Program Profile: Ada County (Idaho) Drug Court

This program provides court-supervised, community-based outpatient drug treatment and case management services to persons convicted of a felony drug offense. The goals are to increase accountability, decrease the likelihood of recidivism, and reduce drug dependency. The program is rated Promising. Treatment group participants showed a statistically significant lower likelihood of recidivating, compared with comparison group participants who were placed on probation.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Ada County Drug Court in Idaho is a pre-adjudication drug court program that provides court-supervised, community-based outpatient drug treatment and case management services to persons convicted of a felony drug offense. The goals of the drug court program are to increase accountability, decrease the likelihood of recidivism, and reduce drug dependency. The court has been accepting clients since 1999.

Target Population

To be eligible for the drug treatment program, a person must have been charged with a felony drug or drug-related offense. They are ineligible if they a) have more than one prior felony conviction or felony drug possession charge; b) were convicted of sex, dealing/distribution, or a violent crime; c) have not admitted guilt; d) were assessed low risk; or e) lived outside of the county.

Program Components

The Ada County Drug Court program consists of four phases of outpatient treatment for a minimum of 1 year. Each treatment phase is about 3 months, depending on an individual's progress. Throughout the four phases, participants are assisted or provided with referrals for educational services, skills assessments, vocational training, and job placements. Participants also attend group sessions, individual therapy, drug abuse education classes, and other rehabilitative activities.

Phase 1 requires twice-weekly urine testing and participation in cognitive self-change, drug abuse education, and process groups. Phase 2 requires weekly urine testing, attending individual treatment sessions, and completion of cognitive and drug abuse relapse packets. Phase 3 requires weekly urine testing and personalized treatment, which is focused on living in recovery. Finally, Phase 4 requires weekly urine testing and completion of a relapse prevention treatment plan, using the skills learned in treatment.

In addition to the community-based drug treatment services and regular drug tests, drug court program participants have occasional status review hearings with the drug court judge, and are subject to home visits. Graduates of the program are able to participate in alumni activities, relapse prevention, and other treatment services. To graduate from the drug court, program participants must a) successfully complete all treatment requirements; b) have 6 months of negative drug tests, c) obtain full-time employment or enroll in school full time; d) repay any restitution owed in full; and e) obtain, or initiate steps to obtain, a GED (if not already a high school graduate).

Program Theory

According to Shaffer (2010), drug court programs are based on the theoretical perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). In applying TJ to drug courts, interactions between judicial staff and defendants, the structure and organization of the court proceedings, and legal rules and policies are all dealt with in a manner that encourages health and positive growth. TJ is applicable to drug court programs because the aim is to improve the lives of drug users. However, Shaffer cautions that while TJ is relevant to drug court programs, it does not prescribe what types of treatment should be provided to them outside of the courtroom setting.

Study

Shaffer, Hartman, and Listwan (2009) used a quasi-experimental study design to assess the impact of the Ada County Drug Court in Boise, Idaho, on the recidivism of convicted females who have drug abuse problems. The data for this study was taken from a multisite evaluation of drug courts in Idaho. Data in this study was limited to the women residing in the county with the largest court operating in the state (Ada County). Study participants (n = 171) comprised women who were arrested for a drug-related charge between January 2002 and June 2005, reported a substance abuse problem, and were eligible for the drug court program.

The treatment group (n = 91) consisted of women accepted into the drug court program; they received drug court services that included drug treatment and court supervision. The treatment group participants were mainly white (95.1 percent), high school graduates (71.4 percent), not married (71.6 percent), identified as chemically dependent (78.0 percent), and on average 29 years old. The comparison group (n = 80) consisted of a sample of adults arrested during the same time frame who were eligible for the drug court program, but were instead placed on probation. The comparison group participants were mainly white (87.5 percent), high school graduates (57.5 percent), not married (85 percent), identified as chemically dependent (78.2), and on average 31 years old. The treatment and comparison groups were matched on indicators of risk for recidivism and severity of drug abuse. Significant differences were found between the treatment and comparison groups at intake. The treatment group comprised significantly more married individuals and high school graduates, whereas the comparison group comprised significantly more minority women. The analyses controlled for a number of demographic characteristics, including race, education, and marital status.

Recidivism was measured by new court filings, or any new charge submitted to the court by the prosecutor. Recidivism data was collected in the fall of 2006 from the Idaho Dispositional Database, a statewide database of court filing records. The average follow-up period was 2.3 years for both the treatment and comparison groups. Chi-squared tests, independent sample t-tests, and discrete time event history analysis were used to assess the data. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Study

Koetzle and colleagues (2015) used a quasi-experimental study design to assess the impact of the Ada County Drug Court program on recidivism with high-risk, drug-abusing persons convicted of an offense. The data for this study was taken from a multisite evaluation of drug courts in Idaho. Data in this study was limited to high-risk people convicted of drug offenses and high-risk people on probation. Risk level was measured by the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), which is a risk and needs assessment. The study only included persons who scored 34 and above on the LSI-R.

The treatment group (n = 72) comprised males and females accepted into the drug court program between July 2002 and July 2005. The comparison group (n = 61) was selected through the Idaho Department of Corrections database and included a sample of males and females who were eligible for the drug court, but received probation instead. The groups were matched by recidivism risk and substance abuse severity.

The treatment group was predominantly white (95.5 percent), female (61.1 percent), not married (81.2 percent), and age 28 years on average. The comparison group was predominantly white (80.3 percent), male (62.3 percent), not married (88.5 percent), and age 29 years on average. Significant differences were found between the treatment and comparison groups at intake. The treatment group included significantly more women, whereas the comparison group comprised significantly more minorities convicted of an offense. However, the analyses controlled for a number of demographic characteristics (including gender, age, race, education, and marital status).

Recidivism was measured by court filings post-intake, or by any new charge submitted to the court by the prosecutor. Chi-squared tests and multivariate analyses were used to assess differences between the groups. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Hartman, Jennifer L., Shelley J. Listwan, and Deborah K. Shaffer. 2007. "Methamphetamine Users in a Community-Based Drug Court: Does Gender Matter?" Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 45(3/4):109–30.

Listwan, Shelley J., James Borowiak, and Edward J. Latessa. 2008. An Examination of Idaho's Felony Drug Courts: Findings and Recommendations, Final Report.

Listwan, Shelley J., and Edward J. Latessa. 2003. The Kootenai and Ada County Drug Courts: Outcome Evaluation Findings, Final Report. Cincinnati, Ohio: Center for Criminal Justice Research. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Listwan, Shelley J., Deborah Koetzle Shaffer, and Jennifer L. Hartman. 2009. "Combating Methamphetamine Use in the Community: The Efficacy of the Drug Court Model." Crime and Delinquency 55(4):627–44.

Shaffer, Deborah. 2010. Reconsidering Drug Court Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Review. Las Vegas, Nev.: University of Las Vegas Department of Criminal Justice.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Adult Drug Courts

Drug courts are specialized courts that combine drug treatment with the legal and moral authority of the court in an effort to break the cycle of drug use and drug related crime.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?