Program Profile: Washington State's Residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative

This program is an alternative to incarceration for felons with substance abuse problems. In lieu of confinement, they must successfully complete a residential, chemical-dependency treatment program in the community. The program is rated Promising. Residential DOSA was shown to statistically significantly reduce overall recidivism rates compared with prison-based DOSA.

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 Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) is a law that was passed in Washington State in 1995, which allows incarcerated persons with substance abuse problems to receive a reduced prison sentence in exchange for completing a chemical-dependency treatment program. In 2005, a modification to the law created a "residential" DOSA, which allows them to receive chemical-dependency treatment in the community in lieu of confinement. The primary goal of residential DOSA is to reduce rates of recidivism by increasing community-based treatment alternatives for those with substance use disorder.

Eligibility

For prison-based DOSA, participants must not have current or prior convictions for a violent offense or a sex offense in the last 10 years, a current conviction for felony DWI, any sentencing enhancements (i.e., criminal attempt, solicitation, conspiracy), a deportation order, or a prior sentence to DOSA in the last 10 years.

For residential DOSA, participants must meet all the requirements for prison-based DOSA, and meet two sentence-length requirements: 1) the high end of the standard sentence range for the current offense must be greater than 1 year; and 2) the midpoint of the standard sentence range must be 24 months or fewer. Consistent with these requirements, all participants that meet the criteria for residential DOSA also meet the criteria for prison-based DOSA; however, not all of those sentenced to prison-based DOSA will meet the criteria for residential DOSA.

Ultimately, judges, aided by the advice of prosecutors and defense attorneys, decide whether an individual receives a residential DOSA sentence.

Program Activities

Under residential DOSA, the chemical-dependency treatment program is a minimum of 90 days. Participants receive treatment at a Washington State Department of Corrections-funded residential facility. The types of services provided to the participant vary, depending on the severity of the substance abuse problem.

Participants must voluntarily agree to participate in chemical-dependency treatment and urine testing. Residential treatment staff cannot prevent them from leaving the facility. However, they are returned to confinement (either prison or jail) to serve the remainder of their sentence if they do not complete treatment. Once the residential treatment term has been satisfied, participants must serve 2 years under community supervision or half of the midsentence range, whichever is greater, and attend continued outpatient treatment.

Study

Drake, Fumia, and He (2014) used a quasi-experimental research design to evaluate the impact of Washington State's Residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) on recidivism rates 36 months after treatment. For inclusion into the study, candidates had to be offered the alternative sentencing option by a judge and voluntarily agreed to substance abuse treatment.

The treatment group (n=1,162) consisted of participants sentenced to residential DOSA from 2006 to 2010. The comparison group (n=508) consisted of participants sentenced to the prison-based DOSA from 2006 to 2010. Although the comparison group had met the criteria for and would have likely been considered for residential DOSA, they were unable to be placed into the program for the following reasons: 1) the residential treatment facility had reached its capacity, or 2) their county did not offer residential DOSA.

The authors were unable to construct a no-treatment control group; therefore, any effects were based on comparison of one treatment with another. Propensity score matching was used to select members of the comparison group. The sample participant were predominantly male (72 percent of the treatment group, 70 percent of comparison group), white (82 percent of the treatment group, 81 percent of the comparison group), and about 34 years old.

The primary outcomes of interest were recidivism rates at a 36-month, follow-up period. The measure of total recidivism included any misdemeanor or felony conviction after release into the community. Logistic regression was used to control for any differences between the two groups and examine the impact of treatment.

Drake, Fumia, and He (2014) found that Washington State’s Residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) was $564 more expensive per person than prison-based DOSA. Residential DOSA cost $16,740 per person versus $16,176 per person for prison-based DOSA. They also found that the cost of a treatment program in a residential facility and the cost of supervision were higher for residential DOSA offenders. They calculated a total recidivism savings of $8,259 when considering the impact of residential DOSA on decreased crime victim and taxpayer costs.

Subgroup Analysis

Drake, Fumia, and He (2014) conducted a subgroup analysis of the impact of the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) by risk level. They found that 76 percent of the residential DOSA participants were classified as high risk for re-offending. The recidivism rates for the higher-risk individuals in residential DOSA were statistically significantly reduced, while there were no improvements in recidivism rates for the lower- and moderate-risk individuals in residential DOSA. This finding is consistent with the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) principle, which suggests interventions and supervision should be commensurate with an individual’s risk level. In other words, higher-risk individuals should receive more treatment and supervision than lower-risk individuals (Drake, Fumia, and He 2014).

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

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

Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, and Robert Barnoski. 2005. Washington's Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: An Evaluation of Benefits and Costs. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Drake, Elizabeth. 2006. Washington's Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: An Update on Recidivism Findings. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Drake, Elizabeth. 2008. Drug Offender Sentencing Grid: Preliminary Report. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Washington State Department of Corrections. 2008. Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: Combining Incarceration and Chemical Dependency Treatment. Olympia, Wash.: Department of Corrections, Washington State.

Washington State Department of Corrections. 2013. Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: Combining Incarceration and Chemical Dependency Treatment, Factsheet. Olympia, Wash.: Department of Corrections, Washington State.

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

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

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?