DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03922.v1
title: Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context of Adult Drug Courts in Four Jurisdictions in the United States, 1997-2002
title: Version 1

description: This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug
treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved
offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a
connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by
combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers
collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court
participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved
in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California,
Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish,
Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism
and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were
enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December
2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from
observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July
2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys
of 54 treatment service staff members.
description: This study examined adult drug treatment courts.
 Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of
 drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts
 provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems
 by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. In drug
 courts the presiding judge oversees the progress of addicted offenders
 through treatment, drug testing, supervision, and compliance management.
 Previous research provided little information on the nature of drug
 courts' treatment services or on their impact on client outcomes. This
 study attempted to address these issues by examining the delivery of
 treatment services and offender outcomes in four drug courts. The
 following specific research questions were addressed: (1) What types of
 treatment services are offered by each drug court? (2) Is treatment
 delivery integrated into the drug court? (3) How do the philosophies and
 interventions of treatment counselors coincide with the goals of the drug
 treatment court? (4) What impact do drug treatment courts have on
offenders' outcomes?
description: Data for this study were collected between February
 2001 and May 2002. Researchers collected data on drug court
 participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved
 in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California,
 Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish,
 Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism
 and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were
 enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December
 2000. Recidivism data for all subjects were obtained from the National
 Crime Information Center (NCIC). None of the four courts had a
 management information system that maintained complete documentation of
 drug court participants' activities while in the program. Various
 resources in each jurisdiction were used to gather this information. In
 Bakersfield, these data were obtained from a database maintained by the
 Kern County Department of Mental Health that was designed specifically
 for the drug court. For Jackson County, data on treatment services, drug
 testing, sanction information, and treatment attendance were obtained
 from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking System Automated Treatment
 Tracking System (HATTS) and from spreadsheets maintained by the
 treatment provider. Demographic and discharge information were obtained
 from HATTS, a prosecutorial database, spreadsheets maintained by the
 Drug Court Coordinator, and from hardcopy forms. In Creek County,
 participant data were obtained manually from a review of case files
 maintained on hard copy by one of the treatment providers. For St. Mary
 Parish, demographic information was obtained from a database maintained
 by staff at the treatment provider, and participant case files were
 reviewed to collect treatment attendance records, drug test results, and
 discharge information. Data for Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, were
 collected during site visits from May through July 2001. During each
 site visit trained observers were assigned to treatment meetings at the
 various programs in the jurisdiction. Attempts were made, in
 jurisdictions with more than one provider, to have the same rater
 attend all of the meetings at a single site in order to increase
 clients' comfort with being observed. The observational technique used
 in this study was based on previous work by Taxman and Bouffard (2000).
 Using a standard data collection instrument, observers recorded at
 five-minute intervals the amount of time spent on each of several
 possible treatment topics and activities. In an attempt to ensure the
 consistent application of item definitions, observers met after each
 day's observations to discuss any ambiguities they might have
 encountered during those observations. Counselors had previously
 informed their clients of the researchers' upcoming visit and no client
 in any program refused to participate in a meeting under observation.
 Observers also completed several summary scales to further describe the
 exact nature of the services being offered. For Part 3, Staff Survey
 Data, 54 treatment service staff members completed surveys. Surveys were
 distributed to previously identified staff members during site visits.
 The surveys were returned by mail, and respondents were paid 25 dollars
 for returning a completed survey. The survey included items on
 respondents' demographic information, treatment program characteristics,
and a Philosophy of Drug Abuse Causation and Treatment Survey.
description: Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, variables
 include drug court site, whether participant completed treatment,
 criminal history, date of admission to drug court, date finished with
 drug court, number of arrests while in drug court, offenses and dates of
 arrests after drug court, length of program participation, number of
 urinalyses administered and number positive, number of treatment
 sessions attended, drug use history, demographic variables, and several
 derived variables. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, variables include
 drug court site, date of observed session, treatment provider code
 number, scheduled length of session, actual length of session, session
 type, number of participants, amount of time spent on 73 different
 treatment activities, number of missing clients, number of male and
 female clients, ethnicity of group members, whether the session was part
 of a specific sequence of treatment, format of the session, purpose of
 the session, treatment style, involvement of group members, and several
 derived variables. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, variables include staff
 member's position, demographic variables, staff member's treatment
 activities, treatment program characteristics, including treatment
 services and drug testing, use of rewards and sanctions, the program's
 interaction with the drug court, and answers to questions related to
staff views on drug abuse causation and intervention.
description: Response Rates: Part 3: 60 percent
description: Presence of Common Scales: Drug Abuse Treatment Philosophy Causation and Intervention
scales and several Likert-type scales were used.
description: The sites were selected after an examination and survey of
 the substance abuse treatment components of drug courts across the
 country. Emphasis was placed on selecting sites that were mature and
 where the same treatment providers had been providing services to drug
 court participants for two years or more. Sites were selected to
 represent a broad range of geographic areas, socioeconomic status of
 participants, and treatment components. Bakersfield is a relatively
 large, single-site court in a medium-sized California city that used
 multiple, pre-existing treatment providers within the local community.
 Jackson County is a large, multi-site court in a medium-sized Midwest
 city (Kansas City) that used a single treatment provider that was part
 of the court and run by the local government. Creek County is a small,
 single-site, rural court that at the time of the study was using two
 private treatment providers in the community. St. Mary Parish is a
 rural, single-site court that used a single treatment provider that was
 run by the local government. To create a sample for Part 1,
 Retrospective Analysis Data, information was initially obtained on 4,003
 individuals who were enrolled in one of the four drug courts for at
 least one day between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000. Of these,
 366 were excluded from the study because they were still active at the
 time fieldwork was conducted. An additional 617 who were assessed but
 not admitted into the drug courts were also excluded. Of the remaining
 3,020 drug court participants 385 were not matched with NCIC records,
 and of those who were matched an additional 278 were excluded because
 less than 12 months had passed since their discharge date. For Part 2,
 Treatment Observation Data, researchers chose treatment sessions to
 observe by developing a schedule that maximized the number of meetings
 that could be observed during the four days spent at each site. For Part
 3, Staff Survey Data, the researchers contacted treatment program
 administrators prior to each site visit and asked them to provide a list
 of staff who were directly involved in the delivery of services to drug
court clients.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Retrospective Participant Data
DS2: Treatment Observation Data
DS3: Staff Survey Data
description: Part 1: Individuals enrolled in one of the four drug courts
between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2: Treatment sessions held
by the drug courts' treatment providers from May through July 2001. Part
3: Staff employed at the drug courts' treatment providers from May
through July 2001. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.