Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:39 am
Time: 1:39 am
Results for drug courts (utah)
1 results foundAuthor: Van Vleet, Russell K. Title: Evaluation of the Salt Lake County Adult Felony Drug Court Final Report Summary: The general effectiveness of drug courts on reducing recidivism has been consistently established (Belenko, 2001). The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) review of adult drug court evaluations (2005) found that most studies have shown both during program and post-program (up to one year) reductions in recidivism. The evaluation of the Salt Lake County Drug Court is consistent with that overall finding. In the 12 months following drug court exit, 19.7% of graduates had a new arrest, compared to 29.8% of the probationer comparison group and 46.5% of terminated clients. Drug court graduates had more pre-intervention arrests on average than the probationer comparison group and pre-intervention arrests were the most consistent predictor of post-intervention recidivism; however, a smaller proportion of drug court graduates than probationers recidivated during the follow-up period, suggesting that drug court may have lessened the detrimental effects of prior criminal history for this group of graduates. Terminated clients are three times more likely than graduates to recidivate in the first year after exiting drug court. However, even terminated clients had a significant decrease in offending from one year prior to drug court to one year following drug court (3.63 offenses on average in year prior to drug court; 0.81 on average in the year following drug court exit). Program compliance was significantly related to post-program recidivism, with those who recidivated in the 12-months after exiting drug court having about 31.8% of their urinalysis tests (UAs) positive or missed on average, compared to 19.5% for those who did not. Those who re-offended after exiting drug court had significantly fewer treatment sessions on average (26.6) than those who did not (59.5). Time in drug court also varied significantly for those who recidivated (200 days in drug court on average) and those who did not (356). The cost-benefit return for the drug court based on the Utah cost-benefit model (Fowles, et al., 2005) is approximately $4.29 return on every dollar invested in the program. This benefit takes into account both the explicit reduced costs to the taxpayer due to lowered recidivism and also the implicit reduced costs to potential victims due to lowered recidivism. Client satisfaction with the drug court staff and professionals was overwhelmingly positive. Most clients felt that the judges, case managers, treatment staff, and other professionals both respected them and helped them to remain drug free. Even terminated clients had mostly positive reviews of the drug court components and the program overall. Key informant interviews with those professionals conducting drug court included judges, prosecutors, therapists and case managers. While overwhelmingly supportive of drug court, concerns were expressed regarding the need to retain program fidelity if the court is to continue to experience the success indicated in this and other evaluations. Specifically, respondents recognized the role of the judge in drug court success and the concern that the judicial role would be compromised if the court becomes too large. Secondly respondents brought up the compatibility of the legal team, therapists, and case managers, as their roles have potential for conflict. Methodological limitations of the recidivism analyses, such as sample size, follow-up length, and probation end-date calculations, may impact the results of these tests. Additional analysis of the three recidivism studies included in this report should be conducted after the follow-up period for both participants and the probation group have been extended to 24 months (the length of time required to capture 75-80% of adult recidivism events; Barnoski, 1997), to see if the differences among the groups are durable across a longer period of time. Larger samples of graduates and terminated clients should be included in the recidivism analyses, as the follow-up period allows. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Criminal and Juvenile Justice Consortium, College of Social Work, University of Utah, 2005. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/1.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/1.pdf Shelf Number: 123704 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Utah)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentRecidivismRepeat Offenders |