2. FINAL PROPOSAL 2
Illicit drug use in the United States has been increasing (SAMHSA, 2015). In 2013, an
estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an
illicit drug in the past month (SAMHSA, 2015). There continues to be a large "treatment gap" in
this country. In 2013, an estimated 22.7 million Americans (8.6 percent) needed treatment for a
problem related to drugs or alcohol, but only about 2.5 million people (0.9 percent) received
treatment at a specialty facility (SAMHSA, 2015). Adult drug court is one of the most successful
drug and crime intervention programs in the United States. Since its inception in 1994, the drug
court movement has grown from the 12 original drug courts to more than 1200 drug courts that
are in operation or in the planning stages throughout the country (Glasgow, 2012). Adult drug
court is an alternative program for criminal defendants with varying drug abuse issues. Drug
court was created to help rehabilitate those with substance abuse disorder, instead of
incarcerating them, in hopes they will receive help, graduate the program and lead a sober,
successful life. Drug court consists of a three-month stay in inpatient drug rehabilitation, three
months in a halfway house and up to six months in a three-quarter way house before they are
able to graduate from the program (Lindquist, 2011). In order to be admitted into the drug court
program the defendant must admit to their drug use and/or addiction to drugs (Glasgow, 2012).
The crime they committed may not be an act of violence and no violent crime may have been
committed within the last ten years (Lindquist, 2011). The defendant must also demonstrate
willingness to participate in a treatment program (Glasgow, 2012). It costs approximately $3,000
to put a person through drug court (Glasgow, 2012). Taxpayers pay an average of about $92 a
day for each inmate at their local county jail facility. It costs $23,000 to imprison that same
person for one year (Glasgow, 2012). For every dollar invested in drug court, ten dollars are
saved by corrections (Glasgow, 2012). Additionally, when the imprisoned person returns to the
3. FINAL PROPOSAL 3
streets, they are forever marked. It is difficult to obtain a job and likely they will return to drugs
and criminal activity to feed their drug habit. The result is a revolving door syndrome in which
offender’s cycle in and out of the system. The recidivism rate for an offender who is incarcerated
and does not participate in drug court is between 50% - 70% (Glasgow, 2012).
The goal of the proposed research is to determine the rates of recidivism within the
population of graduated drug court participants. This data will be compared with data of
individuals that were not accepted into a drug court program and were incarcerated with no
organized rehabilitation program, to see which population has continued to commit the most
crime since graduating the program or being released from prison. The data used will be from a
population that were admitted, graduated and were released during the same year. By using
statistics from self-reporting, a pre-admission and post-discharge questionnaire, routine drug
testing and criminal records, one will be able to determine whether or not drug court was
beneficial for the person who completed it. The rate of recidivism after graduating a drug court
program will be measured by the absence or amount of crime committed by that individual after
successfully completing the drug court program. At the date of admission and the date of
discharge from either drug court or an incarceration facility, each person will be given a
questionnaire in regards to current aspects of their life. This questionnaire will include questions
about financial stability, supportive relationships and other topics to evaluate the quality of life
of these offenders before and after their drug court graduation or incarceration. This research can
then be used to either support or disprove the fact that drug court is a more successful way of
preventing crime than incarceration. The results from the questionnaire can be evaluated to
determine whether drug court or incarceration provides a better quality of life after their
4. FINAL PROPOSAL 4
discharge than their quality of life before admission into the drug court program or incarceration
facility.
The state of Illinois is home to one of the largest drug court programs in the United States
(Evans, 2016). Drug court is defined as an alternative program for criminal defendants with
varying drug abuse issues (Evans, 2016). Drug court was created to help rehabilitate those with
substance abuse disorder, instead of incarcerating them, in hopes they would receive help,
graduate from the program and continue on to lead a successful, sober life (Evans, 2016). Drug
court consists of a three month stay in an inpatient drug rehabilitation facility, three months in a
halfway house and up to six months in a three-quarter way house before they are eligible to
graduate from the program (Lindquist, Rempel, Roman, Rossman, & Zweig, 2011). In order to
be admitted into the drug court program, a defendant must first admit their drug use and/or
addiction to drugs (Evans, 2016). The crime the person committed may not be an act of violence
and no violent crime may have been committed by this person within the past ten years
(Lindquist, Rempel, Roman, Rossman, & Zweig, 2011). The defendant must also demonstrate
willingness to participate in the treatment program (Evans, 2016). Research has shown that by
rehabilitating criminals that have committed drug offenses through the drug court program,
society and the criminal justice system will in turn pay less money and have a lower crime rate
(Lindquist, Rempel, Roman, Rossman, & Zweig, 2011). In order to receive a sufficient amount
of funding to continue the drug court program in Illinois, the Illinois criminal justice system must
prove, using quantitative data and research, that drug court is actively lowering the rates of
recidivism amongst graduates of the drug court program.
The majority of studies about the drug court program have proven that drug court is a
successful program in accomplishing its goals. More research has been published on the effects
5. FINAL PROPOSAL 5
of Adult Drug Courts than virtually all other criminal justice programs combined (Marlowe,
2010). By 2006, the scientific community had concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from
advanced statistical procedures called meta-analyses that drug courts reduce criminal recidivism,
typically measured by fewer re-arrests for new offenses and technical violations (Marlowe,
2010).
The goal of the proposed research is to determine the rates of recidivism within the
population of graduated Illinois drug court participants. This data will be compared with data of
individuals that were not accepted into the drug court program and were incarcerated with no
structured rehabilitation program. The data will be compared to analyze which population has
continued to commit the most crime and have the most re-arrests within the first year of
graduating drug court or being released from prison. The data used will be from populations that
were discharged from the drug court program or incarceration during the same year. By using
statistics from self-reporting, routine drug testing, criminal records and previous research, one
may be able to determine whether or not drug court was beneficial for the person who completed
it. The rate of recidivism after graduating a drug court program will be measured by the presence
or absence of crimes committed by that individual after graduating from the drug court program.
This research can then be used to either support or falsify the success of drug court in preventing
future crimes by people addicted to drugs. The following review of literature regarding the
success of the Adult Drug Court program in Illinois. Literature and research on the topic of drug
court success in the lowering of rates of recidivism has shown that in the majority of cases, drug
court is a beneficial service.
In Illinois, Cook County has the largest drug court program in the entire state (Evans,
2016). The Cook County Drug Court Treatment Program was established in 1998 to address the
6. FINAL PROPOSAL 6
negative effect of the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol on the criminal justice system in the
State of Illinois (Evans, 2016). The Drug Court Treatment Program is an alternative sentencing
approach for non-violent offenders serving a sentence for having been rearrested for felony drug
possession (Evans, 2016). The criminal justice system makes an attempt to help the addict deal
with their addiction instead of incarcerating them with no specific drug addiction therapy.
Defendants who meet the program eligibility requirements are given the opportunity to
voluntarily participate in this highly structured, closely monitored, treatment based probation
(Evans, 2016). There are a team of people that cooperate to make the drug court program
successful. These positions include the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Cook County State’s
Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Cook County Public Defender, representatives from
probation, corrections, and treatment agencies and TASC, Inc., (Treatment Alternatives for Safe
Communities) (Evans, 2016). Because there is a multi-disciplinary team running the drug court
program, there is a broad range of ideas. There is also a better understanding of the drug court
program from different outlooks based on each person on the teams’ career.The mission of the
Cook County Drug Court Treatment Program is to assist nonviolent substance abusing offenders
in their recovery from drug and/or alcohol addiction (Evans, 2016). For many offenders who
commit crimes, they have committed the crime due to the fact that they are on drugs. By helping
the offender to openly and directly deal with their addiction problem they can learn tactics to
lead a new, sober life. The underlying goal of the program is to help offenders readjust to the
community through jail-based and other comprehensive substance abuse services, increased
judicial contact, intensive supervision, and the continuation of post-release treatment and
counseling (Evans, 2016). A person that is incarcerated often fails when they are released
because they do not know how to function in society, legally. Therefore, instead of obtaining a
7. FINAL PROPOSAL 7
legal job, they may go back to selling drugs. It is hard, if not impossible, to get a steady job with
a felony on one’s record. Drug court teaches offenders how to function normally throughout life.
Drug court also gives offenders the opportunity to eliminate a drug felony from their record. If a
person only has one felony on their record, they can get off with a clean record as long as they
complete the program. The defendant may be admitted into a drug court program only upon the
agreement of the prosecutor and defendant, and with the approval of the court (Evans, 2016). A
defendant is not eligible to join the program if any of the following applies: the crime is a crime
of violence, the defendant denies his or her use of or addiction to drugs, the defendant does not
demonstrate a willingness to participate in a treatment program, the defendant has been
convicted of a violent crime within the past 10 years excluding incarceration time, the defendant
has been convicted of a violent crime within the past 10 years excluding incarceration time or if
the defendant has been convicted of a violent crime within the past 10 years excluding
incarceration time (Evans, 2016). There are two gender specific programs affiliated with the
Drug Courts that are specifically for people who violated their probation. These programs are
the Women’s Rehabilitation Alternative Probation (WRAP) Program and the Rehabilitation
Alternative Probation (RAP) Program (Evans, 2016). The WRAP Program only treats women
and the RAP program only treats men, but both programs are essentially identically structured
(Evans, 2016). Prior to 1998, women and men were treated in the same programs. Once the
criminal justice system implemented a drug court program specifically tailored to women’s
needs, the rates of recidivism in female drug felony offenders lessened. Once considered eligible
for the program, the participant is resentenced to a two-year drug court probation program
instead of being sentenced to prison (Evans, 2016). This two-year program includes substance
abuse treatment, frequent urinalysis testing, frequent court appearances before the drug court
8. FINAL PROPOSAL 8
judge, regular reports to the participant’s probation officer, self-help support group attendance,
and any other treatment or counseling recommended by the drug court team (Evans, 2016). Drug
court holds offenders accountable when they cannot take accountability themselves. Key drug
court program components include integrated treatment services, non-adversarial approaches,
early identification of potential participants, continuum of services, frequent drug testing,
ongoing judicial interaction with participants, program monitoring and evaluation and bi-annual
graduation ceremonies (Swenson, 2001). Drug court graduation ceremonies are a type of reward
system for a person who finishes drug court. Rewards are a positive way to reinforce behavior.
There are four phases of the drug court program. The first three phases have a minimum of 120
days for completion and the fourth phase has a minimum of 180 days for completion (Evans,
2016). Each phase consists of specific treatment and goals, which must be met in order to
advance to the next phase (Evans, 2016). All four phases must be successfully completed to
graduate from the program. Upon successful completion of the program, the participant’s
probation will be terminated satisfactorily (Evans, 2016). However, if a participant is found
guilty for violating his/her probation at any time during the program, sanctions determined by the
program judge will be enforced (Evans, 2016). If an offender is accepted into drug court and
violates the contract set down by their judge, they will most likely be sent back to prison and
have to serve their time instead of receiving rehabilitation services. Statistics drawn from the
research conducted by T.C. Evans shows that in regards to the Rehabilitation Alternative
Program (RAP), over 82% of defendants found acceptable for the drug court program have
entered treatment (Evans, 2016). Over 84% of offenders convicted of a felony drug crime have
been placed into treatment within 14 days of their arrest (Evans, 2016). Over 57% of drug court
participants have completed jail-based residential treatment before being released from custody
9. FINAL PROPOSAL 9
(Evans, 2016). While some rehabilitation is better than none, correctional officers and
incarceration facilities are not trained or equipped to effectively treat a person with a drug
addiction. Over 40% of offenders that begin the drug court program have successfully completed
it (Evans, 2016). Total recidivism rates for 3 years post completion of the program have
decreased by 84% (Evans, 2016). The length of time in which a person does not go back to
committing crimes is what is most important in determining in this study.
According to Marlowe, more research has been published on the effects of adult Drug
Courts than virtually all other criminal justice programs combined. By 2006, the scientific
community had concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from advanced statistical procedures
called meta-analyses, that drug courts reduce criminal recidivism, typically measured by fewer
re-arrests for new offenses and technical violations (Marlowe, 2010). Marlowe conducted
research using five independent meta-analyses all reporting superior effects for drug courts over
randomized or matched comparison samples of drug offenders who were on probation or
undergoing a traditional criminal case (2010), In each analysis, the results revealed that drug
courts significantly reduced re-arrest or reconviction rates by an average of approximately 8 to
26 percent, with the “average of the averages” reflecting approximately a 10 to 15 percent
reduction in recidivism (Marlowe, 2010). Approximately three 78% of the drug courts in the
United States were found to have significantly reduced crime with the best drug courts having
reduced crime by as much as 35 to 40 percent (Marlowe, 2010). In well-controlled experimental
studies, the reductions in recidivism were shown to last at least three years after entry (Marlowe,
2010). This three-year post-entry time frame also coincides with information and research
collected by Timothy Evans.
10. FINAL PROPOSAL 10
The United States Government Office of Accountability published a report in February, 2005
regarding the success of drug court programs. The 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act requires that GAO assess drug court program effectiveness
(GAO, 2005) To meet this mandate, GAO conducted a systematic review of drug court program
research, from which it selected 27 evaluations of 39 adult drug court programs that met its
criteria for, among other things, methodological soundness (GAO, 2005). It would not make
sense for the Government to continue funding a program that is unsuccessful. Especially when
incarcerating offenders is expensive enough to begin with. The report published by the GAO
describes the results of their review of published evaluations of adult drug court programs
(GAO, 2005). This report contained information particularly relating to recidivism outcomes,
substance use relapse, program completion, and the costs and benefits of drug court programs
(GAO, 2005). The United States Accountability Office found that most of the adult drug court
programs assessed in the evaluations GAO reviewed led to recidivism reductions during periods
of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court program (GAO, 2005). It
makes sense that the longer the drug court period of rehabilitation, the more likely an offender is
to not commit another crime. Once a person has a routine of not committing crimes and abiding
by the law, that will become their new normal. GAO’s analysis of evaluations of reported data
for 23 programs showed lower percentages of drug court program participants than comparison
group members were rearrested or reconvicted (2005). The GAO also found that drug court
program participants had fewer recidivism events than comparison group members (2005).
Offenders who took part in drug court will have many more successful forms of coping skills to
be able to control their behavior. Recidivism reductions occurred for participants depend on the
different types of committed offenses (2005). There was inconclusive evidence that specific
11. FINAL PROPOSAL 11
drug court components, such as the behavior of the judge or the amount of treatment received,
affected participants’ recidivism while in the program (GAO, 2005). Most offenders would
agree the more they got support from their judge, the less tempting it was to commit another
crime. Evidence about the effectiveness of adult drug court programs in reducing participants’
substance use relapse is determined by analyzing data available from eight drug court programs
(GAO, 2005). Evaluations of these eight drug court programs reported mixed results on
substance use relapse. For example, drug test results generally showed significant reductions in
use during participation in the program, while self-reported results generally showed no
significant reductions in use (GAO, 2005). Completion rates, which refer to the percentage of
individuals who successfully completed a program, in selected adult drug court programs ranged
from 27 to 66 percent, depending on the place of the program (GAO, 2005). Other than
participants’ compliance with drug court program procedures, no other program factor (such as
the severity of the sanction that would be invoked if participants failed to complete the program)
consistently predicted participants’ program completion (GAO, 2005). A limited number of
evaluations in this report, four evaluations of seven adult drug court programs, provided
sufficient cost and benefit data to estimate their benefits. Although the cost of six of these
programs was greater than the costs to provide criminal justice services to the comparison
group, all seven programs yielded positive net benefits, primarily from reductions in recidivism
affecting judicial system costs and avoided costs to potential victims (GAO, 2005). Financial
cost savings for the criminal justice system (taking into account recidivism reductions) were
found in two of the seven programs (GAO, 2005).
Marlowe included in his research that in 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office similarly concluded that Drug Courts reduce crime (Marlowe, 2010). In response to the
12. FINAL PROPOSAL 12
GAO report, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a national study of adult Drug Courts,
entitled the Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation ( Marlowe, 2010).. The MADCE compared
outcomes for participants in 23 adult Drug Courts located in seven geographic clusters around
the country to those of a matched comparison sample of drug offenders drawn from six non-
Drug Court sites in four geographic clusters (Marlowe, 2010). The participants in both groups
were interviewed at entry and at 6 and 18-month follow-ups (Marlowe, 2010).). In addition to
significantly less involvement in criminal activity, the Drug Court participants also reported
significantly less use of illegal drugs and heavy use of alcohol (Marlowe, 2010). These self-
report findings were confirmed by saliva drug tests, which revealed significantly fewer
positive results for the Drug Court participants at the 18-month assessment, 29% vs. 46%,
(Marlowe, 2010). The Drug Court participants also reported significantly better improvements
in their family relationships, and non-significant trends favoring higher employment rates and
higher annual incomes (Marlowe, 2010). These findings confirm that Drug Courts elicit
substantial improvements in other outcomes apart from criminal recidivism.
In a study conducted by Davis, Martin, Piper and Spohn, in the number of drug
offenders appearing in state and federal courts, coupled with mounting evidence of both the
linkages between drug use and crime and the efficacy of drug treatment programs, led many
jurisdictions to implement drug treatment courts (2001). Although these courts vary on a
number of dimensions, most are designed to reduce drug use and criminal behavior among
drug-involved offenders. This study evaluates the effectiveness of one drug court–the Douglas
County, Nebraska Drug Court and how they reduced offender recidivism. Davis, Martin, Piper
and Spohn, used a variety of analytical techniques to compare drug court participants and
offenders in two matched comparison groups on a number of measures of recidivism (2001).
13. FINAL PROPOSAL 13
The results of this research revealed that drug court participants have substantially lowered
rates of recidivism than traditionally adjudicated felony drug offenders (Davis, Martin, Piper
& Spohn, 2001).
Drug court is also a beneficial program for women drug offenders. Developing
community-based options for drug abusing women is important for a variety of reasons. One
option that shows promise is the treatment-oriented drug court. Although drug courts enjoy
considerable empirical support, relatively few studies have examined the efficacy of this
model for women (Hartman, Listwan & Shaffer, 2009). This current study, conducted by
Hartman, Listwan and Shaffer, used a quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes
between a sample of moderate to high-risk drug court participants and probationers (2009).
Over the course of an average three-year follow-up period, female drug court participants
were found to have significantly lower rates of recidivism than their probation counterparts
(Hartman, Listwan & Shaffer, 2009). The results of a previously conducted event history
analysis confirmed that drug court participants were significantly less likely to recidivate even
after controlling for differences in length of follow-up (Hartman, Listwan & Shaffer, 2009).
These findings provide support for the ability of drug court programs to successfully treat
women who were involved with drugs.
Another research study conducted by Carey, Cox and Fingan included results of reduced
recidivism for drug court participants up to 14 years after drug court entry compared to
eligible offenders that did not participate (2007). Drug court judges that worked longer with
the drug court had better participant outcomes (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). Judges that
rotated through the drug court twice had better participant outcomes the second time than the
first (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). Compared to traditional criminal justice system
14. FINAL PROPOSAL 14
processing, treatment and other investment costs averaged $1,392 lower per drug court
participant (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). Reduced recidivism and other long-term program
outcomes resulted in public savings of $6,744 on average ($12,218 if victimization costs are
included), or an estimated $79 million over 10 years (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). The
analysis of the data focused on the overall impact of the drug court on the target population
over time, variations over time on that impact, and external and internal conditions that
influenced these outcomes (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). A cost analysis was conducted to
assess the overall investment of taxpayer money in the court compared to its benefits. This
study covers the period from program start in 1991 through 2001 (Carey, Cox & Finigan,
2007). The entire population of offenders, identified as eligible for drug court, from 1991 to
2001, was identified and tracked through a variety of administrative data systems (Carey, Cox
& Finigan, 2007). Approximately 11,000 cases were identified; 6,500 participated in the Drug
Court program during that period and 4,600 had their case processed outside the drug court
model (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). Data on outcomes was gathered on each offender, with
a particular emphasis on criminal recidivism. The outcome data were drawn in late 2005 and
early 2006, allowing a minimum of 5 years of follow up on all cohorts and more than 10 years
on many cohorts (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007). Data on costs were calculated in terms of
investment costs, outcome costs, and total costs per participant (Carey, Cox & Finigan, 2007).
According to data collected by the United States Department of Justice, there are more
than 3,400 drug courts in America (2015). Out of the 3,400 drug courts in the United States,
approximately 50% are adult drug court programs (United States Department of Justice, 2015).
NIJ’s Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation found that participants reported less criminal
activity (40% vs. 53%) and had fewer rearrests (52% vs. 62%) than comparable offenders
15. FINAL PROPOSAL 15
(United States Department of Justice, 2015). Participants reported less drug use (56% vs. 76%)
and were less likely to test positive (29% vs. 46%) than comparable offenders not in the drug
court program (United States Department of Justice, 2015). Treatment investment costs were
higher for participants, but with less recidivism, drug courts saved an average of $5,680 to
$6,208 per offender overall (United States Department of Justice, 2015). This research
concludes that while at first, it is costs more money to put an individual in the drug court
program than to incarcerate them, it will also prevent future crimes from being prevented.
The drug court movement continues to grow. Drug courts have been established or are planned
to be built in all 50 states and nearly 90 tribal locations (Office of National Drug Control Policy,
2011). Approximately 47% of the counties in the United States are served by drug courts (Office
of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). A review of five independent meta-analyses concluded
that drug courts significantly reduce crime by an average of 8 to 26 percentage points (Office of
National Drug Control Policy, 2011). Well admistered drug courts were found to reduce crime
rates by as much as 35% compared to traditional case dispositions (Office of National Drug
Control Policy, 2011). The primary focus of this study was to determine whether state-run drug
court programs were more effective in having reduced the rates of recidivism among first time,
low-level offenders that had been convicted of legal charges associated with the sale, possession
and/or use of controlled substances. The majority of studies about the drug court program have
proven that drug court is a successful program that accomplishes its existential goal of reducing
the rates of recidivism amongst individuals convicted of charges related to the sale, possession
and use of controlled substances. Previously conducted research has shown that adults who have
been indicted ornvicted of legal charges associated with controlled substances, that graduate the
drug court program have lower rates of recidivism than an adult under the same circumstances
16. FINAL PROPOSAL 16
that did not complete the drug court program. More research has been published on the effects of
Adult Drug Courts than virtually all other criminal justice programs combined (Marlowe, 2010).
By 2006, the scientific community had concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from advanced
statistical procedures called meta-analyses that drug courts reduce criminal recidivism, typically
measured by fewer re-arrests for new offenses and technical violations (Marlowe, 2010).
A. Research Questions
1. Do adults convicted of legal charges associated with the sale, possession and/or
use of controlled substances, that successfully complete the drug court program,
have lower rates of recidivism than an adult convicted of legal charges associated
with the sale, possession and/or use of controlled substances, that did not
complete the drug court program and served a period of incarceration?
2. Do adults convicted of legal charges associated with the sale, possession and/or
use of controlled substances, that successfully completed the drug court program,
have a better quality of life, as defined by positive than adults convicted of legal
charges associated with the sale, possession and/or use of controlled substances,
that served a period of incarceration?
B. Design
1. This study is an outcome evaluation of the effect of the adult drug court programs
on the rates of recidivism amongst offenders convicted of legal charges associated
with controlled substances in the state of Illinois
2. This study is an outcome evaluation of the basic quality of life of adults convicted
of charges related to controlled substances that have successfully completed and
have been discharged from, the drug court program.
17. FINAL PROPOSAL 17
3. This study is an outcome evaluation of the basic quality of life of adults convicted
of charges related to controlled substances that have not completed drug court and
completed a stay of incarceration.
This study will provide a comprehensive comparison, using both primary and secondary data, to
prove the positive effect of the adult drug court program on rates of criminal recidivism. A
selective collection of data will be used to make the assumption that adult drug court reduces the
rates of recidivism. Data will include criminal history and criminal record data of Illinois adult
drug court graduates and parolees before and after they were convicted of the most current
controlled substance charge. The crime rate data of two Illinois municipal court districts that
provide an adult court program and two Illinois municipal court districts that do not provide an
adult drug court program will be compared. Drug court graduates and parolees will be
administered a pre-entry and post-entry questionnaire regarding their basic quality of life at the
time of intake and discharge. An advantage of comparing criminal history and criminal record
data of drug court graduates to those of parolees is to analyze whether or not adult drug court
influenced its graduates to refrain from the use of controlled substances and illegal behaviors.
The advantage of comparing the crime data of two municipal court districts that provided adult
drug court and two municipal court districts that do not provide drug court, will determine the
positive or negative effect that providing or not providing a drug court has on the occurrence of
crime in a district. A questionnaire will be given to the drug court program graduate or parolee
upon their date of discharge. The questionnaire will consist of content and questions related to
the stability and quality of the life of the drug court graduate or parolee at the time of their
discharge. The same questionnaire would be administered when the drug court graduate
successfully completes a mandatory one-year probationary period and when the convict has
18. FINAL PROPOSAL 18
fulfilled all stipulations of their parole sentence and will be permanently released from the
criminal justice system. The questionnaire is beneficial to serve to drug court graduates and
parolees in order to determine the positive effect drug court had on its participants. It is also
advantageous to conduct a questionnaire so the investigator can receive information directly
from the convicted offender affected by either graduating from or not partaking in the Illinois
adult drug court program. The questionnaire will provide the researcher with qualitative data to
compare to statistics and quantitative data to prove the benefit of adult drug court programs.
C. Sample
The sample involved in this study will consist of 250 legal defendants convicted of charges of or
relating to, the sale, possession and/or use of controlled substances that qualified for and
successfully completed the adult drug court program within two designated districts. This sample
also involves legal defendants convicted of charges of or relating to, the sale, possession and/or
use of controlled substances that did not qualify for the adult drug court program in their district
and served a stay of incarceration as its alternative. One sample involved in this study will
consist of 250 males that have been randomly selected from an Illinois municipal court district
that successfully completed an adult drug court program after being convicted of charges related
to or of, the sale, possession and/or use of a controlled substance. The comparison sample will
consist of 250 males from an Illinois municipal court district that did not qualify for their
district's drug court program and instead, served a period of time in incarceration after being
convicted of charges related to or of, the sale, possession and/or use of a controlled substance.
The criminal records of the first sample of 250 participants who completed the adult drug
program provided by their district will be analyzed to determine arrests and/or criminal activity
before and after completing the drug court program. Arrests and/or criminal activity five years
19. FINAL PROPOSAL 19
prior to the participant’s adult drug court program date of admission will be analyzed. A review
of the drug court graduate's criminal activity and arrest records will continue for a total of two
years following graduation to determine rates of recidivism. The sample of 250 males who did
not qualify for an adult drug court program and served a period of incarceration for a conviction
related to or of, the sale, possession and/or use of a controlled substance, will have their arrest
record and criminal activity record analyzed up to five years prior to their incarceration. This
same sample will have their arrest record and criminal activity records analyzed for two years
following their successful discharge from serving a stay of incarceration. This sample's arrest
records and criminal activity records will be compared to determine rates of recidivism up to five
years before and up to two years after, being incarcerated. All 500 participants in both samples
will be individually evaluated for their total amount of arrests and/or criminal activity after
graduation of adult drug court or release from prison. The number of arrests of the 250
participants in the adult drug court sample will be averaged. The number of arrests of the 250
participants in the incarceration sample will be averaged. The averages from each group will
compared to determine which intervention, adult drug court or prison time, decreases recidivism
most drastically. The participants may only be male. Each individual must be a first time
offender of a drug related crime. The participants will be of varying race, age, religion, sexual
orientation, education level, marriage status, parental status and financial and social class. Each
participant in the adult court graduate sample group must be graduated from the drug court
program for at least five years since their first date of program admission. Each participant in the
previously incarcerated sample group must have served the allotted amount of time as a result of
conviction for a drug related crime. In Sample 1- Drug court participants, the male individual
must have successfully completed an adult drug court program in the state of Illinois. In order to
20. FINAL PROPOSAL 20
participate in Sample 2- Incarcerated participants, the male individual must have been convicted
of a legal charge related to a controlled substance and having not qualified for an adult drug
court program, served a period of time incarcerated for the drug crime they committed in the
state of Illinois.
D. Data Collection
The first collection of data, total arrests and/or criminal activity occurrences amongst drug court
graduates both five years prior to adult drug court admission and two years after adult drug court
graduation, will be obtained by accessing the criminal records of the 250 male individuals from
the criminal justice system database. The second collection of data, total arrests and/or criminal
activity occurrences amongst previously incarcerated participants both five years prior to
incarceration and two years after release from prison, will be obtained by accessing the criminal
records of the 250 male individuals from the criminal justice system database. The information
needed to analyze both sample groups is available for review by the public at no cost. The
questionnaires will be created by the researchers in coordination with local drug court programs
and local prisons. Coordination with agencies directly involved with providing drug court and
incarceration services is a safeguard implemented to assure the participant and the researcher that
all presented questions are pertinent and beneficial. The questionnaires will be given to each
qualified participant on printed literature, provided by the researcher's establishment.
E. Instruments
The questionnaires will consist of ten questions referring to the individual’s current life situation.
The questionnaires will be administered to the drug court participants at their date of admission
into the adult drug court program and their date of graduation from the drug court program. The
21. FINAL PROPOSAL 21
questionnaires will be administered to the previously incarcerated participants at their time of
intake into prison and at their date of discharge from prison. The questions will inquire about the
individual's age, employment status, education level, financial stability, residential arrangements,
supportive relationships, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with outcome of adult drug court program or
incarceration. The questionnaires will be filled out anonymously and will not require any
potentially identifying information. The questionnaires will be organized into two groups to be
analyzed, pre-tests and post-tests. A letter of consent will be signed by each sample participant to
address the right and legal promise of anonymity, as well as the right of each individual to have
their questionnaire responses remain private and those responses to be used only for the purpose
of research. Completing a questionnaire must be voluntary, therefore if an individual will not
participate, the research will not be as precise as possible. Adult drug court and incarceration are
polar opposites when it comes to tactics of intervention, therefore answers may be positively or
negatively influenced depending on the intervention they endured.
F. Data Analysis
From the adult drug court graduate sample consisting of 250 male participants, each
individual will have their criminal records analyzed. The records will first be analyzed to ensure
the individual did indeed successfully graduate an adult drug court program. The records will
then be analyzed to account for the total number of formal arrests or criminal activity
occurrences five years before being admitted into the adult drug court program. The records will
then be analyzed to account for the total number of formal arrests or criminal activity
occurrences two years after graduating the adult drug court program. The totals of each
participant's record marks five years prior to their adult drug court admission date will be
averaged. The totals of each participant's record marks in the two years following their
22. FINAL PROPOSAL 22
graduation date will be averaged. The total of five year’s prior criminal occurrences and two
year’s following occurrences will be compared to determine if drug court is a successful
intervention in reducing rates of recidivism in criminal offenders involved in drug related crimes.
If the criminal occurrences five years prior to being admitted into drug court are greater or equal
to the amount of criminal occurrences two years after having graduated drug court, then adult
drug court can be deemed a successful intervention to reduce rates of recidivism. From the
previously incarcerated sample consisting of 250 male participants, each individual will have
their criminal records analyzed. The records will first be analyzed to ensure the individual did
indeed successfully serve the determined sentence for their first criminal drug offense. The
records will then be analyzed to account for the total number of formal arrests or criminal
activity occurrences five years before the individual's prison intake date. The records will then be
analyzed to account for the total number of formal arrests or criminal activity occurrences two
years after serving the prison sentence for their first criminal drug offense. The total of each
participant's record marks five years prior to their prison intake date will be averaged. The totals
of each participant's record marks in the two years following their prison admission date will be
averaged. The total of five year's prior criminal occurrences and two year's following criminal
occurrences will be compared to determine if the participants that did not participate in an adult
drug court problem had less, more or no change in criminal occurrences. If the rates of
recidivism remain constant or increase, it can be assumed that drug court is a more beneficial
intervention than incarceration. Responses to demographical data questions from the
questionnaire will be sorted into categorical groups by each sector. Demographic data will be
recorded and the average will continue to be updated accordingly as questionnaires are
completed. Questions that inquire about specific aspects of the individual's life will be tallied and
23. FINAL PROPOSAL 23
sorted into groups based on the most common responses to each question. This data can be used
to determine if a specific demographic or population is disadvantaged or potentially susceptible
to higher rates of recidivism. If a certain population is found to be more vulnerable than another
population or if a problem is detected after analyzing responses, the program can be amended to
further their success. This data can be used to organize the program in a fiscally responsible
manner so the appropriate funds are allotted to the correct services.
There are a few potential limitations to this study. To begin, there may be people that
enter the drug court program but do not successfully graduate. In that case, there would be a
greater amount of pre-admission questionnaires than there would be post-discharge
questionnaires for comparison. Another limitation would be if people do not want to participate
in taking the questionnaire because they are afraid their information may be used against them in
a conviction or in their current case. For any questionnaire given, there is always the possibility
of untruthful answers or biases. When comparing data from criminal records, the only
information in a person’s criminal record will be formally documented run-ins with the law.
There are situations where a person is let off with a warning for committing a petty crime. In this
case, the person would still technically contribute to the rates of recidivism, but it would never be
able to be proven. Another limitation would be
24. FINAL PROPOSAL 24
Resources
Carey, S. M., Cox, A., & Finigan, M. W. (2007). Impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of
operation: recidivism and costs (Final Report). National Institute of Justice, 1-99.
Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://ncjrs.org
Evans, T. C. (2016). Cook county drug court treatment program. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ABOUTTHECOURT/CountyDepartment/CriminalDivi
sion/SpecialtyTreatmentCourts/DrugCourtTreatmentProgram.aspx
Frenzel, E. D., Martin, T., Piper, R. K., & Spohn, C. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: the
results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of
recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 149-176. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://jod.sagepub.com/content/31/1/149.short
Glasgow, J. (2012). Adult drug court. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from
http://www.willcountysao.com/courts-adult_drug_court.htm
GAO. (2005, February). Adult drug courts: evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed
results for other outcomes. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/245452.pdfLi
Hartman, J. L., Listwan, S. J., & Shaffer, D. K. (2009). Drug abusing women in the community:
the impact of drug court involvement on recidivism [Abstract]. Journal of Drug Issues,
39(4), 803-827. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://jod.sagepub.com/content/39/4/803.abstract
25. FINAL PROPOSAL 25
Lindquist, C. H., Rempel, M., Roman, J. K., Rossman, S. B., & Zweig, J. M. (2011). The multi-
site adult drug court evaluation: The drug court experience. MADCE, 3. Retrieved March
19, 2016.
Marlowe, D. B. (2010). Research update on adult drug courts. National Association of Drug
Court Professionals, 1-8. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Research Update on Adult Drug Courts -
NADCP_1.pdf
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2011, May). Fact sheet. Retrieved April 1, 2016
SAMHSA. (2015, June). Drug facts: nationwide trends. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
Swenson, C. (2001). Drug court treatment. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Criminal Division/Specialty
Courts/RAPBrochure 04.23.12.pdf
United States Department of Justice. (2015, June). Drug courts. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238527.pdf
