Navigation

Palmer Drug Abuse Program

In order for intermediate sanctions, such as drug court, to be considered effective alternatives to traditional punishments of probation and prison, offenders and policy makers must view them similarly. This article examines variation in participants' perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program in Orange County California. In addition, the study examined perceptions of the severity of the graduated sanctions that are an integral part of the drug court program. This article focuses on differences between minority and non-minority participants. Although the severity of various sentences was rated differently by the two groups, we found few differences in perceived program effectiveness. Therefore, the drug court program can be used as an intermediate sanction for adequately supervising and rehabilitating drug offenders, protecting the public, conserving criminal justice resources, and deterring criminal activity.

INTRODUCTION

Drug courts are community based, intermediate sanctions that incorporate treatment principles into the criminal justice system and divert drug offenders from traditional punishments of probation and prison. The objective of drug court programs is to treat the underlying problems of addiction among drug offenders and eliminate participants' future drug use and crime. Although the drug court program emphasizes treatment, drug courts require completion of a more intensive program than other probation sentences (Belenko, 1998; Huddleston, 1999; Tauber, 1998; Tauber & Snavely, 1999).

CRESSWELL, DESCHENES

Drug courts have been defined as "a court-centered.. approach to treatment, with new aims and techniques that operate within criminal justice boundaries" (Goldkamp, 1999a, p. 169). Drug courts combine both concepts of justice and treatment (Belenko, 1998). The objective of drug courts is to use the court system to coerce offenders into "abstinence and prosocial behavior" (Belenko, p. 6). Therefore, the court system requires that drug court participants remain in treatment until successful completion of the program. The "coercive power of the court" is used to encourage success and compliance with treatment goals (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999, p. 475). Specifically, legal coercion is used to "force abstinence and alter behavior" (Drug Courts Program Office, 1995).

Intermediate sanctions provide the court system with "a range of punishments between imprisonment and probation," which allows for the "effective. punishment of convicted criminals" (Morris & Tonry, 1990, p. 3). The purpose of intermediate sanctions is to appropriately punish offenders, protect the public, reduce prison overcrowding, deter criminal activity, and save financial resources (Lurigio & Petersilia, 1992; Palmer, 1992; Petersilia, Lurigio, & Byrne, 1992a; Petersilia, Turner, & Deschenes 1992b).

Intermediate sanctions, which emphasize rehabilitation, also incorporate a degree of control and retribution to maintain self-discipline among offenders (McShane & Krause, 1993). Offenders are forced to confront and overcome underlying problems that have led to their criminal activity (Mays & Winfree, 1998). By confronting and overcoming underlying problems, offenders are able to become more productive and competent members of society (Bazemore & Maloney, 1997).

The 1990s witnessed the growth of the drug court movement and the birth of therapeutic jurisprudence (Hora, Schma & Rosenthal, 1999). During the last decade, the criminal justice system acknowledged that a strict and punitive criminal justice perspective towards drug use is unsuccessful (Belenko, 1998; Goldkamp, 1999b; Peters, Haas, & Murrin, 1999; National Institute of Justice, 1995a; Satel, 1998). Punishment alone, in the form of incarceration without treatment, does not deter drug use and subsequent crime (Andrews et al., 1990; Belenko & Dumanovsky, 1993; Drug Court Programs Office, 1995; Early, 1998; Lipton, 1995 a, 1995b; Smith & Berlin, 1988). Research has shown that changes in behavior are not likely to occur without drug treatment (National Institute of Justice, 1995b). The sole use of punishment in dealing with drug offenders has ceased to offer viable results. The failure to prevent drug use through punishment led to a shift in ideology among many criminal justice agencies and practitioners.

Treatment has been reemphasized as a method of preventing substance abuse (Canova, 1990; DeLeon, 1990; Goldkamp, 1999a; Hora et al., 1999; Lurigio & Petersilia, 1992; Mays & Winfree, 1998; Morris & Tonry, 1990; Schmalleger, 1996;

MINORITY AND NON-MINORITY PERCEPTIONS

Terry, 1999a). Drug treatment may enable drug offenders to function better in society by reducing drug use (Goldkamp, 1999b). Drug offenders may then become more productive and responsible (Torres & Deschenes, 1997). Currently, research has demonstrated that certain drug treatment programs do reduce criminal activities and drug use significantly (Torres, 1996).

An increased emphasis has been placed on the rehabilitation and treatment of certain types of offenders (Andrews et al., 1990; Mays & Winfree, 1998; Morris & Tonry, 1990). Presently, "there is widespread understanding in the community of the need to provide treatment for the addicted" (Morris & Tonry, 1990, p. 186). Therefore, certain intermediate sanctions offer substance abuse treatment (Allen, 1985; Latessa, 1985; Lurigio & Petersilia, 1992; Mays & Winfree, 1998; McShane & Krause, 1993; Petersilia, 1987; Petersilia et al., 1992a, 1992b; Smith & Berlin, 1988). Drug court programs offer both treatment and accountability.

EVALUATIONS OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS

Recent evaluations of drug court programs have generally been positive (Belenko, 1998; Peters et al., 1999; Tauber & Snavely, 1999;). The courts and the participants appear to be achieving the objective of the program (Tauber & Snavely, 1999). Drug courts have a high rate of participants successfully completing and graduating from the program (Deschenes & Petersen, 1999; Finn & Newlyn, 1996; Goldkamp, 1999b; Schiff & Terry, 1997; Tauber, 1998; Tauber & Snavely; Tauber & Huddleston, 1999; Terry, 1999a; Torres & Deschenes, 1997; Turner et al., 1999). Evaluations have shown that drug court participants have lower recidivism rates and reduced drug use (Belenko; Cooper, 1997; Drug Courts Program Office, 1995, 1998; Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1998; Finn & Newlyn, 1996; Hora et al., 1999; Tauber & Snavely). In general, drug court graduates are less likely to be rearrested (Deschenes & Petersen, 1999; Peters et al., 1999; Peters & Murrin, 2000; Terry, 1999b) and have lower substance abuse rates than other groups (Peters & Murrin). If drug court participants do reoffend, they usually do so after a longer period of time (Belenko 1998; Deschenes & Petersen 1999; Drug Courts Program Office 1995, 1998; Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, 1998; Finn & Newlyn 1996; Goldkamp 1999b; Goldkamp & Weiland 1993; Tauber & Snavely; Terry, 1999a).

Although research has demonstrated that drug courts have been successful, there has been little research on what specific program components are effective. Moreover, very few studies have examined participants' perceptions of the drug court program. Public officials and the drug court team should have knowledge of participant perceptions regarding the effectiveness and severity of the drug court program. Officials and the drug court team need to know if the drug court program is viewed as sufficiently severe and effective from the participants' standpoint. Drug court officials may believe that the drug court program and graduated sanctions are having the intended effect. However, this may not be true due to the fact that "the norms, values, and perceptions of offenders may be quite different from those of the.. policymakers" (Deschenes, Turner & Petersilia, 1997, p. 375). Therefore, the perceptions of drug court participants regarding the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program need to be considered.

STUDIES OF OFFENDER PERCEPTIONS

There are good reasons to examine offender perceptions and experiences regarding the effectiveness of correctional policies (Morris, 1974). One reason is to obtain information from those in a position to offer unique and unanticipated insights (Larson & Berg, 1989). For clients in treatment programs, evaluation can effect retention, treatment benefits, and successful outcomes (Condelli, 1986). For criminal offenders, if different sanctions are to have the punitive and deterrent effect that the public and officials desire, offenders must generally share the state's punitiveness in ranking of criminal sanctions (Crouch, 1993).

Petersilia and Deschenes (1994) studied offender perceptions regarding the use of intermediate sanctions. The goal of this study was to obtain "[i]nmate judgments on punitive equivalence [which] could be useful in setting some boundaries about the types of conditions and the duration required to mete out a 'tough' probation sentence" (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994, p. 325). To successfully punish and deter offenders who remain in the community, intermediate sanctions have to be appropriately severe depending on the offense (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994). Research has shown that certain punishments can have the same "punitive bite" as prison (Deschenes et al., 1997; Morris & Tonry, 1990, p. 32). Intermediate sanctions are able to successfully punish offenders without the use of incarceration.

Information on the perceptions of drug court participants regarding the program has been obtained and evaluated on a limited basis. The studies that have been conducted show positive results. Cooper (1997) and colleagues examined the perceptions of drug court participants across the nation. A majority of participants felt the most important reasons for entering a drug court program were: to receive treatment, to get charges dismissed, and to avoid going to jail. Participants stated that one of the reasons for remaining in the drug court program was the possible sanctions for noncompliance. In comparing the drug court program with prior treatment programs, significant differences included judicial supervision and the possible sanctions for noncompliance.

Local research also supports the effectiveness of drug court and the use of graduated sanctions. For example, most participants surveyed in Maricopa County, Arizona viewed the drug court program as effective in reducing drug and alcohol use, as well as criminal activity (Turner, Greenwood, Fain, & Deschenes, 1999). Harrell and Smith's (1996) study of drug court participants' perceptions of the programs and the use of (graduated) sanctions examined three different program conditions in Washington D.C. The study was conducted using one focus group from the standard docket and another from the sanction docket, which uses graduated sanctions. Participants in both dockets viewed these programs as beneficial and fair, stating the program had given them a chance to overcome their drug problems. Participants who had prior court experience viewed these programs more favorably than their other experiences. Most participants felt that the requirements for these programs were more difficult than probation requirements.

Information needs to be obtained on the perceptions of drug court participants regarding graduated sanctions specifically and the drug court program as a whole. Offender perceptions "help... determine whether specific components of the program model.. meet participants' expectations and thus whether theoretical concepts are being implemented correctly" and "help.. gauge the severity of drug court sanctions as seen through the eyes of those who are subject to them" (Turner et al., 1999, p. 63). Further research regarding drug court participants' perceptions will aid in evaluating the success of the sanctions and the drug court program.

MINORITIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Minorities represent a disproportionate number of persons arrested and convicted, probationers and prisoners.1 Although the statistics are much greater for violent offenders in comparison to drug offenders (Stone, 1999), there is still sufficient disparity. For drug offenders, the problem was highlighted during the 1980s when African-Americans were much more likely to receive a Federal prison sentence than whites for possession of crack cocaine. Nearly 86% of those sentenced to Federal prison in 1995 for crack cocaine were African American, 9% were Hispanic, and less than 5% were White. Even for powder cocaine, over one-third were African American or Hispanic and slightly more than 20% were White (Stone). Among adults on probation, the most serious offense was possession for 8% of Whites, 13% of African-Americans, and 11% of Hispanics, again showing a slight bias (Sourcebook, 1999).

Other data give a different picture. State court conviction data for 1996 indicate an equal proportion (49%) of those convicted for a felony drug possession as being Whites and African-Americans (Sourcebook 1997). For fiscal year 1997, Hispanics represented the largest group of drug offenders with 39%; 33% were AfricanAmericans, and 26% were White (U.S. Sentencing Commission 1997). Yet in fiscal year 1998 a total of 43% of offenders sentenced in District courts for drug possession were White, 26% were African-American, and 28% were Hispanic (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1998).

MINORITY PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT AND DRUG COURT

Minority group members tend to view treatment as counter to their cultural orientation and dislike the confrontive techniques (Tucker, 1985). Many treatment programs in the 1960s utililized ex-addicts in order to have more "relevant" treatment (Tucker). Longshore, Grills, Anglin, and Annon (1996) found African-American drug users had more unfavorable views of existing treatment modalities than Whites, finding them "intrusive, punitive, and untrustworthy" (p. 4).

In many jurisdictions the proportion of African-Americans in drug court exceeds their percentage in the population. In addition, African Americans are more likely to be charged with possession of crack cocaine (Terry, 1999b). Few studies, however, have examined the relationship between race or ethnicity and outcomes. Most of those that have, find no significant differences between racial or ethnic groups in program completion rates (Fetros, 1998; Harrell & Roman, 1999) or rearrest (Martin, Spohn, Piper, & Robinson, 1999; Terry, 1999b). Schiff & Terry (1997) found race to be a significant predictor of graduation in Broward County.

In Los Angeles there were no differences by minority status in difficulties of meeting program requirements or helpfulness of program (Swoboda, 1998). On the other hand, results did show that African-Americans viewed educational counseling as an important program component of the Los Angeles Drug Court program.

THE CURRENT STUDY

This study was conducted in Orange County, California, where the drug court program is currently operational in five sites. The perceptions of drug court participants are evaluated to determine whether the drug court program is effective in eliminating their substance abuse and crime. Participants were also asked to compare the severity of the drug court program with other types of criminal justice sanctions.

This research focuses on the following questions:

1. How do drug court participants perceive the severity of the drug court program compared to other sentences for felony drug offenses?

2. How do participants perceive the relative effectiveness of the drug court program in remaining drug and crime free and changing their life circumstances?

3. Do participants' perceptions of severity and effectiveness vary by race/ ethnicity?

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY DRUG COURT PROGRAM

The target population for the Orange County Superior Court Drug Court Program includes non-violent drug offenders who are charged with felony possession and show signs of being addicted to drugs. Entry into the drug court program is voluntary but requires that defendants enter a guilty plea. Thus the program is both post-plea and post-conviction. Drug court participants are placed on formal probation for a period of three years, but their plea is withdrawn and charges are dismissed if they successfully graduate from the program.2 Otherwise, failure or discharge results in imposition of the stayed sentence.

The drug court program duration is no less than twelve months and consists of four treatment phases (orientation and phases one to three). Minimum standards are set for each phase for the frequency of drug testing, individual and group counseling, attendance at 12-step or AA/CA/NA meetings, court appearances, visits with the probation officer, and other requirements such as employment, educational or vocational goals. Details on the key components for each phase are included in Appendix A. As participants progress through the various phases the requirements become less stringent. Participants must meet specific criteria for advancement to the next phase and graduation from the program.

During the first program phase, participants are drug tested three times per week and the minimum number of 12-step meetings is 4 times per week. Participants must attend individual and group counseling a minimum of once per week. The criteria for advancement to the next phase are quite demanding with the minimum number of consecutive days with no positive or missed drug tests being 90 days. The program focuses on social adjustment prior to graduation, requiring completion of a GED, stable living arrangements and employment, as well as an aftercare plan.

METHODOLOGY

This study examined the attitudes of participants in the Orange County California Superior Court Drug Court Program. A cross-sectional survey was used to obtain perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program. This design was used for several reasons. First, a cross-sectional design made it possible to obtain the desired data in a short time frame with limited resources. Second, crosssectional data were sufficient, since this study did not address any changes in perceptions over time.

The survey consisted of 75 items and was divided into three sections (See Appendix B). In the first section of the survey, respondents were asked about their perceptions of the drug court program. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which the drug court program has helped them remain drug, alcohol and crime free, as well as improve their social and economic conditions. These social and economic conditions included education, employment, positive relationships, and a better self-image. Each of the variables was ranked on a scale from (1) not at all helpful to (5) very helpful. In addition, respondents rated the strength or weakness of drug court program components on a scale from (1) definitely a weakness to (5) definitely a strength. These components included drug treatment, retention in treatment, urinalysis, incentives, counseling, court appearances, probation supervision, and mentoring.

In the second section of the survey, respondents were asked about their perceptions regarding the severity of various sentences for felony drug offenses, including the drug court program. The possible sentences for felony drug offenses vary in terms of type, length, and severity. In California, first-time felony drug offenders are eligible for diversion to PC 1000.3 Offenders with longer criminal histories, or who have failed a previous PC 1000 sentence, may receive a threeyear probation sentence. Offenders, who have extensive criminal histories or multiple charges, may be given a sentence ranging from 18 months to 3 years in prison at the discretion of the judge. Respondents were asked to indicate the severity of each sentence for drug use or drug possession on a scale from (1) least severe to (10) most severe.

Respondents were also asked to rate the severity of the graduated sanctions used by the Orange County Drug Court programs. The types and relative severity of graduated sanctions are delineated in the Orange County, CA Superior Court Drug Court Standards and Practices Manual (1999). This Standards Manual was created by the Drug Court Oversight Committee, and therefore, reflects the consensus opinion of various representatives from the criminal justice system and drug treatment communities. Respondents ranked the severity of each graduated sanction on a scale from (1) least severe to (10) most severe. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the graduated sanctions in remaining drug/alcohol and crime free. Respondents ranked effectiveness on a scale from (1) ineffective to (5) effective. The final section of the survey included questions on demographics, substance use treatment history and criminal record history, as well as information on current program status.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

The survey was administered to current participants in the Central, South and North drug court programs during the month of January 2000. Research staff from California State University, Long Beach administered the surveys during regularly scheduled group counseling sessions at Health Care Agency sites. This was the most convenient method of gaining access to participants since all participants, not in a residential program, are required to attend group counseling sessions. In addition, this method was used in order to maximize the number of survey respondents, as most of the current drug court participants were included in the target population. Specific groups of participants, however, were not included in the study due to time and convenience considerations. For example, participants temporarily in custody or in a residential placement were excluded.

Although 322 people were recorded in the computer database as current participants in the drug court program at the time of data collection, 229 surveys were completed and returned to the research staff, providing a response rate of 71 %. Surveys were not obtained from all drug court participants due to the following reasons: refusal to participate, involvement in a residential program, serving time in jail, or absence on the day of data collection during that particular counseling session. It is possible that there were fewer than 322 current participants at the time of data collection.4 For confidentiality reasons, however, the rosters of current participants were not requested from the administrators of the drug court programs or the treatment counselors. Thus, it was impossible to determine whether the 71% response rate led to sample bias. Analysis of the demographic characteristics of respondents in comparison to current participants, however, suggests the sample is representative of the target population. The final sample size for the current study is 227. Two incomplete surveys were discarded.

DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data proceeded in several steps. The first step in the data analysis involved calculating several descriptive statistics using the SPSS program. In this study, descriptive statistics consisted of measures of central tendency and dispersion, including the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and skewness. The second step of analysis involved running one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests of significance using the SPSS program. These ANOVA tests determine whether there were any statistically significant differences in the dependent variables) between three or more groups on the independent variable(s). The F-test in the ANOVA tests the hypothesis that the means of all groups are equal. If the F-tests showed a significant difference, Scheffe post hoc tests were run to determine which means were statistically different from each other.

The third step in the data analysis involved running independent-sample t-tests regarding the perceived severity and effectiveness of the drug court program. Independent-samples t-tests determine whether the means of two groups differed in a statistically significant manner according to a single independent variable. Ttests are used to test the hypothesis that the means for the two groups are equal.

RESULTS

A prior evaluation of the first two drug court programs in Orange County indicated slight variation in the characteristics of participant cohorts admitted between 1995 and 1997 (Deschenes et al., 1999). For example, there were more females and fewer minority drug offenders in the South Justice Center in comparison to the Central Justice Center. To compare variation in the current sample to all admissions in Orange County, the characteristics of study respondents were analyzed by site. The results are displayed in Table 1.

In general, the study sample appears to be representative of the current participants and there is little variation by site.' The majority of respondents was male (68%) and Caucasian (66%). Nearly half of respondents from the Central Justice Center program were minorities (39% Hispanic, 6% African-American, and 4% Asian or mixed). One quarter of respondents in the North Justice Center were Hispanic. There were fewer minority participants, however, in the South Justice Center (16%) in comparison to the two other sites. Respondents' ages ranged from 18 to 54, with an average age of approximately 33. Over half of the respondents reported their marital status as single, and another quarter were divorced, widowed or separated. The current living arrangement of drug court participants varied by site, with a lower proportion of respondents reporting they lived alone in the Central and North sites in comparison to South participants where 20% lived alone. Nearly one-third of all participants reported they lived with parents) or other relatives, and a little more than one quarter reported living with a spouse or partner or their own children. Very few participants in South reported they lived in a sober living residence or residential facility in comparison to one-quarter of respondents in Central and North.

Despite variation in ethnicity, age and current living arrangements, there was only one difference in criminal or substance use history and program characteristics. The self-reported number of years with a substance abuse problem ranged from half a year to 37 years with an average of 13 years. Approximately half of the respondents reported prior substance abuse treatment, one-quarter having been through detox or an inpatient hospital stay, but only 15% having prior outpatient treatment. Between 10 and 30% reported prior court-ordered treatment to diversion or a DUI program. The majority of participants (75%) reported they had previously been convicted for a drug offense and were sentenced to PC 1000 diversion. Eleven percent of respondents indicated they were currently in the orientation phase of the program, with one-third each in phase one and phase three and 20% in phase two. Respondents from the North Justice Center reported a shorter time in program (7 months) in comparison to survey respondents from the Central and South (11 months), with an average of 10 months overall. This is probably due to the fact that the North Justice Center program was only started twelve months prior to the survey administration. Since the average caseflow is about five participants per month, it was impossible for a large proportion of participants to have spent more than six months in the program.

SEVERITY OF SENTENCES

Respondents ranked the severity of each sentence for felony drug offenses on a scale from (1) least severe to (10) most severe. Various measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated for each type of sentence, including the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and skewness. The results are displayed in Table 2. The different responses are arranged in rank order from least severe to most severe according to the type and length of sentence imposed by the court. The responses suggest that, in general, participants viewed the severity of the drug offense sentences in the same manner as the court.

Participants viewed a PC 1000 sentence as the least severe sentence, with a mean of 3.51, whereas a three-year prison sentence was viewed as the most severe, with a mean of 9.17. Successive sentences were viewed as increasingly more severe by the participants. The means also suggest that participants viewed the severity of the drug court program, with a mean of 6.81, as similar to a three-year probation sentence, with a mean of 6.25. Bivariate differences between means for various sentences were calculated by hand. All of the bivariate t-tests were significant, although the test comparing drug court and probation barely reached statistical significance at the .05 level.

The medians also show that participants viewed sentences for felony drug offenses as increasingly more severe. This successive increase began with the PC 1000 sentence, with a median of 2, and ended with the prison sentences, which were ranked as equally severe, with a median of 10. Unlike the means, the medians show no distinction in severity between the 18 month and three-year prison sentences. The similar median values of 6 and 7 for probation and drug court, respectively, suggest there is little difference between these sentences.

The mode shows a dichotomy between the PC 1000 sentence and all the other drug offense sentences. The PC 1000 sentence was still the least severe with a mode of 1, whereas the rest of the sentences were ranked equally severe with a mode of 10.

Participants' responses regarding the severity of sentences for felony drug offenses seem to vary to a great extent. The standard deviations for the drug offense sentences were large (between 2 and 3) compared to the ten-point scale used. This indicates that there was variation among participants' responses.

The skewness of the perceived severity distribution for each felony drug offense was examined. Several of the drug offense sentences had skewed distributions. The distributions of severity of sentences for 18 months and 3 years in prison were negatively skewed and greater than 2. This indicates that these sanctions were ranked as most severe by many of the participants.

VARIATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY

It was hypothesized that participant characteristics may result in different perceptions of severity. For example, participants in later program phases may view the drug court program as less severe. Participants with prior treatment experiences or PC 1000 failures may have different perceptions of severity than participants who have not had these experiences. Demographic variation, gender or race/ethnicity or age, may result in different perceptions of severity. Different tests of significance were conducted to determine whether any of these independent variables affected participants' perceptions regarding the severity of the drug court program and other drug offense sentences. These tests included the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe post hoc test; independent-samples t-test; and Pearson's r. The background variables included program phase, prior drug convictions, and prior sentences to PC 1000 and probation. Demographic variables included age, gender, and ethnicity. This article reports the results for the race/ ethnicity differences.' Due to the small number of African-American participants, the variable race/ethnicity was dichotomized into minority and non-minority (Caucasian) respondents.

An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether perceived severity of the drug court program and other drug offense sentences was affected by race/ethnicity. The results, displayed in Table 3, show that there were statistically significant differences by race/ethnicity and several of the sentences for drug offenses. These sentences included PC 1000, 18 months in prison, and three years in prison. A comparison of the means show that minority participants viewed PC 1000 as more severe, with a mean of 4.34, compared to non-minority participants, with a mean of 3.05. On the other hand, non-minority participants viewed 18 months and 3 years in prison as more severe, with means of 9.46 and 9.74, respectively, than minority participants, with means of 7.44 and 8.12.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG COURT PROGRAM: HELPFULNESS

A second question addressed in this study is how participants view the effectiveness of the drug court program in remaining drug, alcohol and crime free, as well as improving social and economic conditions. Participants ranked the effectiveness of the drug court program on a scale from (1) not at all helpful to (5) very helpful. Various measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated, including the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and skew. The results, displayed in Table 4, indicate that drug court participants view the drug court program as almost equally helpful in remaining alcohol, drug and crime free.

Participants viewed the drug court program as being very effective in remaining drug free, with a mean of 4.71. The drug court program was perceived as somewhat less effective in helping participants remain alcohol free, with a mean of 4.59. The medians and modes, however, give the drug court program the highest rank of effectiveness for each of the variables. Participants' responses regarding the effectiveness of the drug court on these measures did not seem to vary greatly. The standard deviation for each variable fits the five-point scale used. This indicates that there was not much variation among participants' responses. To better understand the variation among participants' responses, the skewness for each variable was calculated. All of the variables had skewed distributions, with scores less than - 1. These distributions were negatively skewed, which indicates most of the participants ranked the drug court program as highly effective on each of these variables.

Participants rated program effectiveness on other dimensions, including relationships with others, better self-image, improving life circumstances, getting and keeping a job, and actual court experience (see Table 4). Even though the ratings were slightly lower in comparison to ratings of effectiveness in remaining drug, alcohol, and crime free, with the exception of ratings on employment, participants gave a high rating to all of the other variables. In fact, the average overall scale score (combining all items rated) is 4.2, indicating participants find the drug court program is helpful or very helpful to them in changing their lives. The lower means and medians for getting a job (3.25 and 3 respectively) and remaining employed (3.49 and 4 respectively) suggest the program is not as effective in these areas. The slightly larger standard deviation values for these two variables indicate more variation among respondents regarding the helpfulness of the drug court program in getting job or remaining employed.

VARIATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY

An independent-samples t-test was used to determine whether race/ethnicity affected participants' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the drug court program. The results, displayed in Table 5, show that there was a statistically significant difference between ethnic groups in perceptions of program helpfulness in remaining alcohol free. A comparison of the means shows that non-minority participants, with a mean of 4.73, viewed the drug court program as more effective in remaining alcohol free than did minority participants, with a mean of 4.38. Minority participants reported greater effectiveness than non-minority participants in the helpfulness of the program in getting aJob, remaining employed, and gaining a better self-image. For example, non-minority participants were generally neutral (value--3) as to whether the program helped in their getting ajob or staying employed, but minority participants reported the program was helpful (value=4). When all components are scored together (overall scale score), the differences between minority and non-minority participants disappeared.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG COURT PROGRAM: STRENGTH OF COMPONENTS

A third question addressed in this study is how participants view the various components of the drug court program. Participants ranked the strength of the drug court program on a scale of (1) definitely a weakness, (2) somewhat a weakness, (3) neutral, (4) somewhat a strength to (5) definitely a strength. Various measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated, including the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and skew. The results, displayed in Table 6, indicate that drug court participants generally view the various components of the drug court program as program strengths, as shown with means above 3.5 and medians of 4 and 5 for each item. Respondents were generally neutral, however, in their rating of vocational counseling.

The strongest program component, as indicated by a mean of 4.7, median and mode of 5, and large negative skew (-2.11), is drug testing. Next in importance or strength are providing drug treatment, with a mean of 4.4; requiring 12-step meetings, with a mean of 4.32; and probation supervision, with a mean of 4.27. All have medians and modes of 5, indicating the majority of participants responding positively. The weakest, or less important, program components are vocational counseling and mentoring. These somewhat lower ratings lowered the overall scale score to an average of 4.11, indicating the program components measured are regarded as somewhat a strength.

VARIATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY

An independent-samples t-test was used to determine whether race/ethnicity affected participants' perceptions regarding the strengths of various components of the drug court program. The results, displayed in Table 7, show that there was a statistically significant difference between ethnic groups in perceptions of the strength of vocational counseling and the mentoring program. Both of these components received higher ratings from minority than non-minority participants. For example, the means of 3.42 for vocational counseling and 3.47 for the mentoring program are neutral for the non-minority group, but somewhat a strength for the minority group with means of 3.91 and 3.99 respectively. Despite these minor differences by minority status, there was no statistically significant difference in the rating when the overall scale score was used. Thus, differences between minority and non-minority groups are relatively small.

CONCLUSION

Treatment drug courts apply the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence to the punishment of substance using offenders. They combine court-supervised treatment with structural accountability. The goals of most drug court programs are to help drug offenders remain drug, alcohol and crime free and to promote public safety by decreasing recidivism. In order to be effective in the eyes of the public and the criminal justice community, the drug court program must be a moderately severe sentence.

This study examined participants' perceptions of the severity of drug court in comparison to other sentences and the effectiveness of the program. As intended, the drug court program is viewed as equally severe as a three-year probation sentence. The use of the program as an alternative means of handling drug offenders is supported by the fact that drug court participants view the drug court program as moderately severe. In addition, participants acknowledge that the drug court program is providing effective treatment. They view the drug court program as very helpful in remaining drug, alcohol and crime free. These results support the use of the drug court program as a means of effectively treating drug offenders.

There were significant differences, however, in the perceptions of minority and non-minority participants. Minority participants perceived diversion as more severe than did non-minority participants and viewed prison as less severe than did nonminority participants, yet the two groups had similar views of probation and drug court. It is possible that minority participants do not fear the temporary loss of freedom but are threatened by the costs and consequences of drug treatment. These results suggest that the drug court program may be the most equitable treatment for both groups.

Overall both minority and non-minority participants reported the drug court program is very helpful, yet minority participants viewed the program as less effective for remaining alcohol free and more effective than did non-minority participants in helping with employment and self-image and providing vocational counseling. These results do not support the findings of prior research (Longshore et al., 1996) that minority participants have unfavorable views of treatment, but they are consistent with a prior study of drug court program participants in Los Angeles County (Swoboda, 1998).

In sum, this study demonstrates that the drug court program is effectively treating drug offenders as intended. Participants view the drug court program as moderately severe and effective in remaining drug, alcohol and crime free. There were few differences by minority status in the perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program. Therefore, the drug court program can be used as an intermediate sanction for adequately supervising and rehabilitating drug offenders, protecting the public, conserving criminal justice resources, and deterring criminal activity.

LAURA SIAN CRESSWELL, ELIZABETH PIPER DESCHENES

Laura Sian Cresswell is an investigator with the State of California Dental Board. This study was part of her master's thesis from California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). Elizabeth "Libby" Deschenes is a professor in the Criminal Justice Department at CSULB. She has conducted process and impact evaluations of several drug courts, including the Maricopa County (Phoenix, Arizona) First Time Drug Offender Program, Los Angeles County's Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Programs, and most recently the Drug Court Program of the Orange County (CA) Superior Court.

Copyright Journal of Drug Issues Winter 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved