuals in the criminal 

justice system. 

While previous cost-benefit studies suggesting high benefit to cost ratios have produced excitement 

among advocates of treatment, they have been more valuable in promoting treatment generally and 

have been less helpful to local treatment, court, and correctional justice system stakeholders who are 

looking for evidence of savings in their budgets. In addition, as the court and correctional systems 

become intertwined with the substance abuse treatment systems, the court and correctional systems 

desire some accounting of the costs of treatment to them. Finally, there is a growing recognition that 

successful substance abuse treatment is not simply the result of one episode of treatment, but may 

result from a pattern of treatment and failure that is costly to all three systems. This research is 

focused on estimating the costs from specific budgets of these systems as well as the avoided 

subsequent costs to the three systems from substance abuse treatment. 

 

5

 Some judges take the opposite view, suggesting that the marginal costs (resources in addition to those already in place) of 

these programs are slight. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 13 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

For the research community, the value of this research and its data set lies in the development of 

protocols to conduct valid cost-benefit analysis in drug court settings. However, another 

important value in this research lies in the identification of aspects of a cost-benefit approach that 

require an intensive research effort (in order to gain valid data) and the identification of areas 

where less intensive protocols are adequate. 

RESEARCH DESIGN 

The basic research strategy for this project was to gather data about costs and avoided costs at a 

single mature drug court site using intensive data collection techniques. These data were then used 

to provide a more comprehensive picture of costs and avoided costs of drug court as well as to 

compare more intensive data collection techniques with less intensive (and less expensive) 

techniques. This section outlines our basic strategies for our cost assessment and data collection 

strategies. The next section (methodology) describes our protocols in detail. 

Overall research strategy 

The overall research design was to collect highly detailed data on a small, randomly selected 

sample of approximately 120 individuals who were eligible for drug court. These individuals 

(some of whom participated in drug court and some who received traditional court processing) 

would be tracked intensively through both the criminal justice and drug court treatment system 

for the purpose of collecting more detailed data than is generally available in administrative 

datasets. An example of this detailed data would be the duration of court hearings for every type 

of case with which the individuals in the sample were involved. This highly detailed data would 

then be applied to administrative data collected on a much larger sample (approximately 1200 

individuals) of drug court and non-drug court participants. The detailed data would augment 

individual level administrative data collected on the larger group. For example, the number of 

drug court hearings attended by a drug court participant in the larger sample could be gathered 

from administrative data, then the average length of time of a drug court hearing, gathered from 

the detailed data collection, could be applied to each of those hearings. The purpose of the larger 

sample was to provide power for statistical analyses. This larger group would be used to 

determine the cost and benefits of drug court versus that of traditional court processing. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 14 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Data collection strategy 

Intensive Tracking 

The main method used for the detailed data collection was intensive tracking of the smaller sample 

of drug court eligible individuals, as described above. This small sample of individuals was 

therefore termed the “intensive sample.” Intensive tracking involved following these individuals 

through public systems, such as the criminal justice system. Using a database that has information 

on arrests and subsequent court hearing dates for specific individuals, data collectors were able to 

be present at those court hearings in order to collect information on the resources being used (e.g., 

judge time, attorney time, law enforcement time) by the individuals in the intensive sample. This 

manner of collecting detailed data does not involve participant interviews and therefore is not 

subject to the problems of self-report. 

This method of tracking allows for the collection of extremely detailed data on the specific 

resources being used as an individual moves through local public systems. However, it is also 

extremely resource intensive. Because this method does not include direct contact with 

individuals in the study samples, it is necessary to perform “detective work” in determining 

where and in what system (e.g., the court, the public defender’s office) a study participant may 

appear. This is particularly difficult for those who are not in drug court, as their activities are far 

less structured and less supervised. A large amount of researcher time is devoted to finding 

individuals and then being present when those individuals are using system resources. Because 

of the large use of researcher resources, this tracking method has not been used in previous 

studies. Therefore, it was necessary to develop new protocols specifically for this study. These 

protocols are described later in this report, in the methodology section. 

Because this type of tracking is so resource intensive, it was not possible to follow a large sample 

of individuals. As described above, the main purpose of the detailed collection of information on 

this small “intensive” sample was to gather the type of data that could logically be applied to 

supplement administrative data gathered on a much larger sample. (The strategy for the use of 

administrative data is described below.) 

A second purpose of this intensive tracking was the opportunity to compare of the quality of 

resource intensive data collection to that of more easily gathered data, such as data from 

administrative databases, key informant interviews, or policy manuals. This more easily gathered 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 15 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

data is described in this study as “proxies” or estimates of actual data. (The proxy strategy is 

described in more detail below.) If the more easily gathered proxies were reasonably accurate, 

then it could be concluded that detailed, and resource intensive, data collection may not be 

necessary in future studies. 

Administrative Data 

For a detailed assessment of avoided costs between a drug court program group and a valid 

comparison group, data on the utilization of system resources must be gathered on an individual 

level. Some studies have utilized data gathered from self-report instruments. The CALDATA 

study (Gerstein et al., 1994) used extensive interviews with substance abuse treatment clients to 

gather data on issues such as subsequent arrests and subsequent use of medical services. However, 

as French (1995) has pointed out, the use of self-reported data for this information is unreliable and 

is expensive to gather. 

Another approach has been to ask the programs themselves to estimate data on, for example, jail 

bed days saved by the program (Cooper, 2000; Guydish, 2001). Unfortunately, this approach 

often provides little in the way of a standardized method to calculate the results and raises 

questions about the validity of the data. 

A different solution for drug court cost studies was developed by Finigan (1999) and Harrill 

(1999), which uses administrative datasets (data collected regularly and kept in databases by a 

program or agency) to determine system service utilization, both during programs as well as 

subsequently. Although this overcomes the problems of self-reported data, it is highly dependent 

on the availability and adequacy of administrative databases. This raises issues regarding access 

to existing administrative databases, issues surrounding confidentiality, issues surrounding 

common data element definitions and issues surrounding the reliability of the particular database. 

However, for this type of cost study, administrative datasets are the best source of data on an 

individual’s use of taxpayer-funded administrative resources because these data sets generally 

contain individual level information collected on a regular basis. Further, these datasets are often 

used for billing purposes, which means there is a fairly strong incentive for thoroughness in the 

collection and entry of data. Although these databases are themselves subject to error (missing 

data, data entry error, etc.), they are extremely important to cost research because they represent 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 16 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

the agencies’ best information on the resources that have been used and are often the basis upon 

which future budgets are created. However, these datasets are not always easily accessible to 

researchers and present the challenge of extracting needed data from a variety of diverse data 

systems. 

In spite of these challenges, the use of administrative datasets is still an important and useful 

strategy. It allows the acquisition of individual level data without the time and resource 

commitment involved in collecting it directly from the source (e.g., from client interviews or 

intensive tracking). Administrative data was a key source of information used for this study. 

Proxy assessment strategy 

 Most of the attempts of other studies to assess unit costs have had to depend on the use of 

proxies. Proxies are estimates of costs that can stand in place of the true costs when the detailed 

data needed to calculate the true costs are not available. For instance Gerstein, et al., estimated 

police arrest and booking costs by taking the total amount spent on police in the State of 

California and dividing by the total number of arrests in the State to come up with the per arrest 

unit cost. Proxies have been used in most of the existing cost-benefit studies of substance abuse 

treatment (e.g., Gerstein, et al., 1994; Finigan, 1996) and of drug courts and other programs 

designed to reduce crime (e.g., Finigan, 1998; Aos, et al., 2001), because local data specific to 

the site was not known and the resources to gather that data were not in place. Until now, 

research has not taken the step to examine the relative value of these proxy data gathering 

techniques as estimates of these local data. 

We have taken this step in this cost evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court. In this 

evaluation, the detailed data gathered using intensive local participant tracking and administrative 

data were compared to more easily gathered local proxies. Those proxies that closely resembled 

the costs calculated with detailed data may be recommended as a valid approximation of local 

data. 

Cost assessment strategy 

Transaction Cost Analysis 

In order to assign costs to these highly detailed data, it was necessary to adopt a cost strategy that 

was appropriate to that level of detail. Transactional Cost Analysis (TCA) was determined to be an 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 17 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

approach that could be used to assign cost to this detailed data6. It was also determined that it could 

be adapted to the drug court setting7. The Transactional Cost Analysis approach views an 

offender’s interaction with publicly funded agencies as a set of transactions in which the offender 

utilizes resources contributed from multiple agencies. Transactions are those points within a 

system where resources are consumed and/or change hands. In other words, each time a client has 

contact with the system, a transaction occurs. In the case of drug courts, when a drug court 

participant appears in court or has a drug test, resources such as judge time, public defender time, 

court facilities, and urine cups are used. Court appearances and drug tests are transactions. TCA is 

an intuitively appropriate approach to conducting costs assessment in an environment such as a 

drug court, which involves complex interactions among multiple taxpayer-funded organizations. 

The NPC Research TCA approach to cost evaluation differs from the traditional form of TCA in 

that it carefully identifies the level of resources used by each agency and also incorporates 

indirect costs (both jurisdictional support and overhead costs) with the direct costs to get a more 

complete picture of the resources used for each transaction. 

The TCA methodology is based upon six distinct steps. The key steps in this methodology 

involve learning about the drug court and non-drug court process, identifying the transactions 

that occur within this process, identifying the agencies involved in each transaction, determining 

the resources used during each transaction, determining the cost of those resources, and then 

calculating overall costs. The protocols involved in each of these steps are described in detail in 

the methodology section, below. 

Cost to the Taxpayer 

In order to maximize the study’s benefit to policy makers, a “cost-to-taxpayer” approach was 

used for the evaluation. This focus helps define which cost data should be collected (costs and 

avoided costs involving public funds) and which cost data should be omitted from the analyses 

(e.g., costs to the individual participating in the program). In this approach, any criminal justice 

related cost incurred by the drug court or comparison group participant that directly impacts a 

 

6

 Dave Crumpton (2001) was instrumental in introducing this approach to NPC Research and modifying this 

approach to fit the drug court setting. 

7

 A paper containing a detailed review of the literature on the theoretical and practical grounding of NPC Research’s 

approach to TCA is in process. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 18 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

citizen (either through tax-related expenditures or the results of being a victim of a crime 

perpetrated by a substance abuser) is used in the calculations. 

The central core of the cost to taxpayer approach in calculating benefits (avoided costs) for drug 

court specifically is the fact that untreated substance abuse will cost various tax-dollar funded 

systems money that could be avoided or diminished if substance abuse were treated. In this 

approach, any cost that is the result of untreated substance abuse and that directly impacts a 

citizen (either through tax-related expenditures or the results of being a victim of a crime 

perpetrated by a substance abuser) is used in calculating the benefits of substance abuse 

treatment. 

Opportunity Resources 

Finally, NPC’s cost approach looks at publicly funded costs as “opportunity resources.” The 

concept of opportunity cost from the economic literature suggests that system resources are 

available to be used in other contexts if they are not spent on a particular transaction. The term 

opportunity resource describes these resources that are now available for different use. For 

example, if substance abuse treatment reduces the number of times that a client is subsequently 

incarcerated, the local Sheriff may see no change in his or her budget, but an opportunity 

resource will be available to the Sheriff in the form of a jail bed that can now be filled by another 

person. 

In the above section we explained our basic strategies in this study. The following section 

describes our methodology in detail. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 19 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

METHODOLOGY 

As explained in the above research strategies, the protocols developed for this study included 

intensive tracking of a sample of drug court eligible individuals. Data collectors literally 

followed these individuals from their arrest and first arraignment through the criminal justice and 

treatment processes for both the drug court program and traditional court processing. Court 

appearances, treatment sessions, and meetings with attorneys were timed with stopwatches to the 

second in order to achieve an accurate picture of the system resources used in both processes. In 

this section we discuss the study protocols used in more detail, including sample selection, the 

intensive tracking procedures, administrative data collection, and the methodology used to gather 

proxy data. Much of this methodology falls within the six steps of NPC’s TCA approach. 

Sample selection 

There were two samples selected for this study; 1) A smaller sample of individuals that were 

followed through the criminal justice and treatment system by intensive tracking, termed the 

“intensive sample” and 2) A larger sample (for statistical power) of individuals who were 

followed using administrative databases from several agencies and to which the detailed data 

gathered from intensive tracking was applied. This larger sample was termed the “administrative 

sample.” 

The Intensive Sample. As described above, the main purpose of this smaller sample was to 

gather detailed data (such as the duration of court and treatment transactions, and the agencies 

involved with these transactions) that could then be applied to the larger sample to determine the 

costs and benefits associated with this Drug Court. A second purpose was to compare the 

detailed data gathered using more intensive (more expensive) techniques to the more easily 

gathered proxy data. 

In order to identify individuals for the intensive sample, NPC data collectors attended 

arraignments twice a week. Arraignments were held every workday morning for offenders who 

were arrested the day (or weekend) before. The arraignment judge would explain to drug courteligible offenders that they were eligible for this diversion program and tell them to attend a drug 

court orientation at the public defender’s office the following morning. NPC data collectors 

obtained a copy of the court docket for the arraignments they attended and circled the names of 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 20 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

those offenders who were told they were eligible for drug court. The data collectors then 

attended the public defender orientation the next day. A legal assistant at the public defender’s 

office described drug court to the group of offenders who appeared at the orientation. Each 

offender then met with an attorney to discuss his or her options and to confirm eligibility for 

drug court. (Occasionally, upon further examination of the offender’s criminal record, the initial 

eligibility finding by the DA would be found to be incorrect). The attorneys would not allow 

NPC data collectors to sit in on their one-on-one sessions and would not discuss case details, so 

it was not possible to determine whether an individual was truly eligible for drug court until they 

appeared in court later in the day. All offenders were required to appear before the drug court 

judge that afternoon, whether or not they were eligible for drug court. When the offenders who 

were not eligible were called before the judge the deputy public defender would announce their 

ineligibility to the judge at which time we would drop them from the study sample. The eligible 

offenders could either choose to try drug court for two weeks, or decline the drug court option. 

Any offender found to be eligible at this hearing, whether they chose to try drug court or not, 

were included in the intensive sample and then were tracked throughout the rest of the study. 

These offenders were not told that they were being followed for a research study, as all 

information gathered on these individuals was either public information (e.g., obtained during 

open court hearings) or administrative data that could be legally released for legitimate research 

purposes. 

Our original research design proposed “recruiting” 30 individuals a month for four months for a 

final intensive sample of 120. In order to allow for attrition (particularly in those who attended 

drug court treatment), 155 individuals were tracked in the final intensive sample. The final 

sample contained 87 individuals who participated in drug court and 68 individuals who 

experienced traditional court processing. All 155 individuals were tracked for at least 18 months 

(those who were selected earlier in the study were tracked longer, up to 22 months). This 

tracking included transactions that occurred due to the drug court eligible charge (e.g., court 

appearances, attorney meetings, treatment sessions) and transactions that occurred due to rearrests (generally, court sessions). 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 21 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

The administrative sample. The larger, administrative, sample was selected from a database kept 

by the public defender’s office. This database contains the names and case information for 

offenders who were eligible for drug court. Approximately 1,400 offenders who had been 

arrested for drug court-eligible charges between 1999 and 2000 were pulled from the database. 

(The sample was selected from those years in order to allow the collection of at least 30 months 

of administrative data from the time of the drug court eligible arrest.) Individual level drug court 

treatment use and criminal history data were then gathered for these individuals. All drug court 

eligible offenders appear before the judge at an initial drug court hearing. However, only a subset 

of this group actually enters drug court, therefore this hearing could not be used as an indication 

of drug court entry. Because there was no clearly defined point in the administrative data at 

which an offender entered drug court prior to their first treatment session, groups were assigned 

based on presence in drug court treatment. Those who had no drug court treatment sessions were 

assigned to the comparison group while those with one or more drug court treatment sessions 

were assigned to the drug court participant group. Another reason this is a good point to assign 

individuals to the drug court participant group is that this is the point that drug court costs start to 

accrue. 

Aggregate matching8

 was performed on the two groups on ethnicity, gender, and age as well as 

criminal history and previous treatment episodes in the two years before the drug court-eligible 

arrest. The final sample contained 1,173 individuals, 594 drug court participant group members 

and 573 comparison group members. Because the drug court participant group and the 

comparison group were matched, there was no significant statistical difference in demographics, 

criminal history and previous treatment episodes between the two groups (see Table 2). 

 

8

 Propensity scoring was considered for use in matching the drug court participant and comparison groups, but the 

results of initial analyses (e.g., logistic regression) on the available variables indicated that this method would not 

provide results different than those gained from aggregate matching. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 22 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 2: Demographic and Criminal History of Administrative Sample 

Demographics Drug Court 

Participants 

Non-Drug Court 

Participants 

Age 34 years 35 years 

Gender 76% male 72% male 

74% white 

(non-hispanic) 

76% white 

(non-hispanic) 

16% black 18% black 

Ethnicity/Race 

10% other 6% other 

# of Prior Arrests 

(In 24 month period prior to the drug court 

eligible arrest)

0.9 1.1 

# of Prior Bookings 

(In 24 month period prior to the drug court 

eligible arrest)

1.3 1.4 

# of Previous Treatment Episodes 

(In 24 month period prior to the drug court 

eligible arrest) 

.49 .51 

* No differences between the two groups on the variables listed in Table 2 were statistically significant 

(p > .05). 

One potential source of selection bias that could not be controlled for was the possibility of 

differences in motivation between the two groups. As discussed earlier in the review of the 

literature, this is the bane of most quasi-experimental designs used in outcome studies of drug 

courts, particularly those collecting retrospective data. In the case of retrospective data 

collection, it is not possible to determine whether those who actually participated in the drug 

court program were more motivated to change their drug habits than those who received 

traditional court processing. It is also not possible to determine the myriad reasons offenders may 

have for choosing either drug court or traditional court processing. However, interviews with key 

informants, such as the public defender, as well as information gathered from interviews with 

participants in other drug court research (personal communications, Finigan, 2002 and Carey, 

2003) suggests that the reasons offenders choose for or against participating in drug court are not 

always related to motivational issues. Many offenders choose drug court because the alternative 

is extended incarceration and/or court fees. Other offenders refuse drug court because they live 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 23 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

too far away, or they have children and would be unable to afford childcare, or their defense 

attorney advises them that the case against them is weak and could be dismissed. Harrell (2003) 

has underscored the coercive elements in drug courts but also suggests that they are not unlike 

the coercive elements that operate from family and friends to entice individuals to enter 

treatment in non-drug court settings. In the end, motivation to change may not be as important a 

factor in choosing a drug court option as other legal and personal factors. If that is true, it is less 

of a concern as a selection bias. 

Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out motivation issues without true random assignment at 

the time eligibility is determined. However, Gottfredson’s recent (2003) randomized design 

study provides outcome results similar to those in this study, suggesting that positive results are 

not simply a function of motivational selection bias. Finally, regardless of motivation issues, the 

end result of importance to policy makers in this type of cost analysis is to describe the actual 

cost of those who participate in drug court and the actual cost of those who go through traditional 

court processing. The cost of the offenders in this study to Multnomah County is the actual cost 

to the system for drug court and traditional court processing. 

Cost analysis protocols 

The basic steps of NPC’s TCA methodology are listed below. The protocols involved in these 

steps include the intensive tracking protocols, administrative data collection protocols, key 

informant interviews and other data collection such as how information was gathered for proxies. 

Step 1: Determine drug court and non-drug court flow/process (i.e., how clients move 

through the system) 

Step 2: Identify the transactions that occur within this flow (i.e., where clients interact with 

the system) 

Step 3: Identify the agencies involved in each transaction (e.g., court, treatment, police) 

Step 4: Determine the resources used by each agency for each transaction (e.g., judge time, 

attorney time, overhead) 

Step 5: Determine the cost of the resources used by each agency for each transaction (e.g., 

cost of judge’s time per hour or per drug court session, etc.) 

Step 6: Calculate cost results (e.g., cost per transaction, total cost of the program per 

participant) 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 24 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Step 1: Determine drug court and non-drug court flow/process 

There were three general methods for collecting drug court and non-drug court (“business as 

usual” or traditional) process information: document review, key informant interviews, and 

observation during tracking. 

Document Review. Documents, such as the drug court policy manual, were obtained from the 

Multnomah County Drug Court program (the STOP program) in order for the researchers to begin 

to understand the basic flow of the program. This kind of document gave indications for where 

data collectors should look for study participants at the beginning of the intensive tracking process. 

Key Informant Interviews. Key informants from each of the agencies involved in the drug 

court were interviewed about the drug court process. These key informants included the drug 

court judge, the public defender, the district attorney, legal assistants, the treatment provider, the 

sheriff, and probation staff. They were asked to describe, in detail, the flow of drug court 

participants through the drug court process, and in particular, their own agency’s involvement 

with each participant. Key informants were also asked to describe the non-drug court process in 

the same manner. 

Observations During Tracking. In order to achieve a truly detailed understanding of the drug 

court and non-drug court system process for the drug court target population, NPC Research staff 

“pretended to get arrested” during a weekend early in project start-up. The research staff went to 

the jail and learned how the offenders were processed. They then followed offenders through the 

system. For example, the offenders arrested over the weekend went from jail to arraignments on 

Monday morning. The research staff attended Monday morning arraignments and listened as the 

judge explained to the defendants that they were eligible for drug court and told them they 

should talk to the public defender who was there at the arraignment, and that they should go to 

the public defender orientation at 9:00 the next day. In this way, from listening to the judge’s 

instructions in court, or listening to instructions given by the offenders’ attorneys, the research 

staff was able to determine each step in the process, from court hearings, to meetings with 

attorneys, to the treatment agency, and back to court. In some cases this lead to other questions, 

which we would ask of our key informants. For instance, when NPC research staff attended 

arraignments, they discovered that the court already had information on whether an offender was 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 25 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

eligible for drug court. This provided a clue that someone had done some work between the 

weekend arrest and arraignments on Monday morning. Key informants explained that the district 

attorney reviewed the new arrests that came in each day and determined eligibility before 

arraignments started each morning. 

The information gathered through the above techniques was used to create a detailed description 

of the Multnomah County STOP Drug Court process and the non-drug court process. These 

descriptions can be found in Appendix B. 

Step 2: Identify the transactions that occur within this flow 

Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Program Transactions. The detailed descriptions of the 

drug court and non-drug court process developed during Step 1 were examined to identify points 

at which the drug court participant and non-drug court participant interacts with the system and 

uses system resources. Following is a list of these transactions for the Multnomah County 

criminal justice system. These transactions are specific for felony drug possession charges (the 

charges eligible for the STOP Drug Court program). 

Not all participants engage in every possible transaction. For example, the majority of drug court 

participants do not receive jail as a sanction and many of those who did not participate in drug 

court did not attend an orientation at the treatment agency. A detailed description of each of 

these transactions can be found in the results section of this report. 

Transactions for drug court participants

• Arrest 

• Booking 

• 1st Arraignment 

• Public Defender orientation 

• InAct Treatment Orientation 

• STOP Court Hearings (drug court hearings) 

• Physical exam at InAct treatment agency 

• D&A and mental health assessment at InAct treatment agency 

• Individual and group treatment sessions 

• Urinalyses 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 26 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

• Jail as a sanction 

• Exit Interview 

• Graduation 

• Hearing for New Dates 

• Stipulated Facts Trial 

• Review Hearing 

Transactions for non-drug court participants (comparison group)9

• Arrest 

• Booking 

• 1st Arraignment 

• Public Defender Orientation 

• InAct Treatment orientation 

• Court Hearings 

o Grand Jury 

o STOP court hearing 

o 2nd Arraignment 

o Custody Hearing 

o Hearing for New Dates 

o Assignment Call Hearing 

o Drug Call Hearing 

o Plea 

o Sentencing 

o Motion to Suppress Hearing 

o Trial 

o Substitution of Counsel Hearing 

o Probation Violation Hearing 

o Clean Court Hearing 

• Jail Time 

• Probation Time 

 

9

 Note: Urinalyses are not included in non-drug court transactions, as urinalyses required by the Multnomah County 

criminal justice system outside of drug court must be paid for by the offender and so are not included in taxpayer 

costs. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 27 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Outcome Transactions. The above transactions are considered “up-front” costs, or investment 

costs, of the drug court process and of the criminal justice system process without drug court. 

These are all transactions that can occur due to the drug court eligible charge. Both of these 

processes lead to outcomes that are measured in terms of further transactions within the criminal 

justice system. 

The same types of outcome transactions are possible for both the drug court participants and 

non-drug court participants. Transactions that occur after the drug court-eligible arrest (except 

those due to the eligible arrest) are considered outcome transactions. As explained above, not all 

transactions will occur for every individual. The process can vary depending on attorney advice, 

defendant choice, defendant criminal history and type of case. For example, most offenders will 

choose to plea and take the district attorney’s offer, rather than go to trial. 

Outcome transactions for both drug court and non-drug court participants10

• Arrests 

• Bookings 

• Court Hearings 

o 1st Arraignment 

o Grand Jury 

o 2nd Arraignment 

o Hearing for New Dates 

o Assignment Call; Drug Call 

o Plea 

o Sentencing 

o Motion to Suppress 

o Trial 

o Substitution of Counsel 

o Probation Violation 

o Clean Court 

o Community Court 

o Pre-plea 

o Pre-trial Conference 

 

10 As with other non-drug court transactions, urinalyses are not included as they are paid for by the offenders and so 

are not included in taxpayer costs. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 28 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

o Further Proceedings 

• Jail Time 

• Probation Time 

Note: These transactions are described in more detail in Appendix B. 

Once the transactions within the process were identified, in order to learn where system 

resources were being used, it was necessary to determine which agencies were involved with 

each transaction. 

Step 3: Identify the agencies involved in each transaction 

The agencies involved with each transaction were identified through observations during 

intensive tracking. Data collectors were asked to write down who was present at each 

transaction, what agency they were from, and to obtain contact information. Interviews were 

performed when needed with those who were present at the transactions for clarification of 

observed activities. Interviews with these individuals were also performed in order to gain 

information on time used to prepare for the transactions (e.g., preparation for various court 

hearings) so that this time could be included when calculating costs. This is described in more 

detail in step 5. The agency staff involved with each transaction are listed in the process 

description in Appendix B of the results. 

Step 4: Determine the resources used for each transaction (for each agency) 

Data on the resources used for each transaction includes the amount of time used in the transaction 

itself, as well as time used in preparing for that transaction and time used in tasks that occur in 

consequence of the transaction. For example, the public defender will spend time preparing for a 

trial, spend time at the trial itself, and then will spend time after a trial writing up case notes and 

performing other activities as a consequence of the trial. Other resources used for transactions, 

besides agency staff time, include materials used in a transaction such as paper or urine cups. 

However, in order to determine the specific system resources being used by program participants 

and the cost outcomes for those same participants, it is necessary to collect this information at 

the individual participant level. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 29 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Utilization Data Collection 

There are two main forms of utilization data that together measure the resources being used for 

each type of transaction. There is the frequency of each transaction (e.g., how many drug court 

hearings occur for each drug court participant) and there is the duration of a transaction (e.g., the 

length of time used to complete a single drug court hearing per individual participant). 

This individual level data was collected in several ways-- intensive tracking (following 

individuals from court sessions to orientations, etc.), chart reviews, and administrative data. The 

main method for collecting this data was through intensive tracking. 

Intensive Tracking. As described above, NPC data collectors attended arraignments, obtained a 

copy of the docket (which contains individuals’ names and case numbers) and listened for when 

those who were eligible for drug court were called before the judge. Stopwatches were used to 

time the length of the arraignment for each eligible offender. At every court appearance, the 

judge would tell an offender where they should next appear and on what date. Data collectors 

wrote down this information and therefore knew where to appear next. The offenders in the 

smaller intensive sample were tracked through court appearances, orientations, physicals and 

treatment sessions. The length of time used for each transaction for each individual in the 

intensive sample was gathered with stopwatches down to the second. Since one on one time with 

attorneys and any treatment sessions were not public information, these sessions were timed 

through having the data collectors sit in the waiting room at each agency, clicking the stopwatch 

on when the client was called in and clicking it off when the client reappeared. (The data 

collection protocols for intensive tracking can be found in Appendix A). 

The research staff continued to follow participants through every step of the system, including 

activities related to re-arrests for twenty-one months. Using the Oregon Judicial Information 

Network (OJIN), a database with up-to-the-moment information on criminal justice system 

activities including arrests and court hearings, data collectors were able to check for re-arrests 

and changes in hearing dates daily. 

All drug court staff were informed of the NPC cost evaluation and were extremely cooperative 

and supportive of the study. Although the data collectors began the study timing drug court 

hearings from the public seats, by the last year of the study the court had made a place for them 

to sit at the table with the attorneys. Occasionally, there would be study participants at so many 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 30 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

different court appearances simultaneously that the data collection staff was unable to cover 

every participant. In these cases the legal assistant from the public defender’s office who was 

assigned to drug court volunteered to time the appropriate study participants. 

A tracking data database was created to hold the information gathered through the tracking 

process. Data collectors entered their own data into the database within 2 days of gathering the 

data. The data gathered during intensive tracking includes the dates and duration of orientations, 

court hearings, and treatment sessions, dates of re-arrests, sentences, and outcomes of drug court 

hearings. A list of the data gathered in tracking can be found in Appendix A. 

Chart Reviews. Early in the tracking process, the treatment provider informed the data collectors 

that the length of treatment sessions, acupuncture sessions and other ancillary services were kept 

in client charts for billing purposes. A pilot test was performed comparing the time written down 

by treatment provider staff and the times kept by the NPC data collectors. It was determined that 

the information in the charts was accurate. From that point forward this information was 

obtained through chart reviews. 

After a confidentiality process between NPC and the treatment provider (InAct), and after the 

data collectors had signed personal confidentiality certificates, NPC project staff were given 

access to treatment provider charts. Data on the use of treatment resources was gathered through 

chart reviews. (The protocol used for these reviews can be found in Appendix A). The data was 

gathered at the provider’s office and entered into a chart review database (developed specifically 

for this project) on a laptop directly from the chart. Only information related to demographics, 

the clients’ use of resources and client progress through the system was gathered. Notes on 

individual treatment sessions and client personal issues were not read and were not entered in the 

database. 

Administrative Data. Individual level utilization data was collected from administrative 

databases on both the administrative sample and the intensive sample. The purpose of collecting 

this form of data on the intensive sample was so the administrative data could be compared for 

accuracy to the data gathered from intensive tracking. This is particularly useful in determining 

whether data that is gathered though databases, a more easily and cheaply gathered proxy 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 31 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

compared to intensive tracking, is accurate enough that intensive tracking is not necessary. 

Thirty months of data was gathered on all individuals in the administrative sample. 

The administrative data gathered for this study came from several sources: the public defender’s 

drug court database, the Portland Police database (PPDS), the Multnomah County Sheriff’s 

database (SWIS), the InAct (drug court treatment provider) database, the Oregon Judicial 

Information Network (OJIN), the district attorney’s database (DACTS), a statewide treatment 

database (CPMS) and the statewide probation database. The data collected for each individual in 

both intensive and administrative samples includes demographics (most databases); drug court 

eligibility information (public defender and DACTS); criminal history including arrests and 

charges (PPDS, OJIN); drug court hearing dates, drug court treatment group and individual 

session dates, and urinalyses dates and results (InAct database); jail entry and exit dates (SWIS), 

probation start and end dates (statewide probation database); and non-drug court treatment start 

and end dates (CPMS). 

Agency Resource Data Collection 

Interviews. As described at the beginning of step 4, to achieve a complete picture of the system 

resources being used for transactions, it was necessary to include the staff time involved before 

and after each transaction that support the occurrence of that transaction. Staff time includes not 

only the persons directly involved with the transaction but also those in support roles such as 

clerical staff and those in management roles, such as supervisors. Staff at each agency (such as 

finance staff, division heads, and legal assistants), were interviewed about the tasks they and/or 

their staff performed related to the transactions of interest and the approximate amount of time 

they spent on each task. This allowed the researchers to achieve a clearer picture of the complete 

system resources devoted to the occurrence of each transaction. These resources are included in 

the final cost of the transactions presented in the results section below. 

Step 5: Determine the costs associated with resources used for each transaction (for each agency) 

As explained above, costs associated with the activities involved in each transaction include both 

direct costs (time and materials) and indirect costs (facilities, support costs, overhead costs). The 

majority of the cost information was gathered through interviews and extensive electronic 

communications with court, law enforcement, probation, treatment, district attorney, and public 

defender staff members most familiar with the activities involved with each of the above-named 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 32 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

transactions. The transactional activities were described and the questions focused on frequency 

and duration of each activity and the numbers and types of personnel involved. For example, for 

the transaction of a drug court hearing, deputy district attorneys assigned to drug court would be 

asked how often they attended drug court sessions, the duration of a typical drug court session, 

the amount of time they took preparing for these sessions, and if there were any other staff whose 

time was used in support of drug court sessions. 

The cost of these activities was gathered in three forms: (1) the hourly direct cost (generally 

labor cost, such as staff salaries, including fringes and benefits) associated with the agency staff 

involved in each transaction; (2) support cost (usually as a percentage of direct cost) in the form 

of the agency or department overhead; and, (3) jurisdictional overhead cost (also as a percentage 

of direct cost). The research staff combined the direct transactional cost with the support and 

overhead costs to generate total per hour, per activity, and per transactions costs. The 

information used to generate the cost data was verified by key operating and financial 

management personnel involved with the drug court and non-drug court processes.

Step 6: Calculate cost results 

The costs calculated for this study include the following four cost results. This section describes 

how these costs were calculated. 

a. Cost per transaction 

b. Investment costs for drug court and non-drug court transactions 

c. Costs for drug court and non-drug court outcomes 

d. Cost savings 

a. Cost Per Transaction. The costs incurred by each agency in terms of direct costs (staff time 

and materials) and indirect costs (support costs and overhead calculated as a percentage of 

the direct costs) involved in a transactional cost area were combined to create a cost for each 

agency for each transaction. The costs for each agency were then added together to get a total 

cost per transaction. For instance, in the case of the cost of drug court sessions, the per hour 

cost for courts, law enforcement agencies, district attorney offices, public defender offices, 

treatment agencies, and probation agencies were combined to generate a total per hour cost 

for drug court sessions. Using the average amount of seconds used per participant for a 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 33 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

single drug court hearing (from tracking of the intensive sample), this cost per hour was then 

translated into the cost for a single drug court hearing per participant. (Note: Drug court 

sessions should be differentiated from drug court hearings. A drug court session is the entire 

session, involving multiple drug court participants. A drug court hearing is the court 

appearance of a single drug court participant). This cost per hearing was then multiplied by 

the number of hearings for each participant to get the overall cost of drug court hearings per 

participant. 

Costs were calculated based on budgets and other financial information from 2000, 2001 and 

2002. These costs were adjusted, as necessary, to 2002 dollars. A zero discount rate was 

used, as any change in cost figures due to the discount rate would be negligible. 

b. “Up-Front,” or Investment, Costs for Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Processes. The 

costs for the drug court program and non-drug court process were calculated by simple 

addition of the costs per individual for every transaction in the process that resulted from the 

drug court-eligible arrest. (See Step 2, above, for a list of these transactions). Some 

transactions due to the drug court eligible arrest occurred after drug court for those who 

terminated without graduating, such as jail and probation time. These transactions are 

included in the investment costs. The number of transactions of each type, for each 

participant was collected through administrative data as described above. This addition 

resulted in the total cost of the drug court process or the total cost of the non-drug court 

process for every individual. The average of these individual costs is the average cost per 

participant of the drug court program and the average cost per offender for the non-drug 

court system process. 

However, for three types of data, it was not possible to directly associate the use of resources 

to the particular drug court eligible arrest. The treatment database and (surprisingly) the 

Probation and Sheriff databases did not include regular reference (such as a court case 

number) for a charge or sentence that might have brought them in contact with that system. 

Both Probation and jail time can be served for several cases simultaneously, so there was no 

way to determine directly what case was associated with time served. For these types of data, 

it was necessary to estimate the use of system resources that were attributable to the drug 

court eligible arrest. To perform this estimate, a reasonable date was chosen as a cut off for 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 34 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

investment costs versus outcome costs. Any treatment, jail or probation resources used 

between the date of the drug court eligible arrest and this cutoff date were considered 

“investment costs.” Any treatment or probation resources used in the year after this date were 

considered outcome costs. 

Several factors were taken into account in choosing the cutoff date in order for the resources 

used in this time period to be considered due to the drug court eligible arrest. According to 

information gained from interviews with judges and confirmed with aggregate data, the most 

common sentence for the drug possession charges that were eligible for drug court was thirty 

days in jail and 18 months probation. However, most offenders who behave well do not serve 

the full sentence of either jail or probation time. In addition, the conditions of probation for 

these charges included an assessment for drug abuse and, if indicated by this assessment, the 

offender must engage in treatment. 

An examination of the data from our large administrative sample showed that, for those in 

the comparison group who entered jail and began probation during the 18 months from the 

time of the drug court eligible arrest, an average of 26 days in jail and 12 months probation 

was served. This is very close to what would be expected for time served on the type of drug 

possession charges associated with the drug court eligible arrest. Further, after 18 months, 

approximately 95% of the drug court participants had completed the drug court program 

(either by terminating unsuccessfully or graduating). For these reasons, an 18 month cutoff 

date was chosen for this data. Any treatment, probation or jail resources used by both the 

drug court participants and the comparison group were counted as investment costs (due to 

the drug court eligible arrest) if they began within 18 months of the drug court-eligible arrest 

date. Therefore, drug court participant treatment investment costs included all treatment 

received from the drug court treatment provider, regardless of the length of time an 

individual was in the program, as well as any additional treatment received after termination 

from drug court if the treatment fell between the termination date and the 18-month mark. 

The total investment costs can also be multiplied by 300 (the average number of participants 

who enter this drug court each year) to obtain the average investment cost per year for both 

groups. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 35 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

c. Costs for Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Outcomes. Outcome costs were calculated in 

the same manner as the investment costs described above. The costs per individual for all 

outcome transactions were summed to determine the total outcome costs per individual. 

Outcomes included any transactions that occurred after the drug court eligible arrest, except 

for those directly related to the eligible arrest. This includes any re-arrests and court hearings 

due to those re-arrests, even if they occurred while an individual was still in drug court. For 

the treatment, probation and jail data that could not be associated with a particular case, 

transactions (e.g., jail time served, treatment episodes) counted as outcomes if they occurred 

after the 18-month cutoff date. 

In order to calculate the cost of hearings for the administrative sample, the data gathered on 

the smaller intensive sample was used to determine the average amount of court time spent 

per arrest. This number was used per re-arrest for each individual in the larger administrative 

sample. 

The cost per individual in both the drug court participant group and the comparison group 

were averaged to get the mean outcome cost per individual for each group. This number 

could then be multiplied by 300 (the average number of participants who enter drug court 

each year) to get the yearly outcome costs for both groups. 

The outcome costs were calculated first without victimization costs, to determine the costs for the 

criminal justice and public treatment systems, and then are calculated with the victimization costs 

included in order to present a more complete picture of the costs to the taxpayer. 

d. Cost Savings. Once the average costs per participant for the drug court process, the 

comparison court process, and the treatment and criminal recidivism outcomes were 

calculated, any cost savings could be determined by taking the difference between the two 

groups. The difference was computed in three ways: 

• The difference in investment costs: The investment costs for the drug court participant 

group was subtracted from the investment costs for the comparison group to determine 

the difference. A positive number would indicate costs savings (benefits) in investment 

in drug court while a negative number would indicate that the drug court cost more to 

run than the non-drug court process. This difference in investment costs describes the 

cost to the system of the drug court versus traditional court processing. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 36 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

• The difference in outcome costs: The outcome costs for the drug court participant 

groups was subtracted from the outcome costs for the comparison group to determine 

the difference in outcome costs. As above, a positive number would indicate savings 

due to drug court while a negative number indicates loss due to drug court. 

• The difference in total costs: The investment and outcome costs for each group were 

added to obtain the total cost to the system for those who participate in drug court and 

those who do not. The total costs of the drug court group were subtracted from the total 

costs of the comparison group to determine the overall cost difference between the two. 

Once again, a positive number would indicate overall cost savings due to drug court 

while a negative number would indicate loss due to drug court. This difference in total 

costs is truly the “bottom line” for the cost to the system of drug court participants 

versus the cost of non-drug court participants. 

Proxy costs methodology 

One of the important policy questions discussed in earlier in this report was the issue of the 

collection of more easily gathered (proxy) data versus the intensive technique developed in this 

study. One of the goals of this study was to compare the more intensive approach to cost data 

collection with a less intensive approach to understand how much value the more intensive 

approaches add to the assessment and to determine whether some less intensive approaches may 

be as valuable. To ascertain this, we conducted some additional data collection using less 

intensive strategies to determine the relative value of these strategies. Table 3, below, indicates 

the type of low intensity and moderate intensity approaches to data collection that were 

undertaken by NPC Research to gather data parallel to that being gathered for the high-intensity 

approach. The results of this lower intensity data gathering are presented in the results section. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 37 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 3. Proxy Methods: Low- to High-intensity data gathering methods to estimate service 

utilization costs and avoided costs 

Transaction Low Intensity 

(E.g., expert opinion, 

policies, aggregate 

admin data) 

Moderate Intensity 

(E.g., client level admin 

data) 

High Intensity 

(Intensive tracking) 

Arrests/Bookings Aggregated data (not 

client level). (E.g., 

frequencies on number 

of arrests in a specific 

population by type of 

crime) 

Client level 

administrative data to 

determine average 

arrests 

Tracking individuals to 

verify actual 

arrest/booking 

Hearings Expert opinion on 

hearing frequency and 

duration 

Timing each individual 

at a random selection of 

hearings (i.e., a cross 

section of individuals 

rather than a specific 

sample 

Administrative data on 

number of hearings at 

client level 

Following individuals in 

a sample into hearings 

to get actual number 

Timing actual hearings 

for each participant in 

sample to obtain 

duration 

Treatment Sessions Expert opinion on 

frequency 

Policies on frequency 

for each phase 

Client level 

administrative data 

Following individuals in 

a sample into client 

level records to get 

actual number of 

treatment sessions 

Jail Time Aggregated data on 

average offender jail 

time per booking 

Client level on 

frequency (e.g., # of 

arrests) and aggregated 

data average for jail 

time served 

Follow individual sample 

through jail database 

with actual frequency 

and duration 

Probation Time Sentenced probation 

time for PCS charges. 

Aggregate data on 

average amount of 

probation time served 

for PCS charge 

Client level data on time 

served after PCS arrest. 

Client level data on 

average time served at 

each level of 

supervision (in order to 

include cost for each 

level). 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 38 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

RESULTS 

This section contains the results as they relate to the policy questions this study was designed to 

answer. The first six policy questions are concerned with the costs and benefits associated with 

drug court. The seventh policy question is concerned with determining the optimum research 

methodology for obtaining information on drug court costs and benefits (in terms of maximizing 

the accuracy of the information obtained while minimizing the expense and time for the 

researcher). 

The results section is divided into two parts. The first part provides the cost and benefit results 

for the investment costs and outcome costs for the Multnomah County (STOP) Drug Court as 

determined from our intensive cost data collection. The second part demonstrates the type of 

information obtained when using data collection methodologies of differing levels of intensity. 

As described in the methods section, in order to conduct this study it was necessary to obtain very 

thorough descriptions of the drug court and ‘business-as-usual’ processes. The detailed 

descriptions of the Multnomah County STOP Drug Court process and the Multnomah County nondrug court ‘business-as-usual’ process can be found in Appendix B. Also in Appendix B is a 

description of the various types of court hearings that occur in both processes along with the 

average time in seconds for each type of hearing. 

There were a total of 1,173 individuals in the large administrative sample. As described in the 

methodology, individuals were assigned to the drug court group if they had at least one treatment 

session at the drug court treatment agency. Individuals with no drug court treatment sessions 

were assigned to the non-drug court (comparison) group. These two groups were then matched 

on gender, age, ethnicity and criminal history. Significance tests were run on each of those 

variables and the differences were found to be non-significant. (See Table XX in the methods 

section.) 

The costs and benefits of drug court 

The following results are organized around the policy questions discussed in Section 1. Each 

policy question is listed and then the results are presented along with a discussion of those results. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 39 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Note: All costs described in this section include the time spent in the actual transaction plus staff 

preparation time, support staff time, benefits and jurisdictional overhead. Drug court hearings 

include the cost to the court (judge, judicial assistant, court reporter, etc.), the district attorney, 

the public defender, corrections (when an offender is in custody), the sheriff (bailiff) and the 

treatment provider court liaison. 

Policy Question # 1. What are the total criminal justice system costs invested in drug court, 

not just for graduates, but for all participants? 

Table 4. Criminal Justice System Costs Invested in Drug Court 

Drug Court Participant Transactions 

(Mean number) 

Investment 

Cost per 

Participant 

(n = 594) 

Cost per year 

(300 participants) 

Arrest (1) $192.91 $57,873.00

Booking (1) $284.34 $85,302.00

Drug court hearings (14) $681.54 $204,462.00

DC Treatment (334 days in treatment)/ $6.50 per 

day $2,199.58 $659,874.00

Non-DC treatment post termination (14 days)/ 

$31.77 per day $444.90 $133,470.00

Jail time post termination and sanctions (15 days) $1,610.89 $483,267.00

Probation post termination (130 days) $513.64 $154,092.00

Total DC cost per participant $5,927.80 $1,778,340.00

The results reported in the above table are investment costs associated with all those who entered 

drug court treatment from the time of the initial drug possession arrest through to the resolution 

of that case. This includes jail, probation and treatment time for participants who withdrew or 

were terminated from drug court and then underwent a stipulated facts trial. This also includes 

individuals who had as little treatment as a single group session. (There are 100 individuals 

assigned to the drug court participant sample who had fewer than 5 group treatment sessions). 

Consistent with general expectations of drug courts, the largest investment costs in this drug 

court are due to drug court treatment. Although, considering the cost per day of drug court 

treatment ($6.50 per day) compared to the cost of non-drug court treatment ($31.77 per day), 

drug court treatment is clearly the less expensive option. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 40 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

The next largest investment cost is from the relatively small amount of jail days due to those 

terminated from drug court. Clearly, jail is an expensive option for dealing with drug offenders. 

 Although it is a common expectation that drug court hearings are an expensive piece of the drug 

court program, this is not confirmed by the above cost numbers. This is particularly true when 

compared to the court costs for those going through the ‘business-as-usual’ system, which will 

be presented shortly. 

Policy Question # 2.What are the costs for each agency that invests in drug court? 

Table 5. Drug Court Investment Cost for Each Agency per Participant 

Agency Cost per Participant 

(n=594) 

Cost per year 

(300 participants) 

Court $98.70 $29,610.00 

Public Defender $208.00 $62,400.00 

District Attorney $217.13 $65,139.00 

Law Enforcement (arrest, 

bookings, jail, court time) $2,106.37 $631,911.00 

Treatment (DC treatment, nonDC treatment, Court time) $2,783.96 $835,188.00 

Probation $513.64 $154,092.00 

Table 5 presents the drug court investment costs per participant as well as per year11 for each 

agency/system involved with drug court. The agencies with the largest investment costs are 

treatment and law enforcement. As discussed above, most of the costs for law enforcement are 

due to jail time for those who terminated from drug court and who were then sentenced to time in 

jail as well as time on probation. The court system, including attorneys, actually invests a 

relatively small amount of money in the drug court process. 

Policy Question # 3. What are the investment costs in drug court over and above the costs 

invested in the ‘business-as-usual’ process? 

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to first determine the costs per participant for the 

‘business-as-usual’ process. These numbers can then be subtracted from the costs due to drug 

court to achieve the costs of drug court over-and-above the usual process. 

 

11 This is based on an average of 300 participants entering drug court each year. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 41 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Note: Court time costs include the court (judge, judicial assistant, court reporter, etc.), the district 

attorney, the public defender, corrections (when an offender is in custody), and the sheriff (bailiff). 

Table 6. Investment Cost for ‘Business-as-Usual’ Process 

Non-Drug Court Participant Transactions Investment Cost 

(n=573) 

Cost per year 

(300 Individuals)

Arrest (1) $192.91 $57,873.00

Booking (1) $284.34 $85,302.00

Court time (1475.01 seconds) $678.50 $203,550.00

Treatment (142 days) $2,009.18 $602,754.00

Jail time (26 days) $2,782.55 $834,765.00

Probation time (362 days) $1,421.84 $426,552.00

Total cost per non-DC participant $7,369.32 $2,210,796.00

As Table 6 shows, the largest investment in the non-drug court process is due to time in jail. 

Again, this is an expensive option when dealing with drug offenders and, as the outcome results 

will show (below), an apparently ineffective option as well. 

Although the ‘business-as-usual’ process is generally thought of as one that does not involve 

treatment, this is inaccurate. For many offenders, treatment is a condition of their probation. After 

the cost due to jail time, the next largest investment in the non-drug court process is treatment. 

The table below (Table 7) demonstrates the difference in investment between drug court and 

non-drug court participants. In this table, a negative number in the difference column indicates 

that the drug court process costs less than the non-drug court process. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 42 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 7. Difference in Investment Cost for Drug Court and ‘Business-as-Usual’ Process 

per Transaction 

Transactions 

Investment Cost 

per DC 

Participant 

(n = 594) 

Investment Cost 

per Non-DC 

Offender 

(n=573) 

Cost 

Difference 

(Benefit)

Arrest (1) $192.91 $192.91 $0.00

Booking (1) $284.34 $284.34 $0.00

Court time $681.54 $678.50 $3.04

Treatment $2,644.48 $2,009.18 $635.30*

Jail time $1,610.89 $2,782.55 - $1,171.66*

Probation time $513.64 $1,421.84 - $908.20*

Total cost $5,927.80 $7,369.32 - $1,441.52

*These cost differences are significant at p < .05. 

Contradicting the belief that court costs for drug court participants are much higher (due to the 

numerous hearings) than the court costs for non-drug court, the average cost for ‘business-asusual’ court processing ($678.50) is only about three dollars less per offender than the average 

cost of drug court sessions ($681.54). This is most likely due to drug court sessions being 

generally quite short in duration, and to less preparation time required for the attorneys and the 

judge for each court appearance. 

Following is the total cost per participant and per year for drug court over-and-above the cost for 

non-drug court. 

Cost per participant for the drug court process minus non-drug court processing: 

$5,927.80 - $7,369.32 = - $1,441.52 

Cost per year based on 300 drug court participants each year:

- $1,441.52 * 300 = - 432,456.00

As the negative number indicates, the cost for processing an offender through the Multnomah 

County Drug Court (including those who terminate) is actually less than the cost of ‘business-asusual.’ It is generally assumed that, due to the expense of treatment and multiple court sessions, 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 43 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

the drug court process will cost more than the non-drug court process. However, this is not 

always the case. A previous cost study performed in California on three drug court sites also 

found cost savings in the drug court process at one of those sites (Carey and Finigan, et al, 2002). 

The savings in this case appear to be due in a large part to the high cost of incarceration in the 

‘business-as-usual’ process. The cost of treatment is also a large contributing factor in this group. 

Differences in investment cost by agency. The following table presents the investment costs in 

the drug court and in non-drug court processes for each agency. Also presented is the difference 

in investment costs per agency between the two processes. In this table, the difference represents 

costs over-and-above the cost of ‘business-as-usual.’ A positive number indicates an additional 

cost due to drug court while a negative number indicates that the agency spends less on drug 

court than on non-drug court. 

Table 8. Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Investment and the Difference in Investment for 

Each Agency 

Agency Cost per 

Drug Court 

Participant 

Cost Per NonDrug Court 

Participant 

“Cost” 

Difference 

(Benefit) 

“Cost” difference 

per year 

(300 participants) 

Court $98.70 $73.75 $24.95 $7,485.00

Public Defender $208.00 $416.00 -$208.00 -$62,400.00

District Attorney $217.13 $162.25 $54.88 $16,464.00

Law Enforcement 

(arrest, bookings, jail, 

bailiff court time) $2,106.37 $3,286.30 -$1,179.93 -$353,979.00

Treatment (DC 

treatment, non-DC 

treatment, Court time) $2,783.96 $2,009.18 $774.78 $232,434.00

Probation $513.64 $1,421.84 -$908.20 -$272,460.00

The table above demonstrates that the total cost savings, or benefits, in investment in the drug 

court process are not shared equally among the agencies. The court and the district attorney both 

spend a relatively small amount more on the drug court process than on the ‘business-as-usual’ 

process. The cost of treatment for drug court participants (including treatment that occurred after 

termination) is greater than the cost for treatment for non-drug court participants. This is to be 

expected, as all drug court participants are required to engage in treatment while not all offenders 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 44 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

outside of drug court have mandated treatment. What is more unexpected, perhaps, is the 

relatively small size of that difference. It appears that taxpayer dollars are paying the high cost of 

treatment, whether or not an offender enters drug court. 

In contrast to the court and the district attorney, the public defender spends half as much on drug 

court participants as it does on non-drug court participants. Law enforcement and probation also 

see cost savings due to the drug court process. Probation spends over twice as much on ‘business 

as usual’ offenders compared to drug court participants. As these results make evident, the total 

cost savings during the drug court process is primarily due to less use of law enforcement (jail) 

and probation resources—the traditional response to drug possession cases. 

The results so far have established that the drug court process in Multnomah County is less 

expensive than the ‘business-as-usual’ process. These differences in investment cost should hold, 

regardless of the motivation level of the offender, as the resources used in the traditional court 

process should remain fairly stable whether or not offenders intend to change their drug use 

habits. 

However, the questions still remain as to whether the outcomes of drug court result in cost 

savings and, perhaps more importantly, whether public safety is protected when using this 

alternative approach to the traditional criminal justice response in these cases.

 Policy Question #4. What are the costs or savings associated with outcomes for drug court 

and “business as usual” participants? 

In order to establish the costs, it is necessary to determine the outcomes in terms of each 

transaction for both groups. The following table presents the average number or amount of time 

spent by each group for each transaction not associated with the drug court eligible arrest. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 45 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 9. Average number of transactions for each group after the eligible arrest 

Outcome Transactions 

(Mean number) 

Drug Court 

Participant Outcomes

Non-Drug Court 

Outcomes

Arrests** 2.7 3.3 

Bookings* 3.2 3.7 

Court time** 757 seconds 925 seconds 

Jail time* 51 days 67 days 

Treatment 36 days 46 days 

Probation time 301 days 307 days 

* These outcomes were significantly different between the two groups (p<.01). 

** These outcomes were significantly different between the two groups (p<.05). 

As Table 9 demonstrates, the outcomes for the drug court participant group are more positive 

than those in the comparison group. That is, the drug court participant group had significantly 

fewer re-arrests, bookings and jail time than those who did not participate. If the number of rearrests and bookings after drug court is taken as a reasonable indication of criminality, it appears 

that public safety is safeguarded more by the drug court process than by traditional court 

processing. Less criminal activity also results in lower costs. 

The following table gives the costs per participant associated with each transaction for both the 

drug court and the non-drug court group. This table also presents the difference in costs between 

each group per individual and per year.12 The difference is presented in terms of savings—a 

positive number indicates savings while a negative number indicates loss. 

 

12 Annual costs are based on the average of 300 participants entering the drug court program per year. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 46 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 10. Outcome Costs and Savings over 30 months 

Outcome 

Transactions 

Drug Court 

Participant 

Outcomes 

and Costs 

Non-Drug Court 

Outcomes and 

Costs 

Difference/Cost 

Savings For Drug 

Court Participants

Drug Court Outcome 

Savings per Year 

(300 Offenders) 

Arrests $524.49 $627.88 $103.39* $31,017.00

Bookings $915.25 $1,058.96 $143.71* $43,113.00

Court time (280.2 

seconds per arrest) $351.21 $420.45 $69.24* $20,772.00

Jail time $5,316.62 $6,961.78 $1,645.16* $493,548.00

Treatment $764.93 $892.02 $127.09 $38,127.00

Probation time $1,110.06 $1,350.36 $240.30 $72,090.00

Total Outcome 

costs $8,982.56 $11,311.45 $2,328.89* $698,667.00

Victimization 

costs13

$6,675.69 $7,976.85 $1,301.16* $390,348.00

Total Outcome 

costs plus 

victimizations $15,658.25 $19,288.30 $3,630.05* $1,089,015.00

*These cost differences are significant at p < .01. 

The above table reveals that there are cost savings in outcomes for drug court participants across 

every transaction. Once again, the largest savings is due to less use of jail beds by drug court 

participants. The total outcome cost savings is over $2,300 for each drug court participant. These 

savings, when multiplied by the average number of people who enter the Multnomah County 

Drug Court each year results in nearly $700,000 in savings per year. When victimization costs 

are added, the number increases to over $1,000,000 in savings per year for drug court 

participants. Please note that these numbers are outcome costs (savings) only and do not include 

 

13 The victimization costs in this paper are reported as a point of interest for those who consider victimizations a cost 

that occurs to tax paying citizens and therefore a cost that should be included in a “cost to the taxpayer” approach. 

These victimization costs are based on the National Victimization Survey. The National Institute of Justice's Victim 

Costs and Consequences: A New Look documents estimates of costs and consequences of personal crimes

documents losses per criminal victimization, including attempts, in a number of categories, including fatal crimes, 

child abuse, rape and sexual assault, other assaults, robbery, drunk driving, arson, larceny, burglary, and motor 

vehicle theft. The reported costs include lost productivity, medical care, mental health care, police and fire services, 

victim services, property loss and damage, and quality of life. In our study, arrest charges were categorized as 

violent or property crimes, and therefore costs from the victimization study were averaged for rape and sexual 

assault, other assaults, and robbery and attempted robbery to create an estimated cost for violent crimes, and arson, 

larceny and attempted larceny, burglary and attempted burglary, and motor vehicle theft were averaged for an 

estimated property crime cost. National Institute of Justice Research Report, Victim Costs and Consequences: A 

New Look (January 1996). 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 47 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

the investment savings presented earlier. Policy question #6 presents the sum of the investment 

and outcome costs, or the total costs. 

A common method used by researchers and policymakers is to compare the outcomes for 

graduates versus those terminated from drug court. Although this may not be a valid comparison 

because graduates may be more motivated to change, it is still interesting to examine the costs 

attributable to outcomes and investments in each group. 

Table 11. Outcome and Investment costs for graduates and terminated participants 

Total Outcome 

Costs 

Total Outcome Costs 

with Victimizations 

Investment Costs 

Graduate $2,717.10 $6,687.46 $5,806.19 

Terminated $15,201.50 $24,802.47 $6,288.28 

Unsurprisingly, the costs for the two groups are substantially different, with graduates costing 

the system far less than those terminated from drug court. However, this is not a good indication 

of the costs saved due to drug court, as those terminated still consumed drug court resources. 

 Policy Question #5. What are the costs or savings associated with outcomes for each 

agency? 

The next table illustrates the costs and savings related to participation in drug court for each 

agency. Again, the difference between the costs for the two groups is presented in terms of 

savings, so a positive number indicates cost savings.

Table 12. Costs or Savings Associated with Outcomes for Each Agency 

Agency Outcome Cost 

per Drug Court 

Participant 

Outcome Cost 

per Non-Drug 

Court 

Participant 

Savings 

Associated with 

Outcomes 

Drug Court Savings 

per Year 

(300 participants) 

Court $37.83 $44.83 $7.00 $2,100.00

Public Defender $211.83 $251.06 $39.23 $11,769.00

District Attorney $83.22 $98.63 $15.41 $4,623.00

Law Enforcement 

(arrests, 

bookings, jail and 

court time) $6,774.69 $8,674.55 $1,899.86 $569,958.00

Treatment $764.93 $892.02 $127.09 $38,127.00

Probation $1,110.06 $1,350.36 $240.30 $72,090.00
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 48 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Unlike investment costs, in the case of outcome costs, every agency experienced savings to 

varying degrees. The court and the district attorney see the smallest amount of savings, although 

if the trend of lower recidivism in the drug court participant group continues, these agencies will 

see more savings over time. Once again, law enforcement experiences the most savings due 

primarily to less jail time for the drug court participants. Interestingly, even the treatment system 

experienced savings in outcomes, though this is most likely due drug court participants using 

treatment resources up-front while in drug court, while non-drug court offenders may get 

involved in treatment at any time. In addition, apart from cost, there is always the question of 

whether repeated treatment use is an indication of failure (the first treatment episode didn’t 

“work” so the offender had to go back again) or a success (the offender realizes his or her need 

for treatment and is actively engaged in getting help).

 Policy Question #6. Are there some offices (e.g., district attorney) that never reclaim their 

investment costs? 

Since half the agencies actually experienced savings in the investment itself, these agencies have 

no costs to reclaim. However, the district attorney, the court and treatment all invested more in 

drug court participants than they did in the in the non-drug court system offenders. The following 

table (Table 13) gives the total costs (both investment and outcome costs) incurred by each 

agency in the drug court and non-drug court process over 30 months. The differences between 

the costs for the two groups are again presented as savings—a positive number indicates savings, 

negative number indicates loss. The last row of this table presents the total cost and savings to 

the system over a 30-month period from the drug court eligible arrest. One of the main 

advantages of this calculation is that it avoids any issue of whether a cost is an investment or an 

outcome. This calculation is a true indication of the cost to the system of drug court participants 

versus those who did not participate in drug court. Further, regardless of motivation level, these 

figures are what it cost Multnomah County taxpayers for drug court participants and non-drug 

court participants. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 49 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 13. Total Costs for Drug Court Participants and Non-Drug Court (both Investment 

and Outcome costs) for Each Agency over 30 Months 

Agency Total Cost per 

Drug Court 

Participant 

Total Cost per 

Non-Drug Court 

Participant 

Total Savings Savings per Year 

(300 participants) 

Court $136.53 $118.58 -$17.95 -$5,385.00

Public Defender $419.83 $667.06 $247.23 $74,169.00

District Attorney $300.35 $260.88 -$39.47 -$11,841.00

Law Enforcement 

(arrests, 

bookings, jail and 

court time) $8,881.06 $11,960.85 $3,079.79 $923,937.00

Treatment $3,548.89 $2,901.20 -$647.69 -$194,307.00

Probation $1,623.70 $2,772.20 $1,148.50 $344,550.00

Total $14,910.36 $18,680.77 $3,770.41 $1,131,123.00 

The total savings presented in this table show that the court, the DA, and the treatment agency do 

not recoup their investment over the 30 months after the drug court eligible arrest in spite of the 

savings in outcomes shown in Table 13. The loss to the court and the district attorney is quite 

small. It is likely that, if these participants had been followed through the system longer, and 

those outcome trends continued, these agencies would recoup their investments and would begin 

to see cost savings. However, in the short term, these agencies are excellent candidates for 

financial support from local county government or state and federal grants in order to offset the 

higher investment costs. This is a particularly good investment for the county because in the long 

run, for the county as a whole, this drug court results in very large taxpayer savings. As the table 

above demonstrates, there is a total savings to the taxpayer, of over $1.1 million per year due to 

participation in drug court

Results of data collection at three levels of intensity – What proxies work? 

 Policy Question #7. What cost and avoided costs can be effectively measured by easy to 

gather proxies at drug court sites and what costs need to be measured directly to achieve 

good data? 

Data Collection Proxies 

Low and medium intensity methods were used to collect the same types of data as that gathered 

using our high-intensity approach for each transaction. The low-intensity approaches included 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 50 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

asking “experts” in the area of the transaction of interest and using aggregate data rather than client 

level data. This level of data collection is extremely quick, and easy if one knows the right person 

to ask. Medium intensity approaches included administrative client level data, combinations of 

aggregate and client level data, and timing a “cross section” of different court hearings for random 

individuals rather than following a specific sample of individuals longitudinally. Although this 

method does not use as much direct researcher time as the high-intensity tracking approach, 

gaining access to administrative data sets and then making the request and waiting for the data 

download can be a lengthy process. There can be a wait time of anywhere from two weeks (when 

things go smoothly) up to one year. Also, cleaning the data for analysis can take some time, up to a 

week of full-time work. Below is a description of the methods used to collect data for each 

transaction along with the results from each level of intensity. 

Arrests. The data of interest in this case was the average number of arrests per offender the in 30 

months after a drug possession arrest. 

• Low Intensity: Aggregate data. Called a data manager at the state and asked for the average 

number of re-arrests in 30 months after a possession charge from a county database. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: about 30 minutes. 

Result: an average of 2.4 re-arrests 

• Medium Intensity: Client level administrative data. Used SPSS to calculate the mean 

for the individuals in each sample. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: 10 days. Wait time: one month (as we 

already had a relationship with the agency that provided the data). 

Result: an average of 3.1 re-arrests 

• High Intensity: Followed individuals intensively through the court and treatment 

system. 

Approximate use of researcher time: 24 months with a project manager, a project 

coordinator, and three data collectors. 

Result: an average of 3.8 re-arrests 

Conclusion: Clearly the intensive method captures the most data. Also clearly, the aggregate 

data was far from accurate. However, medium and high intensity results are similar, and if the 

researcher is comparing the relative differences between two groups, the administrative data 

seems sufficient. This conclusion should be tested at another site to confirm.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 51 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Hearings. The data of interest for hearings was both the average number (i.e., the frequency) of 

hearings and the duration of each hearing. The results are presented in Table 15, below. 

• Low Intensity: Called two individuals at the district attorney’s office, two at the public 

defender, and three judges. They were asked about the average duration for various 

types of hearings, the average number of hearings from arraignment to case resolution 

for a non-drug court possession case, and the average length of time between 

arraignment and case resolution.

Approximate use of direct researcher time (including repeated phone calls): about 6 

hours. Wait time between returned (and un-returned) phone calls: 3 weeks 

• Medium Intensity: Client level administrative data and timing a cross-section of court 

hearings. Used SPSS to calculate the mean for the individuals in each sample. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: 14 days. Wait time: 3 weeks (as we 

already had a relationship with the agency that provided the data). 

• High Intensity: Followed individuals through the court and treatment system. 

Approximate use of researcher time: 24 months with a project manager, a project 

coordinator, and three data collectors. 

The following table (Table 14) provides the results for hearing proxies. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 52 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 14: Court Appearance Proxies 

Low 

Intensity 

Medium 

Intensity 

Appearance Range of expert 

responses 

Avg. expert 

opinion (with any 

outliers 

removed) 

Avg. of Judgeonly responses Timing cross section of 

different types 

of appearances 

t

i

Arraignment 120 to 300 seconds 214 seconds 180 seconds 185 seconds 1Assignment Call 15 to 150 seconds 64 seconds 60 seconds 33 seconds 3Drug Call 20 – 480 seconds 164 seconds 107 seconds 48 seconds 4P/V Hearing 600 to 1,800 seconds 1,071 seconds 700 seconds 162 seconds 3Stop Court 120 to 900 seconds 250 seconds 180 seconds 208 seconds 1Length of time between 1st and last 

court appearance. (Traditional court processing) 

2.5 to 5 

months 

3.5 

months 

4 

months 

NA 

Number of court appearances from 1st

appearance to final disposition. (Traditional court processing) 

4 to 9 

appearances 

5.3 

appearances 

5.7 

appearances 

NA 

a
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 53 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Although the data in Table 14 show that there is some difference between a cross-section timing 

approach and the actual time for specific individuals, the medium intensity (cross-section) 

method is probably reasonable to perform to obtain the duration of hearings. Expert opinion on 

hearing duration does not appear to be accurate, though the judges seem to be a better resource 

than attorneys, most likely because they spend more time consistently in the court room. 

Expert opinion is also off on the length of time and number of appearances between the first 

court appearance and case resolution, although the judges were not far off on the length of time. 

Conclusion: Actual data, at least in terms of a cross-sectional approach, is necessary to get a 

reasonably accurate duration for court appearances. Also, actual data on the dates of court 

hearings is necessary to determine the length of time and number of appearances to case 

resolution. However, the court and the district attorney often keep records of court appearances 

so following individuals into court is not necessary to obtain reasonably accurate data. These 

conclusions need to be verified by data from at least one other site. 

Treatment and Drug Court Sessions. The data of interest in this case was the average number 

of treatment and drug court sessions per participant during the time they were engaged in the 

program.

• Low Intensity: We spoke with three counselors at the drug court treatment program and 

they gave us their estimates of numbers of group and individual treatment sessions, 

acupuncture sessions, and court appearances. 2. Using their stated policy on number of 

sessions per phase in the program, and total program length of one year, we calculated 

the total number of each type of session. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: about one hour.

• Medium Intensity: Client level administrative data. Used SPSS to calculate the mean 

for the individuals in each sample. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: 7 days. Wait time: one month (as we already 

had a relationship with the drug court treatment agency that provided the data). 

• High Intensity: Followed individuals through the drug court treatment system, pulled 

each treatment session from client charts, tracked them into every court appearance.

Approximate use of researcher time: 24 months with a project manager, a project 

coordinator, and three data collectors. 

Result: See Table 15. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 54 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Table 15. Results of number of treatment sessions using low medium and high-intensity 

approaches to data collection 

Type of Session Low 

Intensity 

Medium Intensity High 

Intensity 

Expert 

Opinion 

Stated Policy Administrative data Intensive 

Tracking 

Group 69 103 47.5 45 

Individual 25 25 26 24 

Acupuncture 51 51 44 29 

Court Sessions 11 11 14 19 

In the case of treatment sessions, these varying methods of low, medium and high-intensity data 

collection resulted in the most variation in numbers. The larger numbers in the low intensity 

(expert opinion and stated policy) approaches are certainly due to these calculations being 

performed using the assumptions that everyone completed the program, that the program was 

completed in one year and that everyone had the same needs in terms of frequency of treatment 

sessions. If the termination rate of approximately 50% is used, and the assumption is made that 

most of those terminated receive little or no treatment, then the numbers become half of what is 

expected due to policy. Although this results in some numbers being closer to those found in the 

intensive method, it is still not accurate. The administrative data is much more accurate in 

relation to the high-intensity approach, except for the number of acupuncture sessions. It is 

possible that the calculations performed in the database by the agency to determine the hours of 

acupuncture time were incorrect. 

Conclusion: Similar to the findings above, the administrative data appears overall to be 

reasonably accurate and certainly far easier and less expensive to collect. Administrative data 

collection for cost analysis appears to have the most ‘bang for your buck.’ However, this 

conclusion should be tested in at least one other site for confirmation.

Jail Time Served. The data of interest for jail time for these proxy methods was the average 

number of days served per offender in the 30 months after a drug possession arrest.

• Low Intensity: Aggregate data. Called a data manager and researcher at the Sheriff’s 

office and asked for the average number of jail days served for possession charges. 

Because the Sheriff database was not set up to determine jail days served for a particular 

case, they were only able to give us the number of jail days served per booking. More 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 55 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

detailed analysis would require much more intensive work on their part, and would 

require payment. Using the aggregate data on number of re-arrests as an approximation 

of the number of bookings multiplied by the aggregate number of jail days results in a 

number of jail days served in the 30 months after a possession arrest.

Approximate use of direct researcher time: about one hour. 

Result: Average jail days served per booking = 20 days. 

 2.4 aggregate arrests * 20 jail days = 48 days

• Medium Intensity: We used two methods: 1. Client level administrative data on number 

of re-arrests combined with aggregate data on jail days served per booking. 2. Client 

level administrative data on number of bookings combined with aggregate data on jail 

days served per booking. It is generally easier to obtain client level data on number of 

arrests, as that data is kept by several sources (e.g., police, sheriff, probation), while the 

number of actual bookings is usually only kept at the jail. Method 1 assumes booking 

data is unavailable. Used SPSS to calculate the mean for the individuals in each sample. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: 10 days. Wait time: two months (our data 

request had to wait in line behind other requests, but wait time was shorter than it 

might have been because we already had a data sharing agreement with this agency). 

Result: 3.2 re-arrests multiplied by 20 jail days = 64 days

 3.7 bookings multiplied by 20 jail days = 74 days

• High Intensity: Administrative data for both bookings and dates of jail days served plus 

tracking through more than one administrative database.

Approximate use of researcher time: one month plus 3 months wait time for data requests. 

Result: (Average days served per booking within our sample = 18 days) 

 Actual jail days served = 67 days 

 

These results show that purely aggregate data is not nearly as accurate as a combination of client 

level administrative data and aggregate data. Assuming that the tracking through more than one 

administrative database is more accurate than an approach that relies partially on aggregate data, 

the data gathered through the medium intensity approach is reasonably similar to that for the 

high-intensity approach. 

Conclusion: The medium intensity approach combining aggregate data with client level 

administrative data appears to be the best option, in terms of achieving reasonably accurate data 

for the least amount of researcher expense. As with all the conclusions for proxies in this study, 

this method should be performed at least one other site for verification. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 56 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Probation Time Served. The data of interest for probation time for these proxy methods was the 

average number of probation days served per offender for drug possession charges.

• Low Intensity: There were two low intensity methods for this proxy. 1. Sentencing 

information gathered along with other court data. 2. Aggregate data. Emailed a data 

manager at the state probation office and asked for the average number of probation 

days served for drug possession charges. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: 1. No additional time specifically for 

probation data except for creating mean of sentencing data. 2. The email request and 

return of the result took about one hour. 

Result: 1. Sentence: Average probation sentence = 17 months. 

 2. Aggregate data: Average probation time served = 16 months. 

• Medium Intensity: Client level administrative data with start and end dates for 

probation. Used SPSS to calculate the mean for the individuals in the sample. 

Approximate use of direct researcher time: two weeks. Wait time: two weeks (quite 

short due to an extremely responsive data manger at the state probation office). 

Result: Client sample average = 14 months. 

• High Intensity: Administrative data on probation start and end dates, plus data on level 

of supervision. (allowing more accurate calculation of costs due to greater cost for 

higher supervision levels). 

Approximate use of researcher time: The additional data was not difficult to obtainapproximately the same amount of time was required as for the medium approach. 

Additional time was due to matching level of supervision with probation dates and 

then assigning costs. 

Results: Average time spent per participant on each level of probation. 

 

 Level 1 = 1 month 

 Level 2 = 5.1.months 

 Level 3 = 3 months 

 Level 4 = 5 months 

 Total = 14.1 months 

The aggregate probation data was actually reasonably accurate in this situation, although the 

client level administrative data is more precise. This site had probation data that was unusually 

easy to access. Other sites may not have that advantage. 

Conclusion: Depending on a grant’s budget, aggregate probation data may be the best option. 

However, the medium and high-intensity approaches were not that different in researcher time, 

so the most accuracy for a reasonable amount of expense (in this county) would be the high-
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 57 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

intensity approach. This methodology must be repeated in at least one other site to determine 

differences in the ease of obtaining data and in the quality of the results. 

Conclusion of proxy data gathering approaches. Overall, it appears that the medium intensity 

approaches achieve the most accurate results for the least amount of researcher expense. This 

would lead to the conclusion that, in the case of cost analysis of drug courts, administrative data 

combined with a small amount of aggregate data when client level data is not available, along 

with timing a cross-section of court hearings, would give a fairly accurate representation of the 

resources utilized in the drug court and non-drug court process. In addition, in the case of very 

small budgets, comparison costs (but not drug court costs) made up of aggregate (non-client 

level) data may be a reasonable approach. 

Summary of results 

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that drug courts can be a cost effective use of 

criminal justice system and taxpayer resources. We found that money is saved from the 

beginning in investment costs, although this savings is not spread equally among the agencies. 

The public defender, law enforcement, and probation all invest far less in drug court than in the 

‘business-as-usual’ process, while the district attorney, the court, and treatment invest more. 

However, the combined investment cost of all the agencies in drug court is $1,441.52 less for 

drug court. 

We also found that money is saved, for every agency, in outcome costs. A total of $2328.89 is 

saved per participant in outcome costs. If victimization costs are included, that number rises to 

$3,630.05. As with the investment costs, the largest benefactor of outcome savings is law 

enforcement and corrections. 

When investment savings and outcome savings are combined, a total cost savings averages 

$3,520.85 for every participant who enters drug court, including graduates and those who 

terminated less than a week after starting the program. When victimization costs are added, the 

total savings averages $5071.57 per participant. This is $507,157 for every one hundred 

participants who enter drug court. 

Finally, data was presented on the utility of a number of less intensive means of gathering costs 

data. In many cases a medium intensity method, generally involving the use of client level 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 58 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

administrative data, brought reasonably accurate results when compared to the highly intensive 

and detailed data collection approach. 

Conclusion and future directions 

In sum, this study has demonstrated the positive cost effect that drug courts can have on the 

criminal justice system. We have learned that some less-intensive data gathering approaches may 

be reasonably accurate compared to an intensive approach and would be far less expensive. 

A question of interest in future studies would be an examination of what type of treatment, and 

what number (or combination) of treatment and court sessions result in the lowest outcome costs. 

However, this question can only be answered with multiple drug court sites where the 

differences in type of client and type of treatment can be accounted for. 

Future work should include a repetition of this study in a different site. Specifically, the lower 

intensity data collection methods that appeared to be effective in this site should be tested against 

the detailed data collection methods in a new context. It would be particularly helpful to perform 

this testing in a site that is quite different from the Multnomah County site, in order to examine 

the practicality of these methods in a setting that is organized differently. In addition, there are 

several protocols that could be changed with the advent of newer technology (which is now 

becoming less expensive) that might make some parts of the detailed data collection more 

efficient and less resource intensive (e.g., using PDAs to enter court hearing duration directly, 

rather than writing the time on paper and then entering the data later). 

Finally, testing these protocols in at least one new site would allow us to better determine how 

well these protocols can be generalized across other drug court sites. This would make it possible 

for us to develop a more flexible set of protocols, a transaction cost analysis tool, that can be 

used effectively to calculate costs in other drug courts. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 59 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

REFERENCES 

Alterman, A.I., O’Brien, C.P., McLellan, T., August, D. S., Snider, E.C., Droba, M., 

Cornish, J.W., Hall, C.P., Raphaelson, A.H., & Schirade, F.X. (1994). Effectiveness and costs of 

inpatient versus day hospital cocaine rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 

182, 157-163. 

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, B., Lieb, R. (2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefits of 

Programs to Reduce Crime. In Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime. Westview Press. 

Bachman, S.S., Batten, H.L., Minkoff, K., Higgins, R., Manzik, N., & Mahoney, D. 

(1992). Predicting success in a community treatment program for substance abusers. The 

American Journal on Addictions, 1(2), 155-167. 

 Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court 

Institute Review, 1(1), 1-42. 

Carey, S.M., Finigan, M.W., Crumpton, C.D., & Worcel, S. (2002). California drug 

courts: A methodology for determining costs and avoided costs, phase I: Building the 

methodology, final report. 

Carey, S.M., Weller, J., and Roth, B. (2003). Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court 

Process Evaluation: Final Report. 

Carey, S.M., Weller, J., and Heiser, C. (2003). Clackamas County Adult Drug Court 

Process Evaluation: Final Report. 

Cartwright, W. S. (1998). Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug abuse 

treatment services. Evaluation Review, 22(5), 609-636. 

Crumpton, C.D. (2001). A Transactional and Institutional Cost Model of the Multnomah 

County, Oregon, Ciminal Justice System Dedicated to Serious Adult Crimes. [Report]. 

Cooper, C. (2000). Personal correspondence. 

Dunlap, L. J. and French, M. T. (1998). A Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating 

the Costs of Drug Abuse Treatment. Journal of Maintenance in the Addictions. 1(3), 29-44. 

 Finigan, M. (1996). Societal outcomes and cost savings of drug and alcohol treatment in 

the State of Oregon. [Report to the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.] 

 Finigan, M. (1998). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah County S.T.O.P. 

drug diversion program. [Report to the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections.] 

 Finigan, M., Carey, S., Mackin, J., Lucas, L., Cole, R. (1999). Evaluation of the Douglas 

County Adult Drug Court. 

Finigan, M. (2000). Oregon: The Multnomah County STOP drug diversion program. 

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Findings and Results From State 

and Local Program Evaluations (Bureau of Justice Assistance Effective Programs Monograph 

No. 2). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 60 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Finigan, M. and Schnacker, L. (2002). Costs and benefits associated with substance 

abuse treatment in the Portland Target Cities Initiative. (NEDS Contract No. 270-00-7078). 

Washington, DC: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 

French, M. T. (1995). Economic evaluation of drug abuse treatment programs: 

Methodology and findings. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 21(1), 111-135. 

French, M.T. (2000). Economic evaluation of alcohol treatment services. Evaluation and 

Program Planning, 23, 27-39. 

French, M.T., Salome, H.J., Krupski, A., McKay, J.R., Donovan, D.M., McLellan, A.T., & 

Durrell, J. (2000). Benefit-cost analysis of residential and outpatient addiction treatment in the 

State of Washington. Evaluation Review, 24(6), 609-634. 

Gerstein, D. R., Harwood, H., Fountain, D., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating 

recovery services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA). 

Washington, DC: National Opinion Research Center. 

Goodman, A, Tilford, J., Hankin, J., Holder, H., & Nishiura, E. (2000). Alcoholism 

Treatment Offset Effects: An Insurance Perspective. Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 

57 No.1 51-75. 

Greenfeld, L. A. (1998). Alcohol and crime: An analysis of national data on the 

prevalence of alcohol involvement in crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Gottfredson, D., Najaka, S., Kearly, B. (2003). Effectiveness of Drug Treatment 

Courts:Evidence from a Randomized Trial, Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2. 

Goldkamp, J. (2002). Personal Communication. 

 Guydish, J. (2001). Personal correspondence. 

Harrell, A. (2003). Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Courts:Evidence from a Randomized 

Trial, Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2. 

Koenig, L., Denmead, G., Nguyen, R., Harrison, M., & Harwood, H. (1999). The costs 

and benefits of substance abuse treatment: Findings from the National Treatment Improvement 

Evaluation Study (NTIES) (NEDS Contract No. 270-97-7016). Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates. 

Koenig, L., Harwood, H. J., Sullivan, K., & Sen, N. (2000). Do the benefits of more 

intensive substance abuse treatment offset the costs? (NEDS Contract No. 270-97-7016) Fairfax, 

VA: Caliber Associates. 

Longabaugh, R., McCrady, B., Fink, E., Stout, R., McAuley, T., Doyle, C., & McNeill, 

D. (1983). Cost effectiveness of alcoholism treatment in partial versus inpatient settings. Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol, 44(6), 1049-1071. 

Martinez, R. J. & Dacin, M. T. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces: 

Combining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management 25 (1), 75-97. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 61 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

 Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political 

Science 28(4), 739-777. 

Morgan, D. & Robinson, K. (2000). Handbook on Public Budgeting. Portland, OR: 

Portland State University, Hatfield School of Government. 

National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice. 1996. The Arrestee Drug Abuse 

Monitoring (ADAM) Data. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (1997), SAMHSA. 

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, Second Edition. New York: 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J., eds. (1991). The New Institutionalism in 

Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Roman, Woodard, Harrell, & Riggs. (1998). A Methodology For Measuring Costs and 

Benefits of Court-Based Drug Intervention Programs Using Findings From Experimental and 

Quasi-Experimental Evaluations. 

Schneider, R., Mittelmeier, C., & Gadish, D. (1996). Day versus inpatient treatment for 

cocaine dependence: An experimental comparison. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 

23(2), 234-245. 

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Wilson, D., Ojmarrh M. and MacKenzie, D. (2002). A Systematic Review of Drug Court 

Effects on Recidivism. Presented at the American Society of Criminology, Chicago Ill. 

Yates, B. T. (1999). Measuring and Improving Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Cost-Benefit 

for Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 62 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION FORMS AND 

INSTRUCTIONS 

• Data Entry Protocol 

• Court Appearances Data Collection Form 

• NIJ Tracking Protocols 

• Data Collecting Protocols 

• Data Entry Instructions
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 63 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Data Entry Protocol 

Data is collected through OJIN and attending scheduled court appearances. The data entry 

procedures have been a constantly changing process. The procedures below are a general outline. 

On most occasions the data collector that collected the data is in charge of entering their own 

information. The team felt that by having each data collector enter their own data this would 

eliminate questions and duplicating pieces of data in the database. Things have been added to 

the database throughout data collection. 

Initial Case 

The original case is where data entry starts. Each client is recruited at his or her Arraignment. As 

clients go through the process of their case, data is collected at each court appearance and 

through OJIN. General information is obtained at Arraignments. 

Client Information Box 

The Client Information Box houses several boxes of information. The first step in data entry is 

to enter the assigned ID number into the appropriate box. The Group box has two options: 

STOP and Comparison. A client that accepts the STOP program is entered as STOP in the 

Group box, and a client who declines the STOP program is entered as Comparison in the Group 

box. The current status box is used to track the status of the client and has 6 options. A client 

who is still active in the stop program is entered as active status and kept that way until/if that 

status changes. A client who bench warrants from the STOP program is entered as bench 

warrant status until/if that status changes. In the current status box there is also the option for 

terminated and graduated. A client who is terminated from the stop program current status will 

be entered as terminated. A client who graduates from the stop program will have their current 

status as graduated. The current status box will change as clients graduate, terminate, bench 

warrant, and return from bench warrant. An example of this is a client absconds from the stop 

program. The person who is entering the data at this time will enter bench warrant into the 

current status box. This client may return to the stop program and at this time the person 

entering the data will change the status in the current status box from bench warrant status back 

to active status. The final status box is used to track the final status of the client. A client that 

graduated from the stop program will have graduated final status. A client who is terminated 

will have terminated in the final status box. At the end of data collection a client who is still in 

bench warrant status at the end of data collection will have a final status as bench warrant. It 

should be noted that clients that are in the comparison group will always be kept in active status 

in the current status box no matter if they are in bench warrant status or not. This was done 

because the comparison group was not in a program and they were considered always in active 

status. In the client information box the client’s whole name is entered along with gender, date 

of birth, ethnicity, and age at arraignment. At the far right of the client information box is certain 

ID numbers. Each client has a MCL, PPDS, SID, and FBI box. These boxes contain Id 

numbers that are used to identify clients. The ID numbers are assigned by the various agencies 

and not by the data collectors. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 64 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Drug Court Flow 

The drug court flow starts by entering the data collectors initial into the interviewer box. The 

arrest date box is for the date of the client’s initial arrest. The arraignment box is used for the 

client’s first arraignment date. The case number for the client’s original case is entered into the 

case number box. The arrest charges are entered into the arrest charges box. The data 

collector will enter yes or no into the eligible for x-plea box and probable cause box. In the

custody status at arraignment box the data collector will enter in custody for clients that 

appear in custody for arraignment or ROR which stands for released on realized on own 

recognize. IF a client has an interpreter at his or her arraignment then yes is entered the 

interpreter box. Yes or no is entered into the court appointed attorney box depending on 

whether or not the client had a court appointed attorney. The data collector enters the time of 

arraignment in seconds in the arraignment ET box. It should be noted that all the above is 

collected at the arraignment of the client. 

Drug Flow Table MPD Portion 

The following is collected at the MPD office during the client’s orientation. If a client has an 

interpreter at orientation yes is entered into the MPD orientation interpreter box, no is entered 

for clients who do not require an interpreter. Yes or no is entered into the MPD parole/ 

probation box depending if the client is or is not on probation or parole. The client is asked 

whether or not they have been offered the stop program before and depending on the answer yes 

or no is entered into the MPD previous stop participation box. The length time for the 

orientation is entered into the MPD ET orientation box. After the orientation each client meets 

with an attorney to discuss his or her options; this meeting is timed and the length of time is 

entered into MPD post-orientation attorney ET. 

Drug Flow First Stop Appearance 

A client attending his or her first stop appearance that requires an interpreter has that information 

into the first STOP appearance interpreter present box. The first STOP appearance results 

box indicates whether the client will be participating in the stop program. Clients declining the 

stop program will be put into the comparison group. The first STOP appearance social 

support box indicates if a client attends the court appearance alone or with social support. . 

Drug Flow INACT Orientation 

A data collector is present at INACT orientation. The data collector notes if there is an interpreter 

present for the client at orientation and enters this information in the INACT orientation 

interpreter box. The time of the orientation is timed and the length of time is entered into 

INACT orientation ET box. The client’s eligibility for OHP is entered into the OHP eligibility 

box. The OHP meeting is timed and entered into the INACT OHP Class ET box. Each client 

that participates in the stop program receives a medical physical that is timed by a data collector. 

The length of time for the physical is entered into the INACT Physical ET box. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 65 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Court Appearances 2 

The court appearances box is used to track the length of time for each client’s court appearances. 

Both the Stop group and the comparison group original case are tracked in this section. Clients 

that pick up new charges have their additional charges and cases are tracked in the Rearrest 

database. In the court appearances table each client has there ID entered into the ID box. The 

comparison and Stop Group is noted in the group box. A client that has additional charges 

tracking with their original case has the additional case numbers noted in the additional case 

numbers box. In the court appearances table there is a court date box. For each court date the 

data collector will enter the date of each court appearances. The appearance box is used to 

indicate the type of appearance. An example of this is a client has a stop appearance. The data 

collector will click the tab on the side of the appearance box and click stop court. There are 

many choices in this box from which to choose. A comparison group client may have an assign 

call appearance. The data collector then will choose assign call and this will appear and be noted 

in the appearance box. The court time ET box is used to record the length of time for each 

appearance. The bench warrants box is used to record if a client receives or has a bench 

warrant rescinded at a specific court appearance. A client that receives a bench warrant in the 

stop program will have his or her status changed in the current status box to bench warrant 

status until he or she has the bench warrant rescinded and then they will have their status 

changed back to active status in the current status box. A client in the stop program who 

graduates will have this noted in the court appearances box and then has their current status 

changed to graduated in the current status box. A client who is terminated from the Stop 

program and is ordered to Clean Court will have their court appearances for Clean Court tracked 

as their original case. A client who is in the comparison group will have more varied court 

appearances noted in the appearance type box. Comparison group clients have their case on the 

trial docket and this is the reason their court appearance types are more varied. It should be

noted that some court appearances are tracked through OJIN and these appearances, along with 

appearances that data collectors are not present at, are given a proxy time that is entered in the

court time ET box. 

Verdict Table 

The verdict flow table is used to document the outcome for each client’s case. The verdict box

is used to show if the client was found guilty acquitted, or had the case dismissed. If a client had 

more than one charge the verdicts for each charge is noted in the additional verdict charge 

boxes. The jail/prison box is used to record the number of days the client receives in jail or 

prison. The probation box is used to record the number of months a client receives parole or 

probation. If a client receives a drug free zone exclusion this is noted in the drug free zone 

exclusion box. The drug package box is used for clients that are given the drug package for 

being found guilty. The dollar amount for the attorney that is ordered by the judge is recorded in 

the attorney fee box. The unitary assessment is recorded in dollar amount in the unitary

assessment box. Any additional fee is recorded in the other fee box. The grid box is used to 

record the grid of each client. A client’s driver license may be suspended if they are found guilty 

of charges. License suspension is noted in the driver’s license activity box and the length of 

suspension is noted in date of the driver’s license activity box. It should be noted that a client 

that receives a dismissal or acquittal of his or her charges will only have the verdict charge box 

filled in for this section. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 66 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Rearrest Table 

The rearrest table is used for clients that are arrested or charged on a new set of charge or 

charges. A Clients original case is never tracked in the rearrest table. One note is that a client 

that is convicted on his or her original case and receives a probation violation while on probation 

on their original case will have their probation violation tracked in rearrest. Probation violations 

are treated as new charges even though the case number is the same as their original case. A 

client that has been charged with new charges has rearrest date entered into the rearrest date 

box. The case number is entered into the R court case number box. 

Rearrest Appearance Table 

The id number is placed in the id box. The group box indicates if the client is in the stop group 

or the comparison group. The rearrest date box is used to indicate the date of the original 

rearrest. The case number is placed into the R court case number box. The date of the specific 

court appearance is entered into the R appearance date box. The type of court appearance is 

entered into the R appearance type box. This box you may click on the tab to pick the type of 

appearance that was attended. The length of time for each appearance is entered into the R court 

time box. Appearances tracked through OJIN and appearances not attended by a data collector 

will have a time proxy entered into the R court time box. The R bench warrant box indicates 

whether a bench warrant was ordered or rescinded at a certain court appearance. 

Rearrest Verdict Table 

The rearrest table is used in the same way that the verdict table is used in the drug flow table. 

One exception is that in the rearrest verdict table there is a space for community service. A 

client that receives community service will have the amount entered in hours in the R 

community service box.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 67 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Court Appearances Data Collection Form 

Data Collector: ________________________________ 

Participant ID: _________ Name:__________________________________________ 

Appearance type: ____________________________ Where: _________________________ 

Court Date: court time: text time: elapsed time in seconds 

 

____________ ______________ ____________________ ________________ 

Benchwarrants: _______________________________________ 

Notes: 

RESULTS: 

Charge: 

Verdict: 

Sentence: 

Fines: Jail: Probation: DFZ: Drug package: 

$____________ ___________ ______________ __________ ______________ 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 68 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

NIJ Tracking Protocols 

In the beginning....... 

• As the data collection forms come back from arraignments, the future dates that have 

been set and recorded are then put into a tracking notebook calendar (“The White Book”). 

• Individual files are labeled for each participant, which will contain all data collection 

forms from here on out. 

• Files are stored in a locked file cabinet. 

White Book

• The white book contains the dates, times and locations of every participant’s scheduled 

court appearances. Case numbers for the particular cases being addressed are also 

listed next to the name. 

• If a certain appearance cannot be attended by a data collector, the case is still tracked 

(using the case number) through OJIN in order to record new future dates. 

• The white book is checked on a daily basis by the tracking coordinator who ensures that 

scheduled court appearances will be attended by data collectors.

• The white book is stored in a locked file cabinet.

Black Book

• The black book contains an on-going list of study and comparison group participants 

(names and case numbers) that are: 

o In bench warrant status 

o In cannot proceed status 

o Have a future drug call date 

• For participants in bench warrant status, the tracking coordinator looks up the case in 

OJIN on a DAILY basis in order to track future dates if and when the case is back in the 

system. Any future dates discovered from this process are then recorded in the white book. 

• For participants in cannot proceed status, the tracking coordinator looks up the case 

numbers in OJIN once a week to determine if/when the case has been indicted, so that 

we may continue to track the case if necessary. Any future dates discovered from this 

process are then recorded in the white book. 

• For participants who have a future drug call date, the tracking coordinator looks up the 

case numbers in OJIN 2-3 times per week in order to catch those cases which may “turn 

into” pleas suddenly. Any future dates discovered from this process are then recorded in 

the white book. 

• The black book is stored in a locked file cabinet. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 69 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Re-arrests

• An OJIN check for every participant in the study is performed weekly, specifically to 

check for potential re-arrests of those defendants (arrests occurring any time AFTER the 

date we obtained their original case for purposes of this study). Each person is 

searched by name, which includes case file dates, allowing you to view the dates arrests 

are filed in order to determine if it is a new arrest since the onset of the study. 

• When a re-arrest is discovered, the coordinator enters the name and new case number 

into an ongoing Excel file. By having such a file, when we come across that name in 

future re-arrest checks, we have an efficient way to confirm whether we have already 

noted the particular re-arrest. 

• A re-arrest data entry form is then completed and placed in the “to be entered” file for 

our data entry specialist to enter into our re-arrest tracking database. 

• Because it was decided we would not track non-crime “re-arrests” (e.g., traffic 

violations), any re-arrests for violations that we find are simply listed by name and case 

number in another “tab” of the Excel Re-arrest Tracking file (labeled “Traffic nontracking”). This way we have a record of violations if/when we decide to use them. 

• Any future dates for the re-arrests to be tracked are entered into the white book and 

attended by a data collector. 

OJIN (Oregon Judicial Information Network)

• As noted above, OJIN is used frequently to aid us in tracking the court appearances and 

status of all study and comparison group participants. If there is ever a question 

regarding the status of a particular case, OJIN is a very good resource to keep us 

informed and up to date. 

• For quality control, an OJIN “sweep” is performed on all participant files. This involves 

one person on the OJIN database and one on the NPC tracking database. The 

participant’s case number is pulled up on both databases, and then all demographics, 

court dates/times, and outcomes are compared, using OJIN as the “final word”. Not only 

does this clean up the NPC database (getting rid of old, unnecessary dates), it is another 

opportunity to capture future dates that may have slipped through the cracks. 

• For further details on the specifics of OJIN and how to use it, see the Public Access 

User’s Guide. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 70 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Data Collecting Protocols 

Arraignment:

• Attend arraignments every Monday and Wednesday at JC3 at 1:30.

• Obtain docket from legal assistant.

• Identify STOP clients from arraignment hearing docket.

• Complete data arraignment form.

• Time STOP clients in front of the judge.

STOP Orientation (MPD)

• Attend MPD Stop orientation when scheduled at 9am at office of MPD.

• Time the STOP Orientation and complete data/STOP orientation form.

• After orientation, relocate to the lobby in order to time the court-appointed 

attorney and client meeting; record elapsed time on same data form. 

*6/01/01: Record elapsed time clients spend individually with STOP court attorney, 

as well as the orientation group. 

STOP Court

• Attend STOP court at 1:30 in courtroom 716 (Judge Beckman) on the days our 

participants are scheduled. 

• Crosscheck docket (copies found in courtroom) with NPC tracking notebook. 

• Watch for any of our participants who may be returning to the court process from 

bench warrant status. 

• Complete data form by recording elapsed time participant spends before the 

judge, as well as any pertinent information such as: 

-Termination 

-Next STOP court date 

-1 to 2 day sit sanction 

-1 to 3 weeks forest work camp 

-1 to 5 days jail 

-Hold in custody for detox 

-Hold in custody for residential treatment 

-8 to 40 hours community service 

 

INACT Orientation

• Check in with receptionist to confirm how many of our participants that are 

scheduled for orientation have appeared. If no-show, make note to attend STOP 

court that day to verify appearance. 

• Complete data InAct form. 

• Record elapsed time STOP participants spend with InAct orientation counselor. 

• Obtain client’s treatment schedule. 

• Record reentering bench warrant participants to InAct database system. 

*Detail different procedures as a result of changing orientation counselors. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 71 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

INACT Physical

• Check in with receptionist to confirm participants’ presence at physical. 

• Make note of time when participant begins and exits their physical at the InAct 

office. 

• Record time on data collection form. 

INACT Oregon Health Plan Orientation

• Check in with receptionist to confirm participants’ presence at appointment. 

• Make note of the elapsed time the participant spends at orientation. 

Grand Jury-Indictment Hearings

• Attend scheduled grand jury hearings for comparison participants (this date is 

issued at the original arraignment hearing). 

• Complete data form from information read off of docket by DA (cannot 

proceed, no complaint, true billed) 

Assignment Call

• Attend scheduled assign call in room 208 of courthouse at 8:30. 

• Complete data form, including elapsed time of comparison participants in front of 

judge. 

• This appearance directly preludes drug call (set out about six weeks). 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear. 

Drug Call

• Attend scheduled drug call at 1:30 at courthouse (courtroom changes monthly, so 

check with information desk upon arrival at courthouse). 

• Complete data form which includes new drug call date or immediate plea and 

sentence. 

• Record elapsed time of comparison client in front of judge. 

• These appearances are frequently set-over for additional drug call dates. 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear.

Plea/Sentencing (Felony)

• Attend scheduled pleas immediately following drug call in courtroom assigned by 

drug call judge. 

• Complete data form, including elapsed time of comparison participant’s time in 

front of judge. 

• Include all details of sentencing. 

• These appearances frequently conclude comparison participants’ cases. 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 72 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

2nd Arraignment

• Attend scheduled second arraignments in JC3 at 10:30. 

• Complete data form, including elapsed time of comparison participants in front of judge. 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear. 

Community Court (Misdemeanor)

• Attend scheduled community courts for re-arrest participants at any of three 

locations: SE, NE, or West. 

• Times vary, depending on type of court appearance: 9:00, 10:30, or 1:00. 

• Complete data form by recording elapsed time of participant in front of judge. 

• Record sentence and potential review date 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear. 

Motion to Suppress

• Attend scheduled appearances, which are determined at drug call. 

• Make note of elapsed time for entire proceeding. 

• Record witnesses present (police officers, public servants, etc.) and time elapsed 

for their participation and length of stay in the courtroom. 

• Record outcome 

-Evidence suppressed results in dismissal by state in a majority of cases. 

-Evidence not suppressed results in case set for plea/sentencing/trial. 

Substitution Hearings

• Attend scheduled court appearance. 

• Record elapsed time attorney and participant spend in front of the judge. 

• Note new assigned attorney. 

• Note bench warrant if failure to appear. 

Bench Warrant Lift (STOP Court)

• Attend scheduled court appearance. 

• Record elapsed time in front of the judge and new court date. 

Bench warrant Lift (JC3) 

• Attend scheduled court appearance. 

• Record elapsed time in front of the judge and new court date. 

Probation Violation Hearing

• Attend scheduled hearing. 

• Record elapsed time in front of the judge, as well as any sanction or new date. 

Review Hearing

• Attend scheduled hearing 

• Record elapsed time in front of the judge, including any new date. 

• This is a status check for former STOP participants (those terminated from STOP) 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 73 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Trial

• Attend scheduled trial. 

• Make note of elapsed time for entire trial. 

• Record witnesses present (police officers, public servants, etc.) and time elapsed 

for their participation and length of stay in the courtroom. 

• Record outcome of trial. 

Process Protocols

Arraignment

• Potential STOP clients are arraigned 

• Judge court-orders potential STOP clients to attend STOP orientation at MPD at 9am the 

following work day (unless client is Spanish speaking which requires 2 days). 

• Judge court-orders potential STOP clients to attend STOP court at courthouse, Room 

716, the following day at 1:30 pm. 

STOP Court Orientation

• Clients attend STOP orientation (approximately 45 minutes) at the Public Defender’s 

office at 9am. 

• Clients meet with the STOP court attorney individually to review police reports and 

discuss options. 

• Clients are reminded and instructed to attend STOP court at 1:30 that same day. 

• If client misses or is late for STOP orientation, they will be docketed for the same 

afternoon’s STOP court. 

STOP Court (Petitioners)

• Clients attend STOP court at 1:30pm in Room 716 of the courthouse.

• If client misses court, judge issues a bench warrant.

• Potential clients observe the entire STOP court proceeding. 

• Clients are called to appear in front of Judge Beckman. 

• Clients have two options: 

-Clients can decline the STOP program in which case they are appointed a new attorney 

and the original grand jury hearing date stands. 

-Clients can agree to a 2-week trial-period to make an informed decision about entry or 

declination of the program. 

• Judge court-orders clients to appear at InAct the following day at 9am if they agree to the 

2-week trial-period.

• Judge orders one or more of the following:

-Next STOP court date 

-1 to 2 day sit sanction 

-1 to 3 weeks forest work camp 

-1 to 5 days jail 

-Hold in custody for detox 

-Hold in custody for residential treatment 

-8 to 40 hours community service 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 74 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

STOP Court Clients (Active)

• Attend STOP court dates 

• Clients who are currently participating in the program may leave the courtroom after they 

appear in front of the judge. 

Graduation Exit Interview

• Client attends scheduled exit interview with STOP court judge. 

• At conclusion of interview, judge determines if client will, in fact, be allowed to graduate 

Graduation STOP Court

• Client attends scheduled graduation date. 

• Client hears from STOP court judge, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, 

District Attorney, InAct court liaison, and other InAct staff. 

• Clients are asked to say a few words about themselves and their experience with the program. 

INACT

• Clients attend InAct at 9am for orientation. 

• Clients meet with the InAct orientation counselor to organize treatment schedule. 

• If client misses orientation, they are docketed for that same day in court. If they do not 

appear, judge orders a bench warrant. 

Grand Jury

• DA reads the grand jury results from the docket to the courtroom before the judge sits. 

• Comparison clients are not required at this appearance but are responsible for being in 

touch with their attorney to obtain results and schedule 2nd Arraignment if necessary. 

2nd Arraignment

• Comparison clients (those who have declined STOP and have been indicted on their drug 

charge) appear in JC3 at 10:30 on scheduled date. 

• Judge arraigns them or issues a bench warrant for those who do not appear.

• Custody status is reviewed and clients are given their assignment call date. 

Assignment Call

• Comparison clients must attend in room 208 of the courthouse. If not present, the judge 

orders a bench warrant.

• When the judge calls their name, the client stands and his/her attorney reports the status 

of their case, at which time the judge usually sets the next court date for drug call about 6 

weeks out.

• This is the time for issues to be raised, such as conflict of interest. In this case, the judge 

will set a Substitution Hearing, which the client and attorney must attend.

Drug Call

• Comparison clients attend in the assigned courthouse room for that month at 1:30. 

• For in-custody clients, the attorney will meet with them in jail and go over the DA’s offer 

prior to their being brought to the courtroom by the guards. 

• Attorneys approach the bench as they are prepared to report the readiness/status of their case. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 75 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

• The judge will either: 

-Send the case to another courtroom for plea/sentencing 

-Set the case over for a new drug call date. 

-Set the case out for trial 

-Issue a bench warrant if out-of-custody client not present. 

Plea and Sentencing

• Comparison clients appear with their attorney before the judge assigned by the drug call 

judge. If not present, the judge orders a bench warrant. 

• Out-of-custody clients are accompanied to the courtroom by guards and their attorney. 

• Clients plea either guilty or no contest when asked by the judge how they plead to the 

charge/s. 

• The judge accepts their plea and proceeds to sentencing. 

• Sentencing is the time and place for the client’s attorney to make any statements or 

requests of the judge regarding the sentence recommended by the DA. 

• The case is closed at the conclusion of sentencing, however, clients who are given 

probation have conditions which, if not met, can bring them back to court on a probation 

violation charge. 

Community Court

• Comparison clients appear at scheduled location and time. If not present, the judge 

orders a bench warrant. 

• Clients are called before the judge with attorney present (most oftentimes court 

appointed). 

• Judge reads charge/s and possible sentence to the client. 

• Judge advises client that the option for trial is available. 

• Judge asks the client how they plea to charge/s. 

• Client pleads to charge/s or requests trial (vast majority plead guilty). 

• Guilty plea results in judge sentencing clients to: 

- 2-page paper on a topic related to charge 

- Community service between 8-20 hrs. 

- Possible jail (never witnessed in court) 

- Possible fine 

• Judge sets new court date for review. 

Change in the Process Protocol

STOP Orientation

• See above process. 

• Public defender met with clients as a group for approximately 15 minutes. 

STOP Court

• Clients with prior felony conviction must plead guilty on the 14-day review as a 

condition of entering the STOP program. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 76 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

INACT Physicals/OHP/Assessments

• If client misses appointment, they are docketed for the next day’s STOP court. 

• If client appears at this court appearance, judge orders rescheduling of missed 

appointment. 

• If client fails to appear, the judge issues bench warrant. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 77 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

DATA ENTRY INSTRUCTIONS 

CHART REVIEW DATA COLLECTION

Welcome to the chart data collection!! 

Overall: 

If you are looking for a document in the chart and it’s not there, use 99 for missing in the variables that would 

have been collected from that page. This will not be possible in date fields; just enter past dates in those 

instances. 

Many chart documents have several entries (i.e., group sessions, acupuncture, counseling). Please enter a new 

record within that person’s data for each copy of the form. 

If a date is incomplete, use 01 for whatever parts are missing (i.e., if they list 3/97, enter 3/01/97) 

“Closed charts” are not in the panel format. All of the ‘panels’ are bound together on the left side of the file 

folder, however they ARE in panel order. The court file is on the right side of the file folder. 

“Open charts” follow the panel order listed in each section below. 

Symbol = client or defendant 

LAPTOP: 

Turn on computer 

Open Access 

Open Jennifer/InAct Chart (password: stopdc) 

Go to Forms (on left) 

Double click on frmDataEntry 

Using arrow record scroller, locate next person to collect data on 

SAMPLE CHART: 

This is an excellent resource showing the order of the chart (for active charts), as well as listing ALL variables 

in their actual place within the chart. 

CHART: 

Find the chart for the person you have identified. Files are stored in alphabetical order in 3 places: Light green 

labels are active; red labels are files closed in 2001/02; white cardboard boxes are files closed in 2000. Make sure 

to place an “out card” in the spot where you retrieve the file. If you can’t find a file, move on to the next person. 

WHEN DOING A SECOND ROUND OF DATA ENTRY ON A CHART: 

For any “tab” or “page” of data entry that contains a repeating form (i.e. group sessions, counseling sessions, 

acupuncture): click on the date variable then click on the “ascending/descending” icon in order to sort dates. 

Then click on arrow at bottom of screen that will bring you to the MOST RECENT date in that section. From 

here you can review the chart to see if any new entries have been added since that date, then make those entries 

into the database. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 78 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

TO GET STARTED: 

Open the chart to begin entry from left side 

Say an incantation for proper paper order 

Locate the DA number on the upper right hand corner of the admission sheet and enter it in the top section of 

the data entry form to the right of the ID number. 

Tab to variable “file location” and enter “red”, “green”, or “white” (for appropriate file location); for “file 

status” enter “a” or “c” (for active or closed); next variable enter today’s date followed by your initials. If first 

date and initials are already filled in, enter today’s date and your initials in the “dcdt2” and “init2” variables. 

Click on tab labeled pg2 

Click on date on admission sheet 

Begin typing in following information: 

 VARIABLES LOCATION OF FORM/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 

Admission Check Off Sheet (Panel 1) 

Date on Admission Sheet ENTER THE OLDEST ADMISSION SHEET FIRST (there are frequently >1)!!! 

Name of client’s counselor 

Is this new or return client? There are two versions of this sheet; the old one won’t have where client is 

returning from so just choose “5” for “return no reason given”. 

Insurance qualification No insurance info listed on newer form so use “98” in those cases 

Date of Assessment 

Date of Physical 

# days per week 

acupuncture 

Count checked boxes and enter total number 

Notification of Completion of Assessment (blue half sheet in Panel 2) 

Is this new or reassessment? If you are entering data for a second Admission Sheet but there is only 1 of these 

forms, just enter “98” here. However, keep an eye out for a possible 

Reassessment form and enter that data here. 

Date of Notification If you are entering data for a second Admission Sheet but there is only 1 of these 

forms, just enter past this variable. However, keep an eye out for a possible 

Reassessment form and enter that data here. 

SCROLL DOWN TO NEXT VARIABLE AND CLICK INSIDE IT 

Master Problem List page 2 (still Panel 2) 

What problems bring client 

to InAct? 

Usually indicates drug charge – just enter charge listed or indication that client is 

entering STOP 

Client’s zip code 

Who do you live with? If answer doesn’t fit drop down box options, choose “6” 

If client lives with “other”, 

please specify 

Number of children 

Ages of children 

Children in SCF custody? 

If so, what are conditions of 

return? 

Significant/traumatic 

events? 

Quickly read response then answer yes or no. If filled out, it USUALLY means 

yes! 

Any A/D or physical abuse 

in current relationship? 

Quickly read response then answer yes or no. If filled out, it USUALLY means 

yes! 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 79 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Master Problem List page 4 

1st drug of choice 

2nd drug of choice If not more than 1, type 98 

3rd drug of choice If not more than 1, type 98 

Master Problem List page 5 

# of physical abnormalities Count number of boxes marked “yes” under #3 on the left-hand side, and enter 

that total 

Master Problem List page 6 

# of emotional/behavioral 

conditions 

Count number of boxes marked “yes” in questions 5-21 and enter that total 

Master Problem List page 7 

Any mandates from 

SCF/CSD? 

Any mandates from 

JOBS/AFS? 

Any mandates from 

employer? 

Any mandates from 

spouse/significant other? 

Any mandates from criminal 

justice system? 

Any mandates from SSI? 

Any mandates from family? 

Any mandates from housing 

requirements? 

Master Problem List page 10 

# of arrests in lifetime? 

Age at first arrest 

Is client currently on 

probation? 

Is client currently on parole? 

Dual Diagnosis Screen page 3 

Was the disposition to 

assign to Dual Diagnosis 

Program? 

Not all files will have this 3-page form so enter “99” if not there. If one IS there, 

it should be following page 10 of Master Problem List. Bottom of page 3 under 

disposition – only interested in whether 1st line is checked (yes or no). 

Employment/Income Information – page 11 (of master prob list) 

Employment status 

Valid driver’s license 

Any former employees If any are listed, enter “1” (yes); if blank enter “2” (no) 

DSM IV Multi-Axial Evaluation – page 15 (of master prob list) 

General medical conditions Type in medical conditions listed, use 99 if none 

Placement Criteria: Decision Summary – page 18 (of master prob list) 

Which level was the client 

admitted/referred to on the 

Decision Summary 

Enter level I-IV 

SCROLL UP AND CLICK ON TAB pge2E 

Personal Information (still panel 2) 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 80 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Age 

HS graduation status Determine if client has graduated (check highest grade completed) or has a GED 

and enter yes if either one is true, enter no if they do not have a HS diploma or 

equivalent. This question is listed on page 1 of old form, and page 3 of the new 

form. 

Are you a parent 

Are you a single parent If client is not a parent at all, enter “98” 

Ethnicity Enter up to three ethnicities using the drop down boxes; enter “99” if none are 

marked, and “98” if there are at least one but fewer than three. 

Ethnicity specify Specify others 

Marital status 

Living arrangements 

Do you consider your living 

situation stable? 

If employed, how long for? Enter whatever is there; use 98 if unemployed 

If employed, what are 

hours? 

Use 98 if unemployed 

If employed, what is gross 

monthly income? 

This may be on bottom of page 1 or top of page 2. Use 98 if unemployed 

If unemployed, how long 

has it been 

Use 98 if employed 

If unemployed, what are 

client’s job skills and 

interests? 

Use 98 if employed 

Personal Information -- page 2 (still panel 2) 

What is the source of 

income? 

Number of people ages 6 

and under dependent on 

total household income 

Enter number (0, 1, 2). This question is found on page 2 of the OLD Personal 

Info form, and page 1 of the NEW. 

Number of people 6-17 

dependent on total 

household income 

Enter number (0, 1, 2). This question is found on page 2 of the OLD Personal 

Info form, and page 1 of the NEW. 

Number of people ages 18-

64 dependent on total 

household income 

Enter number (0, 1, 2). This question is found on page 2 of the OLD Personal 

Info form, and page 1 of the NEW. 

Number of people ages 64+ 

dependent on total 

household income 

Enter number (0, 1, 2). This question is found on page 2 of the OLD Personal 

Info form, and page 1 of the NEW. 

Are you now covered by 

health insurance? 

If covered, you get health 

care from: 

Use 98 if not covered 

Specify other health care 

Are you covered by 

Medicare? 

Are you currently on 

probation/parole? 

If yes, on probation or parole, enter for what from the next line down, if they are 

on probation/parole and this is missing use 99, if they are not on probation/parole 

use 98 for not applicable 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 81 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

If on p/p what is PO’s 

name? 

If on p/p what is PO’s phone 

number 

If on p/p when did it begin? 

If on p/p what PO office? 

If on p/p what is the release 

date? 

Has alcohol been a problem 

for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has amphetamines been a 

problem for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has hallucinogens been a 

problem for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has cocaine been a problem 

for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has PCP been a problem for 

client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has marijuana been a 

problem for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has opiates been a problem 

for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has sedatives/hypnotics 

been a problem for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has nicotine been a problem 

for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

Has caffeine been a problem 

for client? 

If checked enter yes (1), if blank enter no (2) 

SCROLL UP AND CLICK ON TAB pge2A 

Legal History (back to page 10 of Master Problem List!! Still panel 2) 

What has client been 

charged with in the past? 

Enter the first charge, if any, as listed. However, if the only one listed is present 

charge that got client into InAct, just enter “nothing”. IF ANY CHARGES ARE 

LISTED BELOW the table (on “Offense” line), go ahead and enter those here, 

then use “99” for the last 3 variables. 

What was the date of this 

past charge? 

Enter the date (if only a year, enter that) that corresponds with first charge listed 

Did this charge result in 

prison? 

Usually there is a check mark or “X” which will indicate “yes”; or it will SAY 

yes! If blank all the way across (prison, prob, drug-related), enter as “99” 

Did this charge result in 

probation? 

Usually there is a check mark or “X” which will indicate “yes”; or it will SAY 

yes! If blank all the way across (prison, prob, drug-related), enter as “99” 

Was this charge drug 

related? 

Usually there is a check mark or “X” which will indicate “yes”; or it will SAY 

yes! If blank all the way across (prison, prob, drug-related), enter as “99” 

CLICK ON pge3 

Clinical Referral Form – Panel 3 

Ref’ing department/provider Use 99 if this form does not exist in chart (I have seen VERY few so far!) 

Specify oth ref department Use 99 if this form does not exist in chart (I have seen VERY few so far!) 

Rec’ing dept/provider Use 99 if this form does not exist in chart (I have seen VERY few so far!) 

Specify oth rec dept Use 99 if this form does not exist in chart (I have seen VERY few so far!) 

No Harm Contract – still panel 3 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 82 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Noharm contract pg Just want to know if this exists in file or not! If not, enter “99”; if there, enter “1” 

SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK IN NEXT VARIABLE 

Treatment Plan Review (Chemical Dependency and/or Mental Health) – still panel 3 

Txplan fin decision This is a 2-sided form and there are frequently more than one. VERY bottom of 

page is where you will see 5 possible answers for this variable; consult dropdown box. 

Date Flip page over and enter date listed on bottom of page 

CLICK ON TAB pge3A 

Counseling Progress Notes – still panel 3 (This is a repeating table – may be MANY entries!) 

Date of counseling note 

Units for counseling note If missing use “99” UNLESS the notes indicate type of service is a fax, phone 

call, etc., in which case use “98”. 

Type of service used for this 

counseling session 

Pay attention to drop-down box: we added a couple of our own! If there is 

simply an entry for a phone call, fax, court rpt written or lognote, there are codes 

for that. 

Is this counseling note 

billable? 

Progress type for counseling 

note 

counnote This will rarely be used – don’t read through entire notes! Sometimes if the 

columns are left blank, I will scan the notes and make a small comment that will 

capture what that session involved. Also, if “8” is used in “type of service” 

variable, enter log note here. 

CLICK ON TAB pge4 

InAct Group Progress Notes – Panel 4 (This is a repeating table – may be MANY entries) 

NOTE: there are TWO entries per page! 

Date of grp note 

Phase/type of group Very long drop-down box! 

Absence at grp excused? Be sure to use “98” if client DID attend 

Duration of group Will most frequently be 1.5 (if file says “90”, still enter “1.5”); if group not 

attended, enter “0” 

Grp participation rating Sometimes they mark two: always use the higher number so we’re all consistent; 

if group not attended, enter “98” 

Grp attitude rating Sometimes they mark two: always use the higher number so we’re all consistent; 

if group not attended, enter “98” 

Grpnote Rarely used 

CLICK ON TAB pge5 

Acupuncture Treatment Plan – Panel 5 

Is client diagnosed with a 

dependence on: 

Enter first drug checked; if none checked, enter 99 

Is client diagnosed with a 

dependence on: 

Enter second drug checked; if no other, enter 98 

Is client diagnosed with a 

dependence on: 

Enter third drug checked; if no other, enter 98 

Is client diagnosed with 

abuse of: 

Enter first drug checked; if none checked, enter 99 

Is client diagnosed with 

abuse of: 

Enter second drug checked; if no other, enter 98 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 83 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Is client diagnosed with 

abuse of: 

Enter third drug checked; if no other, enter 98 

Specify other dependence or 

abuse 

Specify other drug here that is not on list, or 98 “other” not marked. THEN: 

don’t hit “enter”; you must click into next variable /

Acupuncture Tx Plan 

Review Date 

Note that there are TWO of these dates per page, so in order to enter the second 

date you must fill in all the dependence/abuse variables with 98 

SCROLL UP AND CLICK ON TAB 5A 

Acupuncture Progress Notes – still Panel 5 (This is a repeating table – may be MANY entries) 

Date of acupuncture 

Unit of time used for 

acupuncture 

If no show, just enter past this variable – it will automatically enter “0” 

Service type Enter “98” if notes indicate a no-show 

Acupuncture billable? Enter “98” if notes indicate a no-show 

Progress in acupuncture Enter “98” if notes indicate a no-show 

Acupuncture progress notes Not used much BUT be sure to enter “no show” here when indicated (it’s often 

recorded in file as “NS” 

CLICK ON TAB pge6 

Breath Alcohol Testing Results – Panel 6 

Date of the breath alcohol 

test 

This is a single sheet of paper – many files don’t even have them. If not, just 

enter past this variable. 

Level of alcohol detected Enter “99” if this sheet does not exist 

Was the breath alcohol test 

legally intoxicated? 

Enter “99” if this sheet does not exist 

Redwood Toxicology Lab – still Panel 6 

How many UA reports are 

from Redwood Toxicology? 

If you are entering as a follow up to the first data collector (in other words, you 

are dc2), RECOUNT # of UA reports in case any have been added since the last 

date of data entry. If # of reports has changed, simply enter the new number. 

Dominion Diagnostics – still Panel 6 

How many UA reports are 

from Dominion Diagnostic? 

If you are entering as a follow up to the first data collector (in other words, you 

are dc2), RECOUNT # of UA reports in case any have been added since the last 

date of data entry. If # of reports has changed, simply enter the new number. 

Physical Examination – still Panel 6 

Was a physical exam 

performed? 

This is a three page document – just yes/no whether it even happened 

Qualified for outpt drug/alc 

therapy? 

This question is on third page near the top. If no physical (“99” in previous 

variable), enter “98” here. 

SCROLL UP AND CLICK ON TAB pge6A 

Health Services Progress Notes – still Panel 6 (these may be back towards front of panel 6) 

Date of health service 

Unit of time used for health 

service 

If no units listed, enter past this variable (“0” will automatically enter) 

Service type 

Is this health service 

billable? 

Progress in this health 

service 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 84 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Health service progress 

notes 

If the last 4 variables are missing (often the case), glance at these notes and 

indicate what service appeared to be done on this date, IF possible! This is also 

the place they will indicate if client didn’t show for physical: please enter “no 

show for physical exam” 

CLICK ON TAB pge6B 

Health History – still panel 6 

What date was health 

history done? 

Just leave blank if no health history found 

How was client’s general 

health? 

This question is at the top of the first page of the health history. Enter “98” if no 

health history done. 

If pregnant, how many 

weeks? 

If male OR non-pregnant female, enter 98 

CLICK ON TAB pge8 

STOP Client Fee Payment Agreement and Authorization – Panel 8 

What is the client fee for 

clinical assessments? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

What is the client fee for 

individual counseling per 

30-minute session? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

What is the client fee for 

individual counseling per 

60-minute session? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

What is the client fee for 

group counseling per 90-

minute session? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

What is the client fee for ua 

testing? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

What is the client fee for 

acupuncture (per tx)? 

Enter dollar amount listed, however most of these authorizations, if there is even 

one in the file, will indicate “N/A”, in which case you enter “98”. If more than 

one authorization and they ALL say “N/A”, only enter once through. 

CLICK ON TAB pge9 

Enrollment Form – Panel 9 (there can be more than one) 

What was the date at 

enrollment? 

Date of birth 

Is the program area alcohol? 

Is the program area drugs? 

Is the program area 

gambling? 

There are a couple versions of this form: one of them asks about drug/alcohol 

only, the other includes gambling. If the form does NOT ask about gambling, 

enter “98” into the database for this question. 

The level of care for which 

client was assessed at 

enrollment was: 

Again, the question only appears on the newer enrollment form. If the form you 

are entering from does NOT include this question, just enter “98”; otherwise, be 

SURE to consult drop-down box and compare it to code sheet for appropriate 

code! 

Gender 

Client pregnant at 

enrollment? 

Even though their form indicates “3” for “Not Applicable”, please be sure to use 

“98” so we are consistent with OUR data. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 85 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Interpreter services needed? Be aware this isn’t a yes/no question: note drop-down box. I’ve coded answers to 

match InAct’s. 

Highest grade completed 

Now enrolled in school or 

training? 

Primary source of health 

insurance? 

Specify other primary 

source of hlth ins 

Primary source of household 

income 

Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

MAKE SURE you consult drop-down box: order of codes is different than on 

form. 

As of enrollment, how many 

arrests in past 5 years? 

As of enrollment, how many 

duii arrests in past 5 years? 

Employability Factor Our codes match InAct’s 

Was methadone prescribed? If they have entered “00”, that means “no”, so you enter “2”. 

Admission Modality/Level 

of Care 

BEWARE: there are at least 3 enrollment forms that vary slightly. One will have 

this variable as “Admission Modality”, and the other as “Level of Care at 

Admission”. All possible answers have been coded and combined into the dropdown box so consult it carefully! Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for 

example: “01” and NOT just “1” See drop-down box. 

Primary substance addiction Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. 

Secondary substance 

addiction 

Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. Enter “98” if blank/no more than a primary addiction. 

Tertiary substance addiction Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. Enter “98” if blank/no more than a primary and secondary 

addiction. 

Frequency of use of primary 

substance 

If primary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

Frequency of use of 

secondary substance 

If secondary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

Frequency of use of tertiary 

substance 

If tertiary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

If gambling is the issue, 

what is the degree of abuse 

at enrollment? 

If gambling was the answer (“22”) in any of the above 3 substance addiction 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 

If alcohol is the issue, what 

is the degree of abuse at 

enrollment? 

If alcohol was the answer (“04”) in any of the above 3 substance addiction 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 

If nicotine is the issue, what 

is the degree of abuse at 

enrollment? 

If nicotine was the answer (“23”) in any of the above 3 substance addiction 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 86 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Most recent route of admin 

of primary substance 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

Most recent route of admin 

of secondary substance 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

Most recent route of admin 

of tertiary substance 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

Age at first use of primary 

substance 

Age at first use of secondary 

substance 

Age at first use of tertiary 

substance 

SCROLL DOWN TO NEXT VARIABLE AND CLICK INSIDE IT 

Termination Form – still Panel 9 (there can be more than one) 

Type of termination 

Date of last tx contact 

Date term form completed 

Client pregnant at 

termination? 

Again, use our “98” for “not applicable”, not their “3” 

Client’s highest grade 

completed as of 

termination? 

Is client enrolled in school 

or training at time of term? 

If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Total arrests during tx? If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Total duii arrests during tx? If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Estimated gross month 

income at term 

If answer if “0001”, enter “refused”; if answer is “0002”, enter “unknown”; if 

answer if “9999”, enter “more than $9999/month”. Otherwise, enter amount 

shown. 

What is client’s primary 

source of household income 

at time of termination? 

Be sure to enter “01” and not just “1” if “wages/salary” is the answer 

Employment status at time 

of term 

If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Employability factor at time 

of term 

If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Progress in educ or skill 

develop prog during tx? 

If “9” or “09”(“unknown”) is the answer listed on form, use “99” for “missing”. 

Comply w/CSD during tx – 

progress toward cust of 

children? 

Again, use our “98” for “not applicable”, not their “3” 

Client abstinent from 

substance abuse 30 days 

before delivery of infant? 

Again, us our “98” for “not applicable”, not their “3” 

Self help grp used by client 

during tx? 

Antabuse used during tx? 

Number of positive drug/alc 

use tests 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 87 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Number of administered 

drug/alc use tests at term. 

Primary substance addiction 

at termination 

Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. 

Secondary substance 

addiction at termination 

Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. Enter “98” if blank/no more than a primary addiction. 

Tertiary substance addiction 

at termination 

Be aware to enter BOTH digits of the code; for example: “01” and NOT just “1” 

See drop-down box. Enter “98” if blank/no more than a primary and secondary 

addiction. 

Frequency of use of primary 

substance at termination 

If primary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

Frequency of use of 

secondary substance at 

termination 

If primary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

Frequency of use of tertiary 

substance at termination 

If primary substance is gambling, enter a “7” here; alcohol, enter “8” here; 

nicotine, enter “9” here; then enter the answer under appropriate of 3 variables 

below: “If gambling/alcohol/nicotine is the issue, what is degree...” 

If gambling is the issue, 

what is the degree of abuse 

at termination? 

If gambling was the answer (“22”) in any of the above 3 substance addition 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 

If alcohol is the issue, what 

is the degree of abuse at 

termination? 

If alcohol was the answer (“04”) in any of the above 3 substance addition 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 

If nicotine is the issue, what 

is the degree of abuse at 

termination? 

If nicotine was the answer (“23”) in any of the above 3 substance addition 

questions, answer frequency of use/degree of abuse here. 

Most recent route of admin 

of primary substance at 

termination 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

Most recent route of admin 

of secondary substance at 

termination 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

Most recent route of admin 

of tertiary substance at 

termination 

Use “98” for gambling, NOT “7” which is what they use here for “not 

applicable”. 

SCROLL UP AND CLICK ON pge 9A 

Status Change Form (blue or yellow) – still Panel 9 (there could be many) 

Effective date on SCF Blank if no status change forms exist 

What action taken is 

indicated on SCF? 

99 if no status change forms exist. If form is yellow, answers in Action Box will 

differ from blue form, so enter “7” in these instances then describe the action 

listed in next variable. 

Describe the type of action 

taken on Status Change 

Form 

Just enter whatever they have written in this section. Also, if “7” (other) is 

indicated in the previous variable, you can do the “specify” here. Enter 99 if no 

status change forms exist. 

What is the outside 

treatment organization listed 

on the status change form? 

99 if no status change forms exist 

CLICK ON pge9B 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 88 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Termination Summary – Panel 9 if open, Panel 1 if closed 

Date of STOP admission on 

TSF 

Date of STOP termination 

on TSF 

What is the reason for 

discharge on the 

Termination Summary? 

Just enter exactly what they have written 

Termination type 

CLICK ON pgeCourt 

COURT FILE 

These are separate files within the open files, and on left-hand side of the closed files 

InAct/Stop Client Status Report (there could be many) 

Date court report prepared 

Number of days of 

treatment thus far 

Eligible for federal money? 

Percentage of attendance 

shows 

Percentage of positive UA’s 

Amount of unpaid fees thus 

far 

If $0, just return through this variable (automatic $0 will be entered) 

Counselor rating of 

attendance 

If more than one are circled, enter the HIGHEST number. 

Counselor rating of group 

participation 

If more than one are circled, enter the HIGHEST number. 

Counselor rating of attitude If more than one are circled, enter the HIGHEST number. 

Counselor rating of 

treatment progress 

If more than one are circled, enter the HIGHEST number. 

CLICK ON pgeCourtA 

InAct/Stop Client Status Report (still!) 

Entry here will be from “UA Results” section of this report (middle of page) 

Date of UA 

Show for UA? 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for amphetamines 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for barbiturates 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for benzodiazepines 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for cocaine 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 89 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for opiates 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for PCP 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for marijuana 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for methadone 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for proxyphene 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for alcohol 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for ecstasy 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

Client’s UA tested on above 

date was positive/negative 

for LSD 

If client did not show for UA (“2” in previous variable), enter “98”. Otherwise, if 

blank, enter “3” for “not tested for”. Also, BEWARE: not all drugs show up on 

all forms (there’s an old and new version), so if drug isn’t even listed enter “98”. 

SCROLL TO THE RIGHT AND UP AND CLICK ON Page 10 

Personal Recovery Plan – Panel 10 

Is there a personal recovery 

plan? 

Enter yes (1) or no (2) if it’s there or not, and “3” if it is there but NOT signed by 

client (see drop-down box). 

Is there a personal relapse 

prevention plan? 

Enter yes (1) or no (2) if it’s there or not, and “3” if it is there but NOT signed by 

client (see drop-down box). 

 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 90 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF DRUG COURT AND NON-DRUG COURT 

PROCESSING 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 91 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Description of Non-Drug Court Processing 

One element of the NIJ-funded cost study is to compare drug court clients with those who were 

eligible for the STOP Program but did not participate. These individuals go through traditional 

court processing. In Multnomah County, this processing includes having their case heard by a 

Grand Jury, and hearings at a variety of court appearances that could include Assignment Call, 

Drug Call, Motion to Suppress Hearings, Pre Plea Hearings, Plea Hearings and Trials Defendants 

are expected to attend most hearings. If they fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for their arrest.

Warrants 

Most appearances require a defendant’s presence in the courtroom. If a defendant fails to appear in 

the courtroom, a bench warrant will be issued for his or her arrest by the judge. Indictment 

warrants are issued for defendants whose charges have been dismissed pending further evidence 

but are then indicted based on the presence of additional substantiation. If the defendant is stopped 

by law enforcement for any reason and has a warrant they will be taken into custody and held at 

Multnomah County Detention Center until the warrant is processed. Defendants remain in custody 

until a hearing can be scheduled and takes place (usually the next business day). The hearing 

serves to assign a new court date returning the case to active status and addresses release.

“Set Overs” 

Set overs are requests made of the judge to schedule a court appearance for a date in the future. 

Defense attorneys and the State are both allowed a fixed number of set overs. For example, the 

defense may request a set over if they need time to interview witnesses or to further investigate 

the charges. The State may request a set over if a police officer scheduled to be questioned as a 

witness is not available or if they cannot locate a key witness. The judge allows the first few set 

overs without much explanation, but will request an explanation after recurring instances of 

requests for set overs, and may deny the request. 

First STOP Court Appearance 

If clients decide to commit to the two-week trial period in STOP, their case is set over at this first 

appearance. The two-week period is intended for clients to see if the STOP Program is 

appropriate for them. Clients who decide to decline the STOP Program are assigned a new 

attorney and their case is added to the Assignment Call Docket for a future court date. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 92 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Grand Jury 

Defendants who have declined the STOP Program have their cases heard by the Grand Jury. At a 

Grand Jury proceeding, the State calls witnesses and presents evidence to convince jurors of 

sufficient evidence against a defendant to bring formal charges against them. Neither the 

defendant nor their lawyer is present at these proceedings. The Grand Jury decides whether the 

District Attorney can proceed with the case. Three dispositions are possible; ‘true-bill,’ ‘no 

complaint’ or ‘cannot proceed.’ A defendant’s case will be ‘true billed’ if the defendant is 

indicted and the DA can proceed with charging the defendant. ‘No complaint’ denotes that the 

case is dismissed and the defendant will not be charged. The case will receive a ‘cannot proceed’ 

disposition when an indictment is not being pursued at that time, but the case is left open and the 

State may charge the defendant for up to three years. Grand Jury results are reported before the 

start of Arraignments the following day in court. The District Attorney reads the Grand Jury 

Report if a case has been dismissed (3 years) the defendant is free to go, if a case has been 

indicted, the defendant is required to schedule another arraignment date with their attorney. At 

this arraignment an Assignment Call date is set.

Assignment Call 

When defendants’ are indicted by the Grand Jury, their cases are set out for Assignment Call. 

Defendants are required to attend this appearance. Assignment Call is essentially a status check, 

the State and the defense attorney inform the judge of the status of the case and either ask for a 

set over or to be scheduled for Drug Call. In most cases, Drug Call is scheduled for a date 4-6 

weeks after Assignment Call.

Drug Call 

Drug Call is also a status check hearing. Defendant attendance is required. At Drug Call, the 

defense attorney and the State report their readiness for the case to proceed or make requests for 

set overs. Drug Call is an opportunity for the defense attorney and the State to announce their 

intentions for the case. A case may be resolved with a plea made by the defendant or scheduled 

for a trial. If the case is determined to be ready for a plea, the judge will then send the case to 

another judge’s courtroom for the plea to take place that same day. If a case is ready for trial, the 

judge will send the case to another judge’s courtroom for a trial to start within a few days. A case 

at Drug Call can also be set for a Motion to Suppress proceeding.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 93 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Motion to Suppress Hearings 

A Motion to Suppress proceeding is requested by the defense attorney in an effort to suppress 

evidence being presented by the State. If the defense proves to the judge that the evidence should 

be suppressed, the state will often dismiss the case. Most Motion to Suppress proceedings 

involve the defense attorney attempting to prove that narcotics found on their client were 

obtained through an illegal search and seizure. During a Motion to Suppress Hearing, police 

officers will often testify on how they obtained evidence. The State and defense are provided 

time to present their cases, call witnesses, and cross-examine each other’s witnesses. There is no 

jury present at a Motion to Suppress Hearing. The judge examines the testimony given and 

decides on the legality of the obtaining of evidence. If the judge rules in favor of the State and 

the motion is denied, the case will be sent back to Drug Call to be scheduled for a Trial or Plea 

Hearing. If the judge rules in favor of the defense, the evidence will be excluded from the case. 

The State has two choices then, to return to Drug Call to have the case heard without the 

evidence or to dismiss the case. Typically, the State dismisses the case. 

Plea Hearings 

At the request of the defense attorney, a Plea Hearing can be scheduled at Assignment Call, Drug 

Call, or before a Trial. At a Plea Hearing, defendants enter a plea of ‘guilty’ or ‘no contest’ to the 

charges brought against them by the State. Before hearing the plea, the judge will explain a 

defendant’s right to a jury trial and that they are waiving that right by choosing to plead to the 

charges. The judge reads the charges and asks the defendants for a plea. After the plea has been 

entered, the judge determines the sentence. Usually the State recommends sentencing based on 

the agreement made previously between the defense attorney and the district attorney’s office. 

Judges typically follow the State’s recommendations, but may choose not to. 

Trial 

For cases where the defendant has entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ or has lost a Motion to Suppress 

Hearing, the judge will schedule a Trial date at Drug Call. The Trial consists of the State and 

defense attorney’s presenting their cases before a jury. After hearing the case, the jury decides on 

a verdict of guilt or innocence. The judge, in accordance with the law, sentences a defendant that 

is found guilty. Defendants found guilty will usually receive sentences that include both jail and 

probation time. Defendants who are acquitted (found innocent) have their cases dismissed.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 94 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Sentencing 

In the recent past, defendants were generally sentenced to 30 days in jail, a drug free zone 

exclusion and 18 months of probation. Jail time is assigned with a “turn self in” date or the 

defendant is taken into custody at the Hearing. Conditions of probation can include: a drug 

evaluation, successful completion of treatment, random drug testing, obey all laws, submit 

person/residence/vehicle/property to search by Probation Officer, maintain full-time employment 

or school, community service work, driver's license suspension and no firearms. Due to current 

budget cuts (February 2003), the DAs office cannot prosecute simple drug possession charges at 

this time, therefore, no adjudication or sentencing is occurring in these cases. 

Probation 

Probation sentences for PCS charges are usually 18 months long. Multnomah County 

Community Justice provides probation supervision. Supervision by a Probation Officer includes 

monitoring defendants in the community and ensuring defendants follow through with the 

conditions of probations set forth by the judge at the time of sentencing. Supervision by 

probation includes recommendations for treatment based on an alcohol and drug assessment that 

takes place when a defendant begins probation. Treatment may include attendance at twelve step 

programs, inpatient treatment and random drug testing. If the defendant fails to follow the 

conditions of probation, the Probation Officer has the authority to file a Violation of Probation 

with the court, which usually results in a hearing and the defendant could be taken into custody.

Probation Violation Hearing 

Defendants who violate probation will be ordered to attend a Probation Violation Hearing. A 

lawyer will represent defendants at the hearing. A representative from the probation department 

recommends a sanction. The decision made by the judge may be to continue the defendant’s 

probation with or without a sanction (for example, community service or treatment) or to revoke 

probation, which may earn a defendant up to six months in jail. 

Successful Completion of Probation

Defendants who comply with the terms of probation for 18 months have their probation 

terminated. They have no further obligations to their Probation Officer or the courts. A record of 

this charge, indictment, verdict and time served will remain on the person’s criminal record. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 95 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

What Do We Know About the STOP Drug Court Program? 

History and Overview 

Multnomah County instituted their drug court program in August 1991 using a Byrne grant and 

local city funds. Judge Harl Haas, Jim Hennings, Metropolitan Public Defenders, Norma Jaeger, 

Multnomah County Behavioral Health (A&D), and Tamera Holden, Adult Community Justice 

were instrumental in devising the first Oregon drug court. Haas visited the Dade County, Florida, 

drug court, which was one year old at the time, and saw that churches and the local county paid 

for treatment for those arrested on drug charges. He learned more about the drug court model and 

decided to establish a similar specialized court in Multnomah County. He negotiated with the 

Multnomah County District Attorney and the leader of the local public defender’s office. The 

STOP (Sanctions, Treatment, Opportunities and Progress) drug court program was among the 

pioneer drug courts to be established in the United States. The program was designed to be a preplea offer to individuals arrested on drug charges. Upon successful completion of this intensive 

program, charges are dropped and a defendant can apply to have them removed from their 

criminal history record. 

Conditions of eligibility have included, no evidence of distributing illegal drugs, no holds in 

other jurisdictions, no gang associations, no other felony or class A misdemeanors and no driving 

under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) associated with this charge. Participants were given 

one chance; if they tried the program and failed they would not be invited to participate a second 

time if arrested again. Over the years, eligibility for the program has changed to include or 

prevent new participants based on funding availability and treatment provider capacity. For 

example, in 1992, STOP closed the invitation to those defendants currently on probation or 

parole, but in July 1995, those defendants were once again eligible. Most likely as a result of a 

$500,000 USDOJ award the previous fall, eligibility changed again in the spring of 1996 to 

include those who had not successfully completed the program 

A single drug treatment provider supplied outpatient treatment to participants when the program 

began in 1991 and the program was open to individuals charged with possession of a controlled 

substance (PCS). However, due to some questions about the quality of treatment, that treatment 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 96 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

provider was dismissed and in July 1992, the current provider, InAct took over as the sole 

treatment provider. 

Judge Haas was the presiding judge for the first two and a half years of the program. He was 

replaced by Judge Robinson, and then in January of 1996, Referee Lawrence replaced Judge 

Robinson when the court moved to the local Justice Center. In March of 1998 Judge Haas brought 

the drug court back to the Multnomah County courthouse and resumed his post as presiding judge 

until January 2000 when Judge Douglas Beckman became the STOP court judge. Today, a former 

defense lawyer, Judge Edward Jones presides over the drug court in Multnomah County.

STOP Program Participants 

The STOP Program is offered to people charged with Possession of Controlled Substance, 

Possession of More Than an Ounce of Marijuana and Tampering with Drug Records (forging 

prescriptions for pharmaceutical drugs). All of these charges fall under Oregon Revised Statute 

#475. The STOP Program was pre-plea for the first 10 years of operation. That is, participants 

did not have to plead to the charge or charges for which they were accused. Upon agreement to 

participate in the STOP program clients must formally acknowledge that they have waived their 

right to a trial by jury. Instead, upon self-termination (repeated failures to appear) or termination 

(treatment non-compliance) clients receive a stipulated facts trial. This alternative consist of the 

STOP court judge reading the police report and determining guilt or innocence without the 

benefit of a jury or witnesses. 

Historically (between 1991 and September 2000), the drug court has graduated approximately 

one-third (32%, 1858 out of a total of 5818) of the people who have entered drug court, though 

this percentage has risen higher than 50% in some years. 2601 have declined the program 

(initially or at the end of the 14 day trial period). The STOP program as of 2002 had about 500 

active clients. However, recent budget cuts have led the DAs office to stop prosecuting simple 

drug possession clients so that population is no longer being sent to drug court. In addition, the 

budget cuts have affected the treatment agency directly resulting in the agency letting go 26 of 

their 40 full-time staff. The future of this drug court is now in question. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 97 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

STOP Program Enrollment 

A defendant will be informed by the Public Defender at their arraignment if they are eligible for 

the STOP Program. These defendants are court-ordered to attend an orientation at the Metropolitan 

Public Defender’s office at 8 A.M. the following morning. Following their orientation, and after 

the Public Defender has confirmed their eligibility, clients must appear at STOP court that day to 

declare their intentions. Please see Chart 1 for a detailed model of the flow of clients through the 

criminal justice system in Multnomah County and into the STOP Program.

Eligibility Screening 

Eligibility criteria have changed over time due to changes in funding, space availability at the 

treatment agency and politics. The Program is offered to participants based on: arrest charge, 

criminal history, probation status, additional charges, status at other jurisdictions (holds or 

retainers) and previous participation in drug court. As in all criminal justice areas, discretionary 

power can be exerted by the district attorney or the judge in determining who is eligible. The 

Multnomah County District Attorney’s office is responsible for determining client eligibility for 

the Program. 

Participation has been denied based on prior convictions, prior STOP Program participation and 

probation/parole status. Convictions of a violent offense make a client ineligible. Major violent 

offenses such as Assault I and Armed Robbery are the types of crimes for which a client would 

be denied entry to STOP. Simple Assault and charges of this nature do not usually prevent a 

client from entering the STOP Program. STOP participants may have more than one charge 

when they enter the Program. A client may have two PCS charges or a Criminal Trespass or 

Theft charge as well as the Possession charge. 

Public Defender Orientation 

The Metropolitan Public Defender’s STOP orientation begins with a 45-minute description the 

program. The legal assistant in charge of the STOP program presents this orientation. 

Curriculum for the session describes the benefits of the STOP program, including: treatment 

functions, acupuncture, drug testing, and dismissal of charges upon completion of program. The 

sanctions participants could receive for non-compliance are also covered. These include jail time, 

the stipulated facts trial, sit sanctions, detoxification programs, inpatient treatment and forest 

work camp. The legal assistant provides a clear picture of what a year in the STOP program will 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 98 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

be like. The participants then meet individually with their attorney to discuss their case. The 

attorney reviews the police report and gives the client advice on accepting the Program or taking 

the case to trial. The client ultimately has the final decision and must appear in STOP Court at 

1:30 p.m. that afternoon to pronounce their intentions. 

First STOP Court Appearance 

All clients offered the STOP Program must appear before the judge at STOP the day following 

their arraignment. If a client declines the STOP Program they will be assigned a new non-drug 

court attorney from the public defender’s office, if necessary, and their next court date will be set 

out to a future date on the ‘Call Docket.’ A client that decides to enter the Program is told to 

report to In-Act, the treatment provider the following morning at 9 A.M. The client is given a 

two-week ‘set over.’ The two-week set over is a 14-day trial period that provides a chance for the 

client to see if the STOP Program is suitable for them. 

InAct Orientation 

The admissions staff at InAct conducts the orientation. The potential clients participate in a onehour group orientation. The admission staff describes what a year in the STOP Program will 

entail. Clients then have individual meetings with an admissions staff member to complete the 

intake paperwork and create their treatment schedule. The admission counselor assigns the client 

to a group for group counseling, an individual counselor and schedules acupuncture treatments, 

the intake assessment with their new counselor and a date for a physical examination with the 

InAct naturopathic doctor. The admission counselor also discusses insurance options with the 

client. If a client has private insurance then they will self-pay for treatment. Participants with no 

insurance are assigned an Oregon Health Plan (OHP) appointment.

Declaration Day 

After two weeks of participating in the Program, clients appear in STOP court and declare their 

intentions. If they are staying in the program, they will continue with treatment and future court 

appearances will be scheduled (typically one-month from the declaration day). Clients do not 

have to plead to the charge for which they are entering. If a client declines the Program, their 

case will be set back on the trial docket and will be heard by a non-drug court judge. A client 

declining the program will be given a new lawyer at Metropolitan Public Defenders if necessary 

and have their case set on Trial Docket. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 99 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

The STOP Drug Court Program 

Clients who accept the Program will be working towards having their charges dropped by 

attending prescribed treatment services, appearing at drug court and paying STOP Program fees. 

InAct provides treatment for most clients. Resources are made available to clients such as 

Oregon Health Plan enrollment services and connections with community resources.

Court Appearances 

Clients appear before the judge based on the treatment phase they are currently completing. During 

court appearances the judge checks in with the client’s progress, both from the client’s perspective 

and the treatment provider’s. The treatment liaison provides information to the judge on the 

client’s progress from the counselors at InAct. The District Attorney makes note of subsequent 

arrests and brings this data to the courtroom. The judge offers encouragement and rewards to 

clients who are complying with the treatment regime. The judge also imposes sanctions, checks on 

the completion of previously imposed sanctions and the status of their fee payment. Bench 

warrants are issued and lifted based on a client’s appearing in court as scheduled.

Warrants 

Most appearances require a defendant’s presence in the courtroom. If a defendant fails to appear 

in the courtroom, a bench warrant will be issued for their arrest by the judge. If the defendant is 

stopped by law enforcement for any reason and has a warrant, they are taken into custody and 

held at Multnomah County Detention Center until the warrant is processed. Clients remain in 

custody until they can appear at drug court, usually the next business day. 

Sanctions 

Sanctions are used in the STOP program as tools to help enforce the rules and to assist clients in 

their completion of the program. Sanctions are employed as punishments as well as motivation 

for participants. Individual judges have their own style of imposing sanctions. An important 

motivational tool used by drug court judges is the ‘impose but suspend’ rule. This is 

accomplished by the judge imposing a certain sanction, but suspending it until the client’s next 

court date. This is often used when a client is doing poorly in the program. At the following court 

date, if the client is doing better or completed specific tasks required by the judge, the sanction is 

not imposed. The judge may leave the sanction in ‘impose but suspend’ status for the following 

court date. This approach can be described as ‘the ball is in your court’ approach. If a client at 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 100 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

the following court date has not performed up to expectations, the judge imposes the promised 

sanction. Sanctions can only be imposed by the judge, with or without recommendations from 

the treatment counselors. Sanctions are often graduated, that is they steadily increase with the 

severity of the non-compliant behavior. The court always follows through with its threat of 

sanctions and imposes them swiftly after they are ordered. Sanctions are consistently imposed 

across individuals for similar noncompliant behavior or actions. The types of sanctions used by 

the Multnomah County STOP Program include ‘sit’ sanctions, forest work camp, jail sanctions 

and community service. 

• Sit Sanction. A sit sanction is usually the first sanction that is handed down by the court 

when a client begins to fail to comply with treatment and court orders. A client that 

receives a sit sanction is required to sit in court and observes the day’s proceedings. 

Sit sanctions usually last for two days but can be as long as a week. A client receiving 

a sit sanction is often required by their counselor to write an essay describing their 

observations in the court room, what they learned from the sit sanction and how it can 

be applied to their recovery. 

• Forest Work Camp. Forest work camp is more severe than a sit sanction. Forest work 

camp is in a wooded area about an hour outside of Portland where people are sent to 

do conservation work. Participants can be sentenced to two to three weeks at the camp 

for violating the Program rules. A client sanctioned to forest work camp will also 

attend treatment while at the camp. Groups and counseling sessions are conducted at 

the camp. Forest work camp removes clients from their current problems and gives 

them the opportunity to reflect on their issues. It is used as a sanction, but clients have 

mentioned anecdotally that it helped to turn them around. Participants have been 

sentenced to forest work camp for as little as week and as long as a month. 

• Jail Sanction. The jail may be used as a sanction in several ways. Occasionally a judge 

will impose a jail sanction as an immediate detoxification. Participants are given a 

chance to locate a detoxification facility on their own. If they are unable or unwilling, 

the judge sentences them to a five to seven day ‘jail detox.’ Jail is occasionally used as 

a motivational tool as well. The judge may give a client a one-day jail sanction for 

every treatment function missed; suspend the sanction until next court date and see 

how the client performs. For example, if the client attends all treatment sessions, no 

jail days are ordered. However, if a client misses three group counseling sessions and 

one urinalysis (UA) test then the client might receive four days in jail at their next 

court appearance. The judge may impose one day of jail for each positive urinalysis 

test. Jail is also used to hold participants in custody while they are waiting for a 

residential bed. This is usually on the advice of the client’s personal counselor. A 

client in custody waiting for a residential bed could remain in jail as long as six 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 101 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

months due to the lack of available treatment facilities. Counselors caution clients that 

waiting in custody for a residential bed is imminent when they are unable to avoid 

substance use; this sanction is never a surprise. In spite of all the possible ways to use 

jail as a sanction, this sanction is imposed rarely. On our intensively tracked clients, an 

average of 0.4 jail days were imposed. 

• Community Service. Community service is used as an alternative to forest work camp 

for female clients (there are no forest work camp facilities for woman), but may also 

be imposed on men. The judge will assign eight hours of community service for each 

positive urinalysis test and/or each treatment function missed. The client is always 

warned that a full day of community service will be forthcoming if they are unable to 

comply with treatment requirements. 

Rewards 

A client is succeeding in the Program when they are making an effort towards or are free from 

drugs according to their urinalysis tests and in good attendance at the treatment provider. Clients 

can be rewarded in several ways. A ‘quick list’ of individuals who are doing well or making a 

commendable effort is compiled by the treatment liaison. Clients on the quick list are called first 

on the docket. Being called first can mean the difference between sitting in court for ten minutes 

and sitting in court for 4 hours. Another reward is the six-week set-over. Participants performing 

well earn the right to appear in court every six weeks instead of every four. 

Program Fees 

A $400 fee is required to be paid before a dismissal disorder will be signed by the judge. A client 

can graduate if they have paid at least half. Participants failing to pay the $400 fee in a month of 

entering treatment are charged an additional $50 in interest. No pre-determined monthly 

installment is expected; however the judge makes monthly inquiries about each client’s fees. 

Once entering the Program a client is bound to pay the fee regardless of their outcome. A client 

who is terminated from the Program is still responsible for the fees. The judge has discretionary 

power on imposing an individual’s Program fees and may waive all or a partial amount. 

Participants receiving Social Security Income and those facing economic hardships may have 

their fees waived.
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 102 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

STOP Program Treatment Options 

InAct is the only contracted treatment provider for the STOP Program. InAct provides case 

management for all participants, including those who receive treatment elsewhere. Clients may 

receive treatment elsewhere if they require residential services, methadone treatment for heroin 

abuse or live outside of Multnomah County and prefer to attend counseling sessions in their 

community. For most clients, treatment involves attending counseling sessions, submitting to drug 

testing and acupuncture treatments at InAct. Successful clients complete three phases of treatment.

Drug Court Treatment Phases 

The STOP Program has three phases that vary in length by client need. For example, a client can 

move rapidly through Phases I and II and spend the majority of their time in Phase III. 

One of the requirements for graduation is that clients must have spent 365 days in the Program. 

A client has what is called a ‘STOP clock.’ The STOP clock is the amount of treatment days a 

client has in the program. If a client absconds and is placed in bench warrant status by the judge, 

their STOP clock is stopped. For example, if a client is in bench warrant status for 45 days their 

time in the program is extended by 45 days to make up those days in treatment. Days away in 

bench warrant status are not counted towards treatment time. When a client returns to the 

Program from bench warrant status, their STOP clock starts again. 

During Phase I, a client is expected to attend three group counseling sessions and three 

acupuncture treatments per week. The client will also have at least one monthly meeting with her 

or his personal counselor and a minimum of one court appearance per month. 

Phase II program requirements are often adjusted based on client needs. Clients in Phase II 

typically attend two group counseling sessions per week. Clients may stop attending acupuncture 

treatment if their counselor determines it is no longer necessary. During this phase, the client 

may also be put on ‘one on one’ status. One on one status is weekly individual sessions with 

their counselor. In Phase II, the client will have at least one court appearance every six weeks. 

Phase III includes one group counseling session per week and one individual counseling session 

per month. The judge and InAct staff work together to determine the number and frequency of 

court appearances. Clients complying with program requirements may be given a six week set 

over or monthly set over. Participants performing poorly may be ordered to appear in court 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 103 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

weekly or bi-monthly. People who are in danger of relapse, harming themselves or who are 

waiting for space availability at a detoxification program or inpatient treatment may be given 

daily court appearances. The judge and court team are able to provide structure and incentives to 

stay clean until assistance in the form of inpatient treatment or detoxification is available.

Urinalysis 

InAct performs the STOP Program urinalysis drug testing. All clients are randomly tested at least 

once a week. Clients are assigned a number upon entry into the Program and are responsible for 

calling the ‘UA line’ each day to see if their number has been chosen. Numbers may be called 

more than once a week. A client having trouble staying clean or suspected of dishonesty may be 

randomly tested up to three times a week. Clients treating at the methadone clinic or in a 

residential center are also required to have weekly random urinalysis testing at their treatment 

center. Clients in jeopardy of missing a drug test may also have an off-site certified lab perform a 

urinalysis if they are unable to get to InAct. The results must be sent to InAct for verification. 

Aftercare 

Aftercare is not a requirement for the STOP Program. One year of Aftercare is available to all 

participants who have graduated. After care programs are designed based on client needs. After 

graduation, a client is eligible to attend as many group counseling sessions as desired, may meet 

with their individual counselor, attend educational classes provided at InAct and remains eligible 

for mental and physical health services provided by InAct. Although strongly encouraged, 

participants are not required to participate in aftercare activities.

Client Outcomes 

The goal of the Program is to keep clients engaged until they have completed the graduation 

requirements. The Program seeks to graduate as many clients as possible. Clients are introduced to 

a drug-free existence. Ideally at graduation, clients have jobs or career prospects, have started or 

are into looking into GED classes or college coursework, have adequate housing and are working 

on family issues. Termination from the Program is a last resort. The Program philosophy is to 

support clients and give them as many opportunities to succeed as possible, as it may be the last 

chance for some to get off drugs. Even if a client is using substances, while participating in the 

Program, if they are attending treatment and court sessions, the STOP Program will continue to 

work with them. Often the judge will say, “You’re a drug addict, we know you might use but you 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 104 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

must at least fill the chairs.” Participants are far more inclined than the Program to give up. Selfterminations are far more common than Program staff initiated terminations.

Self-Termination 

Self-termination can happen at any time during the Program. Clients choose to end their 

participation in the Program for many reasons. Anecdotally, the most frequent reasons include: 

choosing not to go to jail to wait for a space at a residential treatment center, time commitment 

issues, or are just not interested in the program anymore. Historically, (and during the time of our 

sample) a client who terminated received a stipulated facts trial, was usually convicted of the 

charges and sentenced to 30 days in jail and 18 months on probation. As of June 2001, STOP 

clients plead guilty to their charges when they choose to participate in the Program and are 

sentenced at their termination to 10 days in jail and 18 months on probation and are also sent to 

the alternative drug court (Clean Court). 

Termination 

The District Attorney and the treatment provider recommend terminations to the judge, who 

ultimately has the final decision. Subsequent arrests for violent crimes result in an immediate 

termination from the Program. Clients charged with a violent crime during the Program are 

automatically terminated. Terminations occur for a number of reasons. Clients who repeatedly 

abscond from the Program may be terminated. Clients who tamper with their urine samples for 

drug tests may be terminated. Clients who constantly use drugs may be terminated. Clients who 

are unable to engage in treatment for extended periods of time may face termination. 

Termination is used as a last resort in the STOP Program. Participants are given many chances 

before they are terminated. Clients are warned in advance of a possible termination and given 

alternatives before it actually happens. Terminations rarely happen if a client is engaged in 

treatment. After the judge has exhausted all other sanctions, they will order a ninety –day ‘up or 

out.’ An ‘up our out’ is the participant’s last chance. The client has ninety-days to graduate the 

program or face termination. This gives the client one last try to comply with Program. 

Graduation 

Three hundred and sixty-five days in treatment are required to graduate the Program. In addition, 

clients need six consecutive clean urinalysis tests and a recommendation from their individual 

counselor to complete the Program. Graduates complete an exit interview two days before the 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 105 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

formal graduation. The exit interview is private discussion between client, judge, public 

defender, and the District Attorney. Clients are asked to share thoughts and feelings on the 

Program, make suggestions for program improvement and highlight the most helpful aspects of 

the Program for them, especially what helped them avoid drugs. Graduation is held at the drug 

court during a regular court session. Graduations begin the drug court proceedings for that day 

and last for about an hour. Graduation is used to inspire other Program participants. At 

graduation, clients receive a certificate of Program completion, gift certificate for a local 

restaurant and their booking photo from their original arrest. The treatment provider, judge, 

District Attorney, and public defender give speeches to the graduates. The judge then allows 

each graduate to speak. Friends and family members of the graduates and InAct staff are given 

an opportunity to speak as well. The District Attorney then requests all charges be dropped 

against the defendants and the judge finalizes the order. 

The STOP Program Drug Court Team 

The drug court team acts a cohesive unit to help each client complete the Program. Unlike 

standard court proceedings, there are no adversarial relationships between team members. The 

public defender and District Attorney have the same goal in this courtroom-- to help each client 

stop using substances and remove the pending felony from their record. Each team member’s 

role is vital to the success of the participants. The team members include the judge, treatment 

coordinator, the public defender, the public defender’s legal assistant and the District Attorney. 

The team meets daily. 

Drug Court Team Meetings 

The drug court team meets informally everyday to share information on participants. The 

treatment coordinator informs the team of clients who are at-risk for failing to comply with 

treatment, clients who are doing poorly or who are having a relapse. They also talk about any 

special circumstances arising for a client. These informal meetings provide a forum to discuss atrisk participants before the court proceedings begin. This ensures that everyone is on the same 

page before the court session begins. The drug court team also has monthly formal operations 

meetings to determine new policies and work out questions and concerns of the team members. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 106 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Judge 

The judge plays a unique and very important role in the STOP Program. The judge is the only 

team member who can impose sanctions, terminate a client from the Program or order a client to 

attend either a detoxification program or residential treatment. The judge uses judicial 

discretionary power where necessary. The treatment coordinator and District Attorney can only 

recommend sanctions for the judge to consider. Clients look to the judge for guidance as they 

struggle with their recovery and praise when deserved. The judge’s compliments or criticisms are 

quite significant to some participants. The participants are held accountable for their actions by 

the judge.

The current judge has an understanding of substance abuse issues and strives to be 

compassionate to the clients as they work on their recovery. Participants have serious issues in 

their lives and their addictions must be taken into account. The judge uses his own attitude to 

assist clients with complying with Program requirements. He knows there is a time for harshness 

and a time for understanding. The judge understands this is not a one-chance program. Each 

client is given time and patience to turn their addiction around. 

Treatment Coordinator/Court Liaison 

The main function of the treatment coordinator is to provide a link between the treatment 

counselors and the court. The treatment coordinator discusses each client on the docket with each 

personal counselor before attending the team meeting. The treatment coordinator speaks in court 

for each client’s personal counselor. This connection provides a direct account of the client’s 

progress. The treatment coordinator makes recommendations on sanctions and rewards to the 

judge. The treatment coordinator in the STOP program is also a certified substance abuse 

treatment counselor and is able to offer participants guidance in their recovery. 

The current treatment coordinator has a great understanding of the drug court and treatment. He 

has persuaded participants from terminating the STOP Program on numerous occasions. His role 

in court as acting counselor is invaluable. Participants turn to him for guidance in the court on a 

wide range of issues. The treatment coordinator always has an open ear for his participants. 

Public Defender 

The public defender’s role in drug court is different than regular court. While mindful of clients’ 

interests, the public defender understands that the clients’ best interest may be jail time. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 107 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Sanctions and the judge’s ability to determine when to use them are part of the Program’s 

curriculum. The public defender rarely objects to sanctions imposed by the judge. Working as 

part of the team, the public defender understands that sometimes protecting participants from 

sanctions would undermine the court’s intentions. There is one occurrence that the public 

defender will defend his participants vehemently; this is termination. The public defender will do 

his best and make his best argument to STOP his participants from being terminated from the 

program. A client faced with termination will have the public defender doing everything in his 

power to STOP his client from being terminated. The public defender also makes 

recommendations to the court about participants. The public defender may recommend certain 

sanctions that he believes would be beneficial to his client’s efforts to stay clean.

Public Defender’s Legal Assistant 

The legal assistant for the public defender plays a vital role between the client and the STOP 

Program. She introduces the Program to the participants and instructs clients how work within 

the criminal justice system as they complete the Program. She offers information on how to 

rescind a bench warrant, schedule their community service hours and add their name to the 

docket for court appearances if needed beyond their scheduled drug court date. She is 

responsible for the daily monitoring of participants and their current situations and reporting this 

information to the court. If a client is unable to attend a court appearance, the legal assistant is 

the client’s contact person. The current legal assistant for the STOP program maintains 

participant files and all information is organized and updated regularly. The participants rely on 

the assistant as they navigate the Program. 

District Attorney 

The District Attorney represents the interest of the State during STOP court proceedings. The 

District Attorney makes recommendations to the judge on sanctions and terminations. The 

District Attorney is focused on the success of all participants but is also ensuring the integrity of 

the Program. The District Attorney will suggest termination as a reminder to the client to take 

their participation seriously. The recommendation is often a bluff to remind the client of the 

potential felony conviction if they fail to comply with Program requirements. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 108 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Program Challenges and Successes

The current graduation rate of 45% (2287 graduates/5080 participants, numbers provided by InAct) 

is probably the greatest reward for the STOP Program team. This drug court was the second drug 

court to be developed and has been replicated nationwide. Drug court teams from across the 

country come to observe the Multnomah County STOP court for educational purposes and to ask 

for guidance on how to run a successful drug court program. The largest challenge faced by the 

team is administering the program without enough or consistent funding.

Other successes include: 

• Good collaboration among team members, 

• Frequent and highly structured court and treatment session, 

• A system of graduated sanctions, 

• A holistic view of treatment, 

• Listening to participants and taking a genuine interest in them as people, 

• Helping participants with tangible successes such as obtaining a GED; and 

• Having dedicated team members who devote their time and energies to a program that 

they really believe in 

Challenges include: 

• The availability of consistent funding 

• The program is often at or near capacity. More funding is needed to treat all eligible 

participants. InAct is working with the most clients in its history with the smallest 

amount of staff. 

• Inpatient services are needed and Inact would like to be able to provide these services, 

but lacks the funding to do so. 

• The large numbers of clients needing treatment 

• How to handle participants in bench warrant status for long periods of time 

• Educating judges about substance abuse treatment 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 109 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Hearing Descriptions and Durations for Multnomah County 

Drug Court Hearings 

 

STOP Court 

• First STOP appearance: Potential drug court participant attends entire court proceedings. Treatment 

provider/judge explains participant’s requirements. Clients then chose to either decline or participate in a twoweek probationary period. 

Duration: 420 seconds (7 minutes) 

• Two-week set over STOP appearance: Potential drug court participant attends court and declares his/her 

decision to either enter or decline program. 

Duration: 240 seconds (4 minutes) 

• STOP Court (standard): Drug court participants attend hearings set over by judge from previous hearings. 

The baseline for set overs is four weeks. It can vary from as little as daily (extreme cases) to as many as six 

weeks between appearances. 

Duration: 120 seconds (2 minutes) 

Present for all above appearances: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney, Public Defender legal assistant, 

treatment provider, clerk, 2 Corrections Officer if in-custody client 

AVERAGE DURATION FOR ALL STOP APPEARANCES: 146 seconds (2.43 minutes) 

Exit Interview: A semi-formal review with STOP team to discuss participant’s experience in the program. Team 

approves graduation for participant. Team can also revoke graduation approval per participant’s counselor. 

Duration: 373 seconds (6.22 minutes)

Present: Judge, Public Defender, DA, court liaison for InAct (in judges chambers) 

Graduation: Final appearance in STOP court. Opportunity for client to be recognized in successfully completing 

STOP program. Clients with no balance on STOP fee will have case dismissed by DA. 

Duration: Average is 52 minutes, 43 seconds (keep in mind this is not a “per person” time – there can be 

anywhere from 2 to 20 people graduating at a time! This average is a “per-graduation event”) 

Present: Judge, judge’s clerk, Public Defender, PD’s legal assistant, DA, court liaison for InAct 

approximately 10 InAct staff. 

Review Hearing: Hearing set out by STOP judge for clients who have terminated from STOP. Opportunity for 

judge to review client’s community performance. 

Duration: 89 seconds (1.48 minutes) 

Present: Judge, judge’s clerk, Public Defender, DA 

Traditional Court Hearings 

Arraignment: Initial court appearance where newly arrested people receive their first court date and address 

custody status. 

Duration: 105 seconds (1.75 minutes) 

Present: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk, bailiff, 

Corrections Officer if in-custody 

Grand Jury Report:

 This is simply a report date where the DA reads aloud in court (prior to arraignments) the results of the Grand Jury 

report – whether cases on the docket were indicted (true billed) or “no-complaint.” He/she begins with an 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 110 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

explanation of what “true billed” and “no complaint” means, as well as defendant’s responsibility in response to the 

outcome of their report. We have no info regarding the actual Grand Jury process. 

Duration: Average time from beginning of explanation to last report read off docket is 4 minutes, 46 seconds 

Present: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk, bailiff. 

However...the only person really participating is the DA – he/she simply reads results. 

2nd Arraignment: If a client’s grand jury report comes back with a “true bill”, they must attend this appearance in 

order to be arraigned on the indictment, address any custody issues again, and set the next court date (Assign Call). 

Duration: Average is 127 seconds (2.12 minutes) 

Present: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk, bailiff, 

Corrections Officer if in-custody. 

Assignment Call: Provided a case doesn’t plead out in between arraignment and this appearance, this is the next 

court appearance following arraignment that defendants are required to attend. 

The status of their case is reported by the attorney, and the case is set for next appearance, which is either a plea, 

trial or, when it’s a drug case, drug call. 

Duration: 35 seconds (0.58 minutes) 

Present: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk (in 

custody folks are not brought in for this) 

Drug Call: This appearance is for drug cases only. Attorneys and DA’s report “readiness” of case from BOTH 

sides: whether they are ready for trial or plea or need a set over. Each “side” gets a certain number of set overs. 

Judge then either grants a set over, or sends case out to another judge for plea or trial. 

Duration: 48 seconds (0.8 minutes) 

Present: Judge, 4 DA’s, Public Defender attorney, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk (in custody folks are not 

brought in for this) 

Plea/Sentencing: Time and place for defendants to enter a plea of guilty in lieu of trial and be sentenced. 

Sentence determined before actual plea happens. 

Duration: 556 seconds (9.27 minutes) 

Present: Judge, DA, Defense Attorney, judge’s clerk, Corrections Officer if in custody 

Trial: Hearing to determine the guilt or innocence of defendant. Only 4 of our study participants went to trial.

Duration: Mean = 8883 seconds (approximately 2 1⁄2 hours) 

Present: Again, it varies. Always a judge, clerk, DA, Defense Attorney, any witnesses. 

Probation/Parole Violation Hearing: Hearing to address probation/parole violations committed by defendant. Judge, 

DA, and probation liaison discuss possible sanctions. Judge imposes sanction. 

Duration: 391 seconds (6.52 minutes) 

Present: Judge, DA, Defense Attorney, judge’s clerk, 2 Corrections Officers, probation court liaison.

Hearing for New Dates: For purposes of lifting bench warrants and setting new court dates for defendants who had 

failed to appear for a previous court date. 

Duration: Average is 9 seconds 

Present: Judge, DA, Public Defender attorney and legal assistant, Judicial Assistant, judges clerk, bailiff, 

Corrections Officer if in-custody (significant number 

Pretrial Conference/Hearing: This hearing is for misdemeanors only! It’s wild and crazy and hard to explain: 

basically it is a time for the DA’s and attorneys to negotiate pleas. These are held on Fridays only and take up most 

of the morning. MANY are set all at once so there are attorneys and DA’s everywhere! Defendants gather in the 

hallways of one of four courtrooms, wait for their name to be called by their attorney, then discuss (still in the 

hallway) what the DA is “offering”. The attorney then goes back into the crowded room of DA’s to renegotiate, if 

necessary. Eventually, defendants end up in the courtroom before a judge and any of these things could happen: 

plea/sentencing, set for trial, set over, or bench warrant if no-show. 
Multnomah County Drug Court Cost Analysis 111 NPC Research, Inc. 

 July 2003

Duration: The whole “scene” goes on for 2–3 hours. Once in the courtroom, if the case is set over or a 

bench warrant issued, the time is about 10 seconds. If a plea happens, the average is 9.57 minutes. 

Present: Judge, several DA’s handling several cases, several Defense Attorneys handling several cases, 

judge’s clerk, 2 corrections officers. 

Clean Court: This appearance is for clients who have been terminated from the STOP program, or are not eligible 

for STOP, and are ordered to participate in the Clean Court Program. Clients are ordered to appear in court on an asneeded basis (similar to STOP). 

Duration: 302 seconds (5 minutes, 2 seconds) 

Present: Judge, DA, Defense Attorney, Legal Assistant (to defense), judge’s clerk, 2 corrections 

counselors 

Community Court: At this appearance, clients with certain misdemeanors and violations receive the option of 

going to trial OR pleading guilty to the charge and receiving a sentence of community service (between 8-20 hours). 

Duration: Average is 121 seconds (2 minutes, 1 second) 

Present: Judge, DA, Defense Attorney, Legal Assistant (to defense), judge’s clerk, sheriff deputy