Oklahoma Criminal Justice System by jerrit4

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 50

									         Oklahoma
   Criminal Justice System
  Costs of Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence




                                       RESEARCH TEAM
                              Michael Lapolla and Kent Olson, PhD
               Kelly Damphousse, PhD; Laura Dempsey-Polan, PhD; Craig Knutson;
    Tabitha Doescher, PhD; Anthony Lo Sasso, PhD; Mark Snead, PhD; and Peter Budetti, MD, JD




              Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence
Oklahoma Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force
                        $1.09 billion


                     Mental Health              Substance Abuse Domestic Violence
                     $214 million                 $788 million    $93 million




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            2                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                                      Table of Contents
                                                Criminal Justice System
    Costs of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault in Oklahoma




Executive Summary
Methods .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Data Sources........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Mental Health ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Substance Abuse .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Domestic Violence ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Costs of Mental Health
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Estimates of State Expenditures .......................................................................................................................... 11
     Oklahoma Department of Corrections ......................................................................................................... 12
     Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs........................................................................................................... 14
Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures .................................................................................................... 14
Estimates of Federal Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 15

Costs of Substance Abuse
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Estimates of State Expenditures .......................................................................................................................... 16
     Oklahoma Department of Corrections ......................................................................................................... 16
     Office of Juvenile Affairs............................................................................................................................. 18
Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures .................................................................................................... 19
Estimates of Federal Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 20

Costs of Domestic Violence
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Estimates of State Expenditures .......................................................................................................................... 22
     Oklahoma Department of Corrections ......................................................................................................... 22
     Office of Juvenile Affairs............................................................................................................................. 22
Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures .................................................................................................... 23
Estimates of Federal Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 25

References .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendices
1. Inmates receiving mental health treatment in state correctional facilities.................................................. 28
2. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) MH estimation of Mental Health Courts ............................. 29
3. Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma prison population for FY2003
    serving sentences for offenses related to substance abuse ......................................................................... 31
4. OJA substance abuse testing statistics ........................................................................................................ 32
5. Drug and alcohol related arrests by county ................................................................................................. 36
6. Drug market patterns for Oklahoma arrestees............................................................................................. 44
7. Police reports: domestic violence by county in Oklahoma, 1998-2000 ..................................................... 48
8. Estimating domestic violence rates using jail survey data.......................................................................... 49
Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            3                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                    Executive Summary
The Oklahoma criminal justice system is a $1.6 billion dollar enterprise. Just over one
billion ($1.09 billion) dollars (68%) of the combined federal, state, county, and municipal
criminal justice expenditures are strongly associated with three major problems: mental
health, substance abuse, and domestic violence. This report describes how each of these
problems or conditions impact the justice system.

Data from a wide variety of sources is used to measure the relationship between these three
problems and the Oklahoma criminal justice system. From the police, to the jails, to the courts,
and to the correctional system, estimates have been produced about the cost of each problem for
the state of Oklahoma in FY 2003 (the year for which the most recent data were available). The
expenditures for as many aspects as possible of the Oklahoma criminal justice system were
calculated and then reasonable multiplier estimations were created based on data supplied by
researchers or justice/treatment agencies. The report is divided into three main sections, each one
describing the effect of the problem on each part of the justice system

Methods
The development of the study methodology was driven by two factors: (1) the model must use
source data that can be replicated in future years and (2) Oklahoma-specific data must be used
whenever possible.

The core of the methodology is a sophisticated and extensive Excel worksheet. The worksheet
has five columns (1) a specific category of expenditure (2) the total FY 2003 annual expenditure
for the first column and (3-5) the portion of that annual expense attributed to mental illness,
substance abuse and/or domestic violence (called the “attribution multiplier”).

Data Sources
Care was taken to select data sources that are reputable, annually consistent and reproducible in
succeeding years. In some cases, when this was not possible, the research team used rational
estimations based on previously published studies or the best data available. In some cases,
reliable data were not available. The data sources are fully cited in the accompanying
worksheets. In some cases the research team opted for reproducibility over more proprietary data
that may (or may not) be slightly more accurate this year.




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            4                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                             Master Summary - Oklahoma Criminal Justice System.
                        Costs of Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence


                                                 Mental         Substance           Domestic               Total
                                                 Health             Abuse            Violence          SFY 2003
CRIMINAL JUSTICE                           $213,508,640       $787,923,409        $92,893,939     $1,094,325,987


ATTORNEY GENERAL                                       0                  0           473,000            473,000
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT                        74,051,090       206,968,419         45,653,853        326,673,362
Correctional Centers                          26,681,005        75,196,427         15,211,218        117,088,650
Probation and Parole                           3,403,664          9,514,788         2,146,629         15,065,081
Community Corrections                          1,523,490          3,871,385           636,331          6,031,206
Work Centers                                   1,383,995          4,003,127           837,120          6,224,243
Prison Industry                                3,646,016        10,192,272          2,299,476         16,137,764
Offender Programs                              3,932,016        10,828,920          2,774,110         17,535,046
Contracted Services                           20,113,984        56,227,728         13,371,228         89,712,940
Central Office Operations                      6,576,064        18,383,088          4,147,404         29,106,556
Health and Medical                             6,790,857        18,750,682          4,230,337         29,771,876


DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S COUNCIL                   10,712,768        44,579,320          9,134,348         64,426,436
Prosecutorial Services                         5,331,216        15,175,791          3,362,301         23,869,308
General Administration                           200,112           569,637            126,207            895,956
Child Support Services                         1,812,448          5,159,298         1,143,078          8,114,824
Bogus Check/Restitution                        2,096,336          5,967,411         1,322,121          9,385,868
Drug Asset Forfeiture                                  0          2,031,000                 0          2,031,000
Federal Grant Programs                           469,392          4,607,167           849,037          5,925,596
Federal Pass-Through Grants                      126,544          9,142,671         1,565,809         10,835,024
Crime Victim Services                            676,720          1,926,345           765,795          3,368,860


INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM                        2,667,808          7,594,158         1,682,538         11,944,504
STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                  4,070,704        11,587,629          2,567,319         18,225,652
NARCOTICS & DANGEROUS DRUGS                            0          6,715,000                 0          6,715,000
PARDON & PAROLE BOARD                            395,472          1,125,747           249,417          1,770,636
PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF                           0        51,359,514                  0         51,359,514


OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS                     8,149,355        29,360,005          1,116,350         38,625,710
Residential Services                           3,381,360        12,182,160            463,200         16,026,720
Non-Residential Services                       2,430,900          8,757,900           333,000         11,521,800
Community-Based Services                       1,645,274          5,927,494           225,380          7,798,148
Admin and Other                                  691,821          2,492,451            94,770          3,279,042


STATE LEGAL & JUDICIARY                       11,461,648        32,626,623          7,228,653         51,316,924


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT                             9,445,236        73,268,048          1,349,319         84,062,604
COUNTY/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT                   92,554,558       322,738,946         23,439,141        438,732,646
Enforcement (Police/Sheriff/Other)            74,671,036       260,378,872         18,910,197        353,960,105
Corrections (Prisons, Jails, Lockups)          8,447,961        29,458,149          2,139,419         40,045,528
Judicial (Legal and Judicial)                  9,435,562        32,901,926          2,389,525         44,727,012




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            5                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                             Executive Summary
                                          Mental Health
Mental illness is defined as Major Mental Illness (MMI) for adults and Serious Emotional
Disturbance (SED) for children. MMI includes the following disorders among adults 18
years of age and older: Bipolar Disorder, Major Depression, Depression, Antisocial
Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Dissociative Identity Disorder,
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder,
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Psychotic Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and
Schizophrenia. SED pertains to individuals from birth to 18 years of age who meet a
specific Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
criteria with diagnoses such as Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, Conduct
Disorder, Affective Disorder, other disruptive behaviors, or other disorders with serious
medical implications such as eating disorders.

The FY 2003 cost attributed to mental health conditions within the Oklahoma criminal
justice system was $214 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial,
corrections and law enforcement services required by individuals with mental illnesses. By
synthesizing several sources, the research team established that approximately 13% of the
Oklahoma justice system expense is related to inmates with serious mental illness.

Data were collected from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and from county jails. The
Oklahoma DOC reported that 17.6% of all inmates were classified as requiring psychotropic
medication. Female prisoners required psychotropic medication at a much higher rate (31.3%)
than males (16.2%). It was estimated that 15.4% of county jail inmates suffer from a serious
mental illness. Averaging these percentages yielded a 16.5% multiplier for justice costs
associated with mental illness. The same multiplier was used to estimate the court and police
expenditures as well. The Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs provided data suggesting that
about 9% of the juveniles in custody were diagnosed with a mental illness. The 9% multiplier for
juveniles was used whenever appropriate.


Number of Oklahoma inmates receiving psychotropic
prescriptions 1996-2004. Source: Powitzky (2004). There are
                                                                       6,000
6,000 in FY 2004.

Many adult inmates suffered from mental illness before
                                                                       5,000
becoming incarcerated. A survey of recent arrestees in
the Tulsa County and Oklahoma County jails, for
example, showed that about 13% had received mental                     4,000

health treatment in the past and about 15% of those had
been admitted into a mental health treatment program in
the previous 12 months. From 1998 to 2001 the                          3,000

Oklahoma Department of Corrections annual
expenditures on psychotropic medications increased
from $154,000 to $1,456,000 (an increase of over 800%                  2,000


in three years). From 1997 to 2003, the number of
prescriptions filled by the ODOC more than doubled,                    1,000
rising from 22,000 to 49,000. At the local level, the
problem is similar.
                                                                          0
                                                                               1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004

Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            6                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                             Executive Summary
                                        Substance Abuse
Substance abuse refers to the abuse of alcohol and other drugs including over-the-counter
and prescription medication. The abuse of tobacco is not included in this study. Abuse is
defined as recurrent use of the substance resulting in (1) a failure to fulfill a major role
obligation, (2) a situation which is physically hazardous, (3) recurrent legal problems, or (4)
continued use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused
by the effects of the substance.

The FY 2003 cost attributed to substance abuse within the Oklahoma criminal justice
system was $788 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial, corrections and
enforcement services required by individuals with trafficking and/or using illegal
substances or abusing alcohol. Our calculations of the impact of substance abuse (including
drugs and alcohol) established that 50% of justice system expense is attributable to
substance abuse.

This finding was based on information gathered from Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation,
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, county jails, and arrestee surveys. The OSBI reported
that 48% of all adult arrests in 2002 were related to drugs (14%) or alcohol (34%). County jail
data also showed that about 48% of bookings were related to drugs, alcohol, or DUI/DWI (not
including traffic or municipal bookings). The Oklahoma DOC data show that 33.4% of the
inmates in 2003 were imprisoned for offenses related to alcohol (3.7%) or drugs (29.7%). Further
                                                 refinement resulted in an estimate of 50.1% of
                                                 DOC inmates who are incarcerated for a crime
     Others                                      “related to” substance abuse. Data from a survey
                                                 of recent arrestees in the Tulsa County and
    Opiates                                      Oklahoma County jails showed that about 42% of
                                                 bookings are related to drugs or alcohol. Urine
                     Oklahoma County
                                                 tests in this same study showed that about 67% of
      Benz
                     Tulsa County                arrestees have at least one drug in their system
                                                 when they are arrested.
      Meth


                                                      Percent of Oklahoma County Arrestees in 2000-2003
   Cocaine
                                                      (n=3,625) and Tulsa County Arrestees in 2001-2003
                                                      (n=1,769) Who Tested Positive for Drugs. Source:
  Marijuana
                                                      Oklahoma County and Tulsa County ADAM project.
                                                      Patterns are almost identical.

 Min 1-drug                                       The research team used an average of the scores
                                                  provided by the official jail and prison data to
         0%      20%      40%     60%      80%    arrive at the 50.1% multiplier for justice costs
                                                  associated with substance abuse. Jail and prison
populations are directly attributable to police and court functions, so this same multiplier was
used to calculate the costs of substance abuse for the court and police expenditures as well. In
cases were an agency’s main responsibility was related to substance abuse (e.g., the Oklahoma
Bureau of Narcotics), a 100% multiplier was used.




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            7                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
       Percent of Oklahoma County Arrestees in 2000-2003 (n=3,625) and Tulsa County Arrestees in
       2001-2003 (n=1,769) Who Tested Positive for Drugs. Source: Oklahoma County and Tulsa
       County ADAM project.

                                          Oklahoma County                           Tulsa County

                                      Males             Females             Males              Females
       Drug                          N=2,544            N=1,081            N=1,330              N=439

       Marijuana                     52.80%              42.50%             51.40%             35.80%

       Cocaine                       23.10%              29.30%             21.40%             25.10%

       Opiates                        3.60%              4.80%              4.70%               7.50%

       Methamphetamine               11.50%              16.20%             15.10%             23.90%

       Phencyclidine                  4.10%              3.70%              2.30%               1.40%

       Benzodiazepine                 9.10%              11.40%             9.20%              13.20%

       Darvon                         1.30%              1.70%              1.40%               2.10%

       Methadone                      0.30%              0.60%              0.50%               0.90%

       Barbiturates                   0.50%              1.00%              0.20%               0.70%

       At least one Drug             68.60%              66.40%             68.60%             68.60%


Data from the OSBI annual reports suggest that about 23.4% of all juvenile arrests in 2002 were
related to drugs (14.8%) or alcohol (8.6%). Since all arrests do not result in OJA incarceration,
the research team also examined OJA intake data. A research report commissioned by OJA
reported that about 12.8% of all referrals to OJA in 2001-2002 were related to substance abuse.

Based on these figures, the research team used the average of these two estimates to obtain the
18.1% multiplier for juvenile justice costs.




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            8                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                             Executive Summary
                                      Domestic Violence
For the purposes of this study, domestic violence is defined to include both domestic violence
and sexual assault. Domestic violence includes physical assault, psychological abuse and
stalking perpetrated by a current or former dating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend,
husband/wife, or cohabitating partner. Both same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants are
included in the definition. Sexual assault includes any act (verbal and/or physical) which
breaks a person's trust and/or safety and is sexual in nature and includes: rape, incest, ritual
abuse, date and acquaintance rape, marital or partner rape.

The FY 2003 cost attributed to domestic violence within the Oklahoma criminal justice
system was $93 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial, corrections and
enforcement services required by individuals who were either perpetrators or victims of
domestic violence. Our calculations of the impact of domestic violence (including child
abuse, neglect, and rape) established that approximately 6% of the cost of the Oklahoma
justice system can be attributed to domestic violence.

                                                                  27,000

Number of reported incidents of domestic violence in
Oklahoma. Source: OSBI - Uniform Crime Reports, 2003.
                                                                  25,000
This finding was based on information gathered
from Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, county jails,                 23,000

and arrestee surveys. The OSBI data show that there
were 25,157 reports of domestic violence in 2002.
                                                                  21,000


A research project involving interviews of arrestees
in Tulsa County and Oklahoma County jails                         19,000
revealed that about 9.4% of arrestees were booked
on charges related to domestic violence (child
neglect/abuse, domestic violence, stalking, and                   17,000

sexual assault). This number was used to calculate
costs associated with policing and the courts as well.
                                                                  15,000
                                                                           1993   1995   1997   1999   2001
Finally, data from the Oklahoma DOC data show
that about 11.1% of the inmates in 2003 were imprisoned for rape and other sexual-related
offenses (the DOC does not record domestic violence as an offense category).




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                            9                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                     Oklahoma Criminal Justice System
                   Costs of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence

This report examines the cost of mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence in the
Oklahoma criminal justice system. This has been done by examining these costs, as they are
associated with law enforcement, the courts, and the corrections system. Within each of these
realms, the costs at each of three levels: municipal/county, state, and federal were identified.
Thus, it might be easiest to imagine this report as a 3x3x3 Cube (see below), with mental health,
substance abuse, and domestic violence                                              Local
along one axis, law enforcement, the courts,                                              State
and corrections along a second axis, and                                                        Federal
local/county, state, and federal jurisdictions
                                                      Mental Health
along a third axis.
                                                        Substance Abuse
Cost Estimation Perspective
                                                       Domestic Violence


The goal of the report is to determine a                                                         Corrections
                                                                                           Enforcement
method for calculating the cost associated                                          Judicial
with each cell within the cube in such a way
that the study can be replicated in the future.
This report is organized according to the three items composing the main axis of interest for the
task force: mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. Within each element, the
research team describes the costs associated with each part of the justice system for each level of
jurisdiction. The indispensable arithmetic tool is the “attribution multiplier” – the factor by which
total expenditures are multiplied to derive the estimated cost “attributed” to a particular condition
or group. The multipliers are below and fully explained and justified in each section of the
report.


                                                       Oklahoma Attribution Multipliers

                                                    Mental        Substance        Domestic
                    Expense Category
                                                    Health          Abuse          Violence

                    OK DOC Facilities               17.6%           50.1%           11.1%
                      Men                           16.2%           49.3%           11.1%
                      Women                         31.3%           55.0%            0.0%

                    State Agencies                  17.6%           50.1%           11.1%
                    DA Council                      17.6%           50.1%           11.1%
                    Office of Juvenile Affairs       7.3%           26.3%            1.0%

                    Local Jails                     15.4%           53.7%            3.9%
                    Local Agencies                  15.4%           53.7%            3.9%

                    Federal Prisons                  7.0%           54.3%            1.0%
                    Federal Agencies                 7.0%           54.3%            1.0%




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           10                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                     Oklahoma Criminal Justice System
                                 Costs of Mental Health
Mental illness is defined as Major Mental Illness (MMI) for adults and Serious Emotional
Disturbance (SED) for children. MMI includes the following disorders among adults 18 years of
age and older: Bipolar Disorder, Major Depression, Depression, Antisocial Personality
Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Obsessive-
Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder, Psychotic Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Schizophrenia. SED pertains to
individuals from birth to 18 years of age who meet a specific Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria with diagnoses such as Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, Conduct Disorder, Affective Disorder, other disruptive
behaviors, or other disorders with serious medical implications such as eating disorders.


The FY 2003 cost attributed to mental health conditions within the Oklahoma criminal
justice system was $214 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial,
corrections and law enforcement services required by individuals with mental illnesses. By
synthesizing several sources, the research team established that approximately one-sixth of
the Oklahoma justice system is composed of individuals who suffer from serious mental
illness.


Introduction
Deciding how to measure the cost of mental health in the Oklahoma
criminal justice system is very difficult. A very conservative
measurement, for example, might examine the number of people
who enter the justice system as a result of their mental illness.
Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to make this estimation – it is not
always definitively known why people commit crimes and enter the
criminal justice system. On the other hand, researchers can more
easily count the number of people who enter the criminal justice
system who exhibit some sort of mental illness. This will include a
larger number of people but the estimation is much more
straightforward. In this report, latter strategy is pursued.

In order to estimate the cost of mental health on the Oklahoma criminal justice system, the
research team estimated the percentage of people in prisons and county jails who were diagnosed
with serious mental illness. The definition of “serious mental illness” was a condition that
requires the prescription of a psychotropic drug. This proportion not only provides an estimate of
the correctional costs associate with mental health, but also an estimate of the proportion of
mental health related costs borne by law enforcement and the court system. Finally, use similar
estimation techniques to estimate mental health costs for the federal prison system in Oklahoma.

1. Estimates of State Expenditures
An excellent starting point for estimating criminal justice costs associated with mental health
problems is to examine the correctional system (jails and prisons). Once the proportion of
inmates with mental health issues in jails and prisons can be estimated, then one may estimate the
proportion of the costs for the courts and the police as well.

Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           11                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
National estimates of the proportion of prisoners who express mental health conditions provides
context for the situation in Oklahoma. There are two sources of national data: surveys of inmates
and surveys of administrators. A recent national survey of inmates, for example, reported that
over 283,000 mentally ill offenders are incarcerated in federal, state, and local prisons and jails
(Ditton, 1999). The proportions vary from state to state, of course, but about 16% of all state
inmates and those held in local and county jails were identified as being mentally ill. A similar
percentage of persons on probation also have a history of mental illness (Ditton, 1999).

According to a national survey of correctional officials in 2000, about 13% of state inmates
received therapy for mental illness and about 10% received psychotropic mediations (Beck and
Maruschak, 2001). In some states, almost 20% of the inmates received psychotropic medications
(Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Hawaii, and Oregon). This national report also includes data for
Oklahoma. The report shows, for example, that about 0.8% of Oklahoma prisoners were
receiving 24-hour care for mental illness, 14.6% were receiving therapy or counseling, and 11.8%
were receiving psychotropic medication in 2000 (see Appendix 1).

a. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
More detailed information about Oklahoma is available from the
Department of Corrections. For example, DOC data shows that
about $6,702,000 was spent on salaries for mental health
professionals and medications in DOC facilities in FY 2002 – $471
per inmate (Powitzky 2003). The Oklahoma DOC data also show
that about 26% of all Oklahoma inmates have a history of, or
currently exhibit, some form of mental illness (48.5% of the 2,000
female inmates and 24.2% of the 21,000 male inmates) (Powitzky,
2003; Powitzky, 2004). The figures were estimated using January
2004 data.

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has divided the mental health care needs of its inmates
along 6 categories. The most inclusive category is called MH-O, meaning no mental health
symptoms. About three-quarters of all DOC inmates are categorized MH-O (76% of males but
only 52% of females). The rest of the categories indicate increasing levels of care (and
subsequent cost).

About 26% of Oklahoma DOC inmates are classified according to one of the following mental
illness categories. Level MH-A is composed of inmates with a history of mental illness who
currently exhibit mild to moderate forms of mental illness. No psychotropic medication is
required for this category of inmate. Almost 8.9% of all DOC inmates fall into this category (8%
males and 17% females).

The next level of patient (MH-B) exhibits a diagnosis of a major psychotic disorder (e.g. is bi-
polar or has suicide ideation) and requires psychotropic medication and counseling. About 13.5%
of all DOC inmates fall into this category (12% males and 29% females). MH-C1 level patients
require special intermediate housing and treatment tracks. Only about 2.8% of all DOC inmates
fall into this category (3% males and 2% females). Finally, inmates classified as MH-D are a
danger to themselves or other because of their mental illness. They require 24 hours monitoring.
Less than 1% of all DOC inmates fall into each of these final two categories.




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           12                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                                        6,000
    Number of Oklahoma DOC Inmates Receiving
    Psychotropic Prescriptions. Source: Powitzky (2004).
    There were 6,000 such inmates in FY 2004
                                                                        5,000


    All told, DOC documentation suggests that about
    17.6% of Oklahoma state inmates require a
                                                                        4,000
    prescription for a psychotropic drug during their
    incarceration (16.2% of male inmates and 31.3%
    of female inmates). These figures are used as the                   3,000
    multiplier to calculate state correctional costs
    associated with mental health. The cost of
    salaries of mental health professionals and drug                    2,000

    purchases were also included.

    The number of DOC inmates receiving psychotropic                    1,000


    drugs has risen dramatically since 1996 (when 1,150
    inmates received psychotropic drugs) to 2004 when                      0
    over 6,000 inmates received psychotropic drugs,                             1996   1997   1998    1999   2000   2001   2002    2003   2004

    representing a 421% increase.

    At the same time, the number of psychotropic prescriptions has also risen exponentially. In 1997,
    there were 22,000 prescriptions filled each year. By 2003, that number had risen to over 49,000
    (a 123% increase). Of course, the costs associated with these prescriptions have also risen,
    moving from about $116,000 in 1997 to about $1.5 million in 2003 (a 1,200% increase!). See
    Figures 8 and 9 for details about the growth of drug expenses in the DOC.


                   Prescriptions                                                       Annual Costs
Number of Psychotropic Prescriptions Filled by Oklahoma              Annual Expenditures by Oklahoma Department of
             Department of Corrections.                           Corrections for Psychotropic Prescriptions Filled. Source:
              Source: Powitzky (2004)                                                 Powitzky (2004)


        50,000                                                           $1.6




                                                                         $1.4
        45,000


                                                                         $1.2


        40,000
                                                                         $1.0




        35,000                                                           $0.8




                                                                         $0.6
        30,000


                                                                         $0.4


        25,000
                                                                         $0.2




        20,000                                                           $0.0
                 1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003                 1997     1998        1999    2000     2001        2002    2003




    Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           13                                        February 17, 2005
    Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
b. Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
The research team was not able to obtain reliable information about the use of psychotropic drugs
by juveniles in the custody of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs. The best available data
for OJA come from a series of diagnostic tests on juveniles in the custody of OJA in 2003 (Davis
2004). The results are shown in Table 2. The data show that 259 of the 3,553 juveniles who
were tested (about 7.3%) had some form of diagnosable mental disorder. Thus, for cost
information specifically having to do with juvenile corrections and mental health, a 7.3%
multiplier was used.


                                   Table 2. Count of Juveniles Held in OJA
                                   Custody that were Diagnosed with a
                                   Mental Illness.


                                    Diagnosis                             Count
                                    None                                   3,294
                                    Adjustment Disorder                       31
                                    Anxiety Disorder                          11
                                    Attention Deficit Disorder                41
                                    Dementia                                   6
                                    Depressive Disorder                       84
                                    Eating Disorder                            1
                                    Impulse Control Disorder                  24
                                    Personality Disorder                       8
                                    Phobia                                     3
                                    Psychotic Disorder                         9
                                    Schizophrenia                              6
                                    Sexual Disorder                           19
                                    Stress Disorder                           15
                                    Tic Disorder                               1
                                    Total                                  3,553



2. Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures
The research team assumed that statewide data might vary from local data, so attempts were made
to obtain information from county jails to estimate the cost of mental health problems on the local
justice system in Oklahoma. To provide some context, a national survey of county jail inmates in
1998 suggested that about one-third of jail inmates reported having received mental health
treatment in the form of medication since being booked (Ditton, 1999).

There are two categories of jails in Oklahoma: metropolitan (the jails in Tulsa County and
Oklahoma County) and non-metro (all other jails). The strategy for this analysis was to
concentrate full attention on making cost estimations for the two large population counties
because it was thought that more data would be available for them. Efforts to obtain information
about psychotropic drug use in non-metro jails were not successful. In addition, data about
mental health costs were not available for the Tulsa County jail. Thus, the research team used the
estimations gathered at the Oklahoma County jail to make estimations at all other statewide jails.

Estimating the percent of Oklahoma County jail inmates who suffer from mental illness is
difficult. The data are sparse and largely anecdotal. Just like in the prison system, though, the
Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           14                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
cost of psychotropic drugs is becoming an important factor for jails. Bob Ferguson (Oklahoma
County Jail Health Services Administrator) reported that the county paid about $25,000 each
month ($300,000 per year) for psychotropic medications (Underwood, 2002). He stated that he
needs more than $60,000 per month ($720,000 per year) for more effective medications reserved
for defendants currently on trial. Data supplied by the Oklahoma County MIS department, for
example, show that in 2002, 5,723 inmates were referred for mental health treatment. The data
also showed that over 11,000 psychotropic prescriptions were filled and that 1,986 inmates
received psychotropic medication in 2002 but it is not clear that these numbers are accurate.

Because of a lack of better data, the research team located estimates of the number of arrestees
with mental health problems in the Oklahoma County jail. Staff at the Oklahoma County jail
estimated that at any given time, there were between 290 (Underwood, 2002) to 400 (Atkinson,
nd) inmates who suffered from acute mental illness. In 2002, the Oklahoma County Jail housed
an average of 2,245 inmates each day (Harrison and Karberg, 2003). Thus, between 12.9% and
17.8% of the Oklahoma County jail inmates could be defined as being mentally ill. Thus, the
research team used the 15.4% multiplier for county jails costs associated with mental health
(a percentage that is remarkably similar to the figure found in the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections and in jails across the country).

Other interesting data about the mental health treatment experiences of recent arrestees in
Oklahoma County and Tulsa County and the use of mental health courts are presented in the
appendices.

3. Estimates of Federal Expenditures
The research team calculated the amount of federal expenditures committed to the state of
Oklahoma for FY 2002 (the most recent data that are available) for the federal criminal justice
system by using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) published by the US Census
Bureau at http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/index.html. According to the CFFR, the federal
government expended over $24 billion in Oklahoma in FY2002.

The CFFR breaks down the federal expenditures by category. It shows that the federal law
enforcement system expended $30,495,000 for the US Marshal’s Service, $70,935,949 for the
Department of Justice and the FBI, $19,729,000 for the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Treasury Department, $42,945,000, and $122,000 for other offices, boards, and divisions in the
state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. Thus, the federal government spent $121,281,949 on law
enforcement the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. According to the CFFR, the federal prison
system also expended $13,772,000 in the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002.

These federal expenditure figures are used in the calculation of the costs associated with mental
health following the same rationale the research team used for similar state agencies. It was
recognized, however, that federal offenders are not the same as state offenders. A recent study,
for example, showed that while about 16% of the inmates in state prisons across the country were
identified as being mentally ill, only about 7% of federal offenders were similarly diagnosed
(Ditton, 1999). The research team had no reason to suspect that the percentage of federal
inmates who require mental health treatment in Oklahoma is any different, so 7% was used
as the multiplier to calculate the cost of mental health to the federal criminal justice system.




Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           15                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                     Oklahoma Criminal Justice System
                               Costs of Substance Abuse

Substance abuse refers to the abuse of alcohol and other drugs including over-the-counter
and prescription medication. The abuse of tobacco will not be included in this study. Abuse
is defined as recurrent use of the substance resulting in (1) a failure to fulfill a major role
obligation, (2) a situation which is physically hazardous, (3) recurrent legal problems, or (4)
continued use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused
by the effects of the substance.


The FY 2003 cost attributed to substance abuse within the Oklahoma criminal justice
system was $788 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial, corrections and
enforcement services required by individuals with trafficking and/or using illegal
substances or abusing alcohol. Our calculations of the impact of substance abuse (including
drugs and alcohol) established that about one-half of the justice system is composed of
individuals who were involved with substance abuse.


Introduction
Measuring the cost of substance abuse in the Oklahoma criminal justice
system seems easier than it is. One might expect to merely count the
number of people who were arrested, charged, and sentenced for a
substance-involved crime (e.g., drug possession, drug sales, DUI, public
intoxication, etc.). In fact, this can provide a useful, albeit conservative,
measure of the cost of substance abuse on the justice system.
Unfortunately, relying on this method would undercount the number of
people who committed a substance-related crime. If a person robs a
bank to obtain money for drugs, for example, the arrest data will only
record the incident as a “bank robbery” and not as a “drug-related bank
robbery.” In this report, the research team measured the cost of substance abuse on the justice
system by estimating the proportion of substance abuse-involved crimes and the proportion of
“substance abuse-related” crimes.

1. Estimates of State Expenditures
Since the most expensive and obvious costs associated with substance
abuse are those of detention and incarceration, the research team focused
first on jail and prison costs. Then, it was estimated the cost of court
administration along with prosecution and defense costs along with
related law enforcement costs.

a. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
There are three broad categories of substance abuse-involved offenses.
They are DUI, drug possession, and drug distribution. They accounted
for about one-third of all inmates in the Oklahoma DOC as of June 30,
2003. Table 3 shows the population of DOC inmates distributed by their
offense of record. About 18% of the DOC inmates were incarcerated for drug distribution/sales,
the largest single category of offenders, followed closely by drug possession offenders. In all,
33.5% of all DOC inmates in 2003 were serving time for offenses involving drugs or alcohol.
Direct Costs-Criminal Justice                           16                                        February 17, 2005
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                Table 3. Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma Department of Corrections
                population for FY2003 serving sentences for offenses related to substance
                abuse. Sources: Harwood, Fountain, and Livermore (1998) and Oklahoma
                Department of Corrections.



                  Offense                    Inmates         Multiplier   Adjusted           Pct

                  Drug Distribution             4,072          100.0%        4,072        17.7%
                  Drug Possession               2,669          100.0%        2,669        11.6%

                  DUI                            966           100.0%         966          4.2%

                  Sub-totals                    7,707                        7,707        33.5%



                  Homicide                      2,347           45.8%        1,075         4.7%
                  Sex Offenses                  2,554           27.6%         705          3.1%
                  Robbery                       1,748           30.6%         535          2.3%
                  Assault                       1,426           32.4%         462          2.0%

                  Burglary                      1,610           33.6%         541          2.4%
                  Larceny                       1,449           32.4%         470          2.0%

                  Stolen Vehicles                345            10.3%          36          0.2%

                  Sub-totals                   11,480                        3,823        16.6%



                  All other offenses            3,819            0.0%            0           0%



                  TOTALS                       23,006                       11,530        50.1%




It is important to note, however, that a large proportion of other offenses are also highly likely to
be related to substance abuse, given the known relationship between substance use and crime.
Harwood, Fountain, and Livermore (1998) established a formula that helps to estimate the
percent of non-substance abuse crimes that are related to substance abuse. They suggest, for
example, that 45.8% of all homicides, 27.6% of all sex offenses, and 30.6% of all robberies are
related to drugs and/or alcohol.

The multipliers that Harwood, et al. (1998) recommended are presented in column 3 of Table 3.
Notice that the multipliers for the drug and alcohol offenses are 100% (they each involve
substance abuse). Column 4, then, presents a “corrected” number of inmates who are in DOC for
an offense related to substance abuse. Using this multiplier increases the number of DOC
inmates who are incarcerated for crimes related to (or involving) drugs or alcohol from 7,707 to
11,530. Thus, the corrected (adjusted) percent of substance abuse-related offenders in DOC
is 50.1%; with 49.3% for males and 55.0% for females.




                                                        17
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
b. Office of Juvenile Affairs
According to Davis, Charish, and Damphousse (2004), about 12.8% of all referrals to OJA in
2001-2002 related to substance abuse (56% of referrals were for property or status offenses). It is
important to realize that referrals to OJA are not the same as arrests since not all referrals to OJA
come from the police. While most referrals to OJA come from law enforcement, guardians,
educators, and public and private agencies may also refer juveniles to OJA. In addition, if a
juvenile is referred to OJA by a law enforcement agency, it may not be related to an arrest.
Finally, not all referrals result in detention. Thus, using the referral data from OJA is not reliable
for calculating the cost of incarcerating Oklahoma juveniles. Making this estimation even more
difficult is the fact that the OJA annual reports do not provide a breakdown on the specific types
of offenses for which juveniles are incarcerated. Since the goal of this report is to find statistics
that are accessible and timely, the research team sought alternative data for juveniles.

It was decided to use juvenile arrest data provided in the annual Uniform Crime Report prepared
the OSBI. This report includes arrest information for juveniles. In 2002, the most recently
available data, there were 23,970 juvenile arrests (OSBI 2003). Of those arrests, 198 were due to
drug sales or manufacturing, 1,568 were due to drug possession, and 2,068 were defined as
alcohol-related. Thus, about 16% of Oklahoma juvenile arrests in 2002 were related to substance
abuse. Table 4 shows the arrest data for all other offense categories as well.


                Table 4. Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma juveniles in FY2003 serving
                sentences for offenses involving or related to substance abuse. Sources:
                Harwood, Fountain, and Livermore (1998) and Oklahoma OSBI.


                                           Juveniles
                  Offense                                    Multiplier   Adjusted           Pct
                                            arrested
                  Drug Distribution              198           100.0%         198          0.8%
                  Drug Possession               1,568          100.0%        1,568         6.5%

                  Alcohol-Related               2,068          100.0%        2,068         8.6%

                  Sub-totals                    3,834                        3,834        16.0%



                  Homicide                         15           45.8%            7        0.03%
                  Sex Offenses                   139            27.6%          38          0.2%

                  Robbery                        157            30.6%          48          0.2%
                  Assault                       1,730           32.4%         561          2.3%

                  Burglary                      1,013           33.6%         340          1.4%
                  Larceny                       4,364           32.4%        1,414         5.9%

                  Stolen Vehicles                543            10.3%          56          0.2%

                  Sub-totals                    7,961                        2,464        10.3%


                  All other offenses           12,175            0.0%            0           0%



                  TOTALS                       23,970                        6,298        26.3%




                                                        18
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
The multipliers that Harwood, et al. (1998) recommended are presented in column 3 of Table 4.
The multipliers for the drug and alcohol offenses are 100% since they each involve substance
abuse. Keep in mind, however, that Harwood was originally used for adult offenders, so these
findings are interpreted with caution. Column 4 presents a “corrected” number of juveniles who
were arrested in Oklahoma for an offense involving or related to substance abuse. Using this
procedure increases the number of Oklahoma juveniles who were arrested in 2002 crimes related
to (or involving) drugs or alcohol from 3,834 to 6,298. Thus, the corrected (adjusted) percent
of substance abuse-related or involved juvenile offenders in Oklahoma is 26.3%. Additional
information about drug testing results in OJA is provided in Appendix 4.

2. Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures
According to the Oklahoma Uniform Crime Report for 2002 (the most recently available data),
there were 142,425 adults arrested for all offenses (OSBI 2003). There were 20,331 adults
arrested on drug-related charges: 4,065 arrests for sales and manufacturing of drugs and 16,266
arrests for possession of drugs. Thus, 14.3% of all adult arrests in the state were drug related. In
addition, 33.6% of all adult arrests (47,817) were classified as alcohol related charges - driving
under the influence, drunkenness, and other liquor law violations (see Table 5).


                Table 5. Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma adults in FY2003 serving
                sentences for offenses involving or related to substance abuse. Sources:
                Harwood, Fountain, and Livermore (1998) and Oklahoma OSBI.


                                              Adults
                  Offense                                Multiplier     Adjusted             Pct
                                            arrested
                  Drug Distribution            4,065        100.0%          4,065          2.9%
                  Drug Possession             16,266        100.0%         16,266        11.4%
                  Alcohol-Related             47,817        100.0%         47,817        33.6%
                  Sub-totals                  68,148                       68,148        47.9%


                  Homicide                       192         45.8%             88        0.06%
                  Sex Offenses                 1,163         27.6%            321          0.2%
                  Robbery                        602         30.6%            184          0.1%
                  Assault                     13,355         32.4%          4,327          3.0%
                  Burglary                     2,092         33.6%            703          0.5%
                  Larceny                      7,485         32.4%          2,425          1.7%
                  Stolen Vehicles              1,232         10.3%            127          0.1%
                  Sub-totals                  26,121                        8,175          5.8%


                  All other offenses          12,175          0.0%              0            0%


                  TOTALS                    142,245                        76,323        53.7%


The multipliers that Harwood, et al. (1998) recommended are presented in column 3 of Table 5.
The multipliers for the drug and alcohol offenses are 100% since they each involve substance
abuse. Column 4 presents a “corrected” number of adults who were arrested in Oklahoma for an

                                                       19
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
offense involving or related to substance abuse. Using this procedure increases the number of
Oklahoma adults who were arrested in 2002 crimes related to (or involving) drugs or alcohol
from 64,148 to 76,323. Thus, the corrected (adjusted) percent of substance abuse-related or
involved adult arrestees in Oklahoma is 53.7%. This reflects the proportion of local jail and
court costs associated with substance abuse. Additional information about drug and alcohol
related arrests by county are provided in Appendix 5.


3. Estimates of Federal Expenditures
The research team calculated the amount of federal expenditures committed to the state of
Oklahoma for FY 2002 (the most recent data that are available) for the federal criminal justice
system by using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) published by the US Census
Bureau at http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/index.html. According to the CFFR, the federal
government expended over $24 billion in Oklahoma in FY2002.

The CFFR breaks down the federal expenditures by category. It shows that the federal law
enforcement system expended $30,495,000 for the US Marshal’s Service, $70,935,949 for the
Department of Justice and the FBI, $19,729,000 for the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Treasury Department, $42,945,000, and $122,000 for other offices, boards, and divisions in the
state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. Thus, the federal government spent $121,281,949 on law
enforcement the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. According to the CFFR, the federal prison
system also expended $13,772,000 in the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP 2004), about 54.3% of all federal inmates
were convicted of drug-related offenses. This 54.3% multiplier is to calculate the costs of law
enforcement, courts, and sanctions at the federal level for substance abuse.




                                                       20
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                     Oklahoma Criminal Justice System
                             Costs of Domestic Violence
For the purposes of this study, domestic violence is defined to include both domestic violence
and sexual assault. Domestic violence/sexual assault includes physical assault, psychological
abuse and stalking perpetrated by a current or former dating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend,
husband/wife, or cohabitating partner. Both same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants are
included in the definition. All abuse of adults and children that can be attributed to mental
illness will be; abuse that can be attributed to substance abuse will be; abuse that can be
attributed to domestic violence will be; any remaining child abuse or elder abuse that is not
directly attributable these three issues will be included in domestic violence. All neglect of
adults and children that can be attributed to mental illness will be; neglect that can be
attributed to substance abuse will be; neglect that can be attributed to domestic violence will
be; any remaining neglect that cannot be attributed to one of these three issues will not be
included. Sexual assault includes any act (verbal and/or physical) that breaks a person's trust
and/or safety and is sexual in nature and includes: rape, incest, ritual abuse, date and
acquaintance rape, marital or partner rape.


The FY 2003 cost attributed to domestic violence within the Oklahoma criminal justice
system was $93 million. This cost included expenditures related to judicial, corrections and
enforcement services required by individuals who were either perpetrators or victims of
domestic violence. Our calculations of the impact of domestic violence (including child
abuse, neglect, and rape) established that approximately one-tenth of the cost of the
Oklahoma justice system can be attributed to domestic violence.

Introduction
Measuring the cost of domestic violence in the Oklahoma criminal
justice system can be very difficult. It is difficult to know, for example,
if someone who has been booked into a local jail for aggravated assault
was involved in domestic violence. The same problem is encountered
when examining prison data. One may measure the number of people
jailed and imprisoned for domestic violence (including child abuse) by
examining the charge for which the person was booked, but it is
important to note that this is probably an under count of domestic
violence incidents. In addition, it is even more difficult to estimate the
extent to which the current offense of record was related to domestic
violence. If a female victim of domestic violence commits a crime
because of her victimization (e.g. drug use or passing bogus checks), for
example, it is impossible to recognize that in the available data.

In this report, the research team used the conservative strategy of examining the number of people
who enter the local and county jails on a charge of domestic violence. This figure provides an
indirect estimate of the proportion of domestic violence related costs borne by local and county
law enforcement as well as courts and jails. The research team also examine the direct costs of
imprisoning people who are sentenced on domestic violence charged in the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections.



                                                       21
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
1. Estimates of State Expenditures
The annual OSBI Uniform Crime Report shows that reports of domestic violence increased in
Oklahoma at an alarming rate from 1993 to 2002, rising from 16,605 to 25,157 - a 52% increase
(see Figure 10). It is not clear if the actual number of domestic violence incidents has risen or if
the change reflects increased reporting by victims. See Appendix 7 for a county-by-county
 27,000                                         breakdown of domestic violence reports.


 25,000                                           Number of reported incidents of domestic violence in
            Domestic Violence
                                                  Oklahoma. Source: OSBI - Uniform Crime Reports, 2003.

 23,000

                                                  A total of 142,425 adults were arrested for all offenses
                                                  in 2002 (OSBI, 2003). If one assumed that each of the
 21,000
                                                  25,157 reports of domestic violence in 2002 resulted
                                                  in an arrest, then about 17.7% of police activity (and
 19,000
                                                  county jail incarceration) was associated with
                                                  domestic violence. As not all reports of domestic
                                                  violence result in arrest, this is an artificially high
 17,000                                           multiplier.

                                             Of the 163 murders that took place in Oklahoma in
 15,000
      1993   1995  1997    1999   2001
                                             2002, the offender was related to the victim or was
                                             engaged in an intimate relationship in 43 (26.3%) of
                                             the cases. In 25 (15%) of the murder cases, the
offender was a current or former intimate partner of the victim (i.e., legal spouse, common law
spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). As in the other categories, the research team used data from the
correctional system to develop our estimates of the proportion of Oklahoma criminal justice costs
associated with domestic violence.

a. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
One way of measuring the amount of domestic violence costs at the state level is to examine the
percent of inmates housed in the correctional system who have been sentenced on a domestic
violence offence. Unfortunately, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections does not record
domestic violence as a descriptive category in its data reports. Previous studies of domestic
violence in Oklahoma (e.g., Brown, Lowrance, Mallonee, and Smith 2003) used sexual assault
data as a proxy for domestic violence. The research team did the same in this report. In 2003,
about 11.1% of inmates housed in the Oklahoma DOC were sentenced for rape and other sex
offenses. Therefore this 11.1% multiplier is used to estimate the cost of domestic violence
for the adult male correctional system.

b. Office of Juvenile Affairs
According to Davis, Charish, and Damphousse (2004), about 2% of all referrals to OJA in 2001-
2002 related to sexual assault (56% of referrals were for property or status offenses). It is
important to realize that referrals to OJA are not the same as arrests since not all referrals to OJA
come from the police. Most referrals to OJA come from law enforcement, but guardians,
educators, and public and private agencies may also refer juveniles. The OJA annual reports do
not supply sufficient data to make this estimation. Thus, relying on OJA data is not reliable.

As with the previous sections, the available OSBI Uniform Crime Report data was used to
estimate the proportion of juvenile offenses related to domestic violence. There were 23,970

                                                       22
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
juvenile arrests in 2002 (OSBI 2003). Of those arrests, 56 were due to rape, 83 were due to sex
offenses, and 29 were due to offenses against family and children. Thus, about 1% of Oklahoma
juvenile arrests in 2002 were related to domestic violence. Thus, for costs associated with the
incarceration of Oklahoma juveniles related to domestic violence, the 1% multiplier is used.

2. Estimates of County/Municipal Expenditures
Data provided by jails and the OSBI Uniform Crime Report can be used to estimate the
proportion of offenders handled by local and county law enforcement, jails, and courthouses that
are related to domestic violence.

a. OSBI Uniform Crime Reports
The OSBI Uniform Crime Report reports the number of arrests for “offenses against family and
children” but not specifically domestic violence. There were 1,229 reported arrests involving
offenses against family and children, representing less than 1% of all arrests in Oklahoma in
2002. This is probably an undercount since an unknown number of assaults, rapes, and sex
offenses could be classified as domestic violence as well. If one includes all of the rapes (481)
and sex offenses (782) as proxies, it is still estimated that only 1.8% of adult arrests are related to
domestic violence. This is less than the data that are available from the local jails, so those
numbers were used instead.

b. Jail Data
Table 6 shows an abbreviated list of the lead offense for arrestees in the Tulsa County Jail for
2003 and 2002. Similar data were also obtained from the Oklahoma County Jail from the
Oklahoma County MIS department.

Based on this information, one may estimate the percentage of arrestees booked into the jail for
domestic violence related offenses in 2003. If one includes the two categories called “domestic
violence” (n=1,060), “children/child abuse” (n=293), rape (n=73), sex/immoral acts (n=265), and
stalking/harassment/threatening phone calls (n=35), one would estimate that about 3.9% of arrests
in Tulsa were related to domestic violence in 2003. The figure would be 5.1% in 2002. This is
probably an under count, however, because it is not known how many of the homicides, assaults,
rapes, sex/immoral acts, stalking, or weapons charges were also related to domestic violence. In
addition, if a person was charged twice (once with assault and once with domestic violence), only
the assault charge would show up in these data. These are some of the difficulties of using the
available secondary data that jails can provide. Data available in the ADAM project (see
Appendix 8) suggests that the number might be closer to 10%, but since the ADAM data
collection process has stopped, the available jail data is used to make the estimate. Thus, our
best estimate of the proportion of local and county cases that are related to domestic
violence in FY2003 is 3.9% This is used as the multiplier for law enforcement, local jails,
and courts.
                   Jail Lead Offense Type for 2003 Bookings in the Tulsa County Jail.
                     Source: Chris Howard, David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center.

                    Offense Crime Type                                       2003        2002
                    Domestic Violence                                       1,060       1,458
                    Children/Child Abuse                                      293         232
                    Rape                                                       73         108
                    Sex/Immoral Acts                                          265         117
                    Stalking/Harass/Threat Phone Calls Letters                 35          14
                    All other offenses                                     33,582      34,310
                    Total                                                  35,308      36,239



                                                       23
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
3. Estimates of Federal Expenditures
The research team calculated the amount of federal expenditures committed to the state of
Oklahoma for FY 2002 (the most recent data that are available) for the federal criminal justice
system by using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) published by the US Census
Bureau at http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/index.html. According to the CFFR, the federal
government expended over $24 billion in Oklahoma in FY2002.

The CFFR breaks down the federal expenditures by category. It shows that the federal law
enforcement system expended $30,495,000 for the US Marshal’s Service, $70,935,949 for the
Department of Justice and the FBI, $19,729,000 for the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Treasury Department, $42,945,000, and $122,000 for other offices, boards, and divisions in the
state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. Thus, the federal government spent $121,281,949 on law
enforcement the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002. According to the CFFR, the federal prison
system also expended $13,772,000 in the state of Oklahoma in FY 2002.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP 2004), about 1% of federal inmates were
convicted of sex offenses. This 1% multiplier is used to calculate the costs of law
enforcement, courts, and sanctions at the federal level for domestic violence.




                                                       24
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                References

Atkinson, Susan Owen. “Oklahoma County Detention Center: A Taxing Situation.”
       (http://customers.jasp.com/clco/op%20ed%20piece.doc).
Beck, Allen and Laura Maruschak. 2001. Mental Health Treatment in State Prisons. Bureau of
       Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ #188215)
Brady, Matthew. 2004. “DAs meet to discuss expenses, funding. Daily Oklahoman, July 10,
       2004 (p. 6A).
Davis, Sebastian. 2004. Email correspondence about drug testing in Oklahoma Office of
        Juvenile Affairs (4/29/2004).
Davis, Sebastian, Courtney Charish, and Kelly Damphousse. 2004. “Race/Ethnicity and Gender
        Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing.” Report submitted to the Oklahoma
        Office of Juvenile Affairs (http://www.state.ok.us/~oja/final%20oja%20report%207-8-
        04.pdf).
Ditton, Paula. 1999. “Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers.” Bureau of
        Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ # 174463)
Harrison, Paige and Jennifer Karberg. 2003. “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002.” Bureau
        of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ# 198877).
Harwood, H., D. Fountain, and G. Livermore. 1998. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug
      Abuse in the United States 1992. Publications # 98-4327. Rockville, MD: National
      Institutes of Health.
Malcoe, Lorraine Halinka and Kelly R. Damphousse. “Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner
       Violence Among Female Offenders.” Presented at the annual meetings of the American
       Society of Criminology in Chicago, IL, November 2002.
McNeill, Ryan. 2004. “Five Counties to get Funds for Drug Courts.” Daily Oklahoman, July 10,
       2004 (p.3A).
Powitzky, Robert. 2003. “A Useful Management Tool for Understanding Correctional Mental
       Health Services.” Correctional Mental Health Report (4(5) 65-66, 77-80.
Powitzky, Robert. 2004. “Oklahoma Department of Corrections Mental Health Services.”
       Presentation to the Governor’s and Attorney General’s Task Force on Mental Health,
       Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence (June 25, 2004).
Underwood, Graham. 2002. “State's mental health problem complicated even more by jails.”
      Thursday, June 27, 2002 (Associated Press).




                                                      25
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                 Appendices
Appendix 1        Inmates receiving mental health treatment in state correctional facilities

Appendix 2        Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) MH Estimation of Mental Health
                  Courts.

Appendix 3        Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma prison population for FY2003
                  serving sentences for offenses related to substance abuse

Appendix 4        OJA Substance Abuse Testing Statistics

Appendix 5        Drug and Alcohol Related Arrests by County

Appendix 6        Drug Market Patterns for Oklahoma Arrestees

Appendix 7        Police Reports: Domestic Violence by County in Oklahoma, 1998-2000.

Appendix 8        Estimating Domestic Violence Rates Using Jail Survey Data




                                                      26
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                            Appendix 1

Table A1. Inmates receiving mental health treatment in state correctional facilities,
June 30, 2000. Source: Beck and Maruschak (2001)


                                             Number of inmates receiving                                 Inmates in custody
                                                                                              In all          In facilities Percent
                          24-hour care         Therapy/counseling     Psychotropic meds     facilities      reporting data  covered
Region and State       Number     Percent      Number     Percent    Number      Percent
Total                   17,354         1.6      137,385      12.8     105,336         9.7   1,178,807           1,088,023      92.3

Northeast                1,715          1         20,099      12.6     14,840         9.2    171,723              160,938      93.7
Connecticut                341        2.3          2,596      17.8      1,659        11.4     16,984               14,577      85.8
Maine                       26        2.8            538       33         367        23.5      1,629                1,562      95.9
Massachusetts              309          3          2,271      21.8      1,331        12.7     10,500               10,500      100
New Hampshire               92        4.9            387      20.7        228        12.2      2,277                1,872      82.2
New Jersey                 467        1.8          2,308       9.2      2,541         9.4     27,118               27,118      100
New York                   262        0.4          6,888      10.2      4,539         6.7     71,662               67,595      94.3
Pennsylvania               178        0.5          4,761       13       3,891        10.6     36,895               36,710      99.5
Rhode Island                10        0.3               /        /           /          /      3,347                    0         0
Vermont                     30          3            350      34.9        284        28.3      1,311                1,004      76.6
Midwest                  3,843        1.7         32,461      14.3     21,527         9.3    233,993              230,640    98.6%
Illinois                   672        1.5          4,374       9.9      2,954         6.7     44,150               44,000      99.7
Indiana                    354        1.9          4,281      23.5      2,392        13.1     18,195               18,195      100
Iowa                       134        1.5          1,293      14.3      1,122        12.4      9,086                9,031      99.4
Kansas                     218        2.4          2,075      23.1      1,518        16.9      8,992                8,992      100
Michigan                   760        1.7          4,678      10.5      2,161         4.8     47,639               45,183      94.8
Minnesota                   32        0.4          1,222      16.4      1,312        17.6      7,451                7,451      100
Missouri                    12          0          3,331      11.9      1,054         3.8     27,963               27,963      100
Nebraska                    84        2.4            982       28         691        19.7      3,508                3,508      100
North Dakota                  /         /               /        /        247        39.3        992                  628      63.3
Ohio                     1,042        2.2          7,165       15       4,921        10.3     47,915               47,915      100
South Dakota                43        1.7            577      22.3        420        16.2      2,591                2,591      100
Wisconsin                  492        3.2          2,483      20.4      2,735         18      15,511               15,183      97.9

South                    7,106        1.6         54,119      11.9      41,280        9.1    510,287              452,197    88.6%
Alabama                    556        2.5          1,768       8.4       1,078        4.9     22,395               22,169        99
Arkansas                    82        0.8          1,117      10.7         424        4.1     10,465               10,465      100
Delaware                     2          0            801      14.5         739       12.5      6,023                5,910      98.1
District of Columbia        38        1.6            503      21.1         213        8.9      2,574                2,385      92.7
Florida                    191        0.3         10,689      14.9       7,764       10.8     71,616               71,616      100
Georgia                  2,070        4.8          5,302      12.1       4,659       10.6     44,235               43,958      99.4
Kentucky                   126          1          2,626      21.9       2,296       18.5     12,378               12,378      100
Louisiana                  201        1.2          5,062       27    1,626            8.7     19,167               18,757      97.9
Maryland                   253        1.3          2,829      14.9       2,344       12.4     22,821               18,933        83
Mississippi                580        3.9          1,607      10.9       1,935       13.1     14,823               14,748      99.5
North Carolina             715        2.5          3,747      13.2       2,783       10.2     30,708               27,406      89.2
Oklahoma                   187        0.8          3,349      14.6       2,716       11.8     23,858               23,013      96.5
South Carolina              39        0.2          1,122       5.3          28        1.1     21,277                2,627      12.3
Tennessee                  399        2.2            430       6.5       1,811        9.9     18,368               18,368      100
Texas                    1,638        1.5          9,599       7.7       7,838        6.2    155,099              126,084      81.3
Virginia                     0          0          3,215      10.6       2,540        8.4     31,412               30,368      96.7
West Virginia               29          1            353      12.6         486       16.1      3,068                3,012      98.2

West                     4,690        1.9         30,706      13.5     27,689        11.3    262,804              244,248    92.9%
Alaska                      93        2.9            286      10.8        238           9      3,248                2,657      81.8
Arizona                    378        1.4          3,874      14.7      2,194         8.3     27,005               26,360      97.6
California               3,144        2.1         18,863      12.5     15,831        10.5    160,727              150,884      93.9
Colorado                   274        1.8          2,213      14.9      2,180        14.2     15,655               15,339        98
Hawaii                     120        3.2            100       2.7        746        19.8      3,761                3,761      100
Idaho                        1          0            547      14.3        728        19.1      3,961                3,813      96.3
Montana                     13        0.6            268       12         478        21.4      2,368                2,233      94.3
Nevada                      54        0.8            599      10.6        529         7.7      9,296                6,914      74.4
New Mexico                 138        2.7            803      15.6        427         8.5      5,158                5,028      97.5
Oregon                      65        0.8          2,032      21.8      1,796        19.6      9,933                9,181      92.4
Utah                        22        1.8            306       29         239        19.8      4,824                1,210      25.1
Washington                 381        2.6               /        /      1,925        13.1     14,682               14,682      100
Wyoming                      7        0.3            815      37.3        378        17.3      2,186                2,186      100




                                                                27
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                Appendix 2
Arrestee Interviews
Survey data from research projects can also shed light on treatment needs of people who are
booked into county jails. For example, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) project
collected data in the Oklahoma County jail over the period covering 2000-2003 (no data were
collected in fourth quarter of 2003). The Oklahoma County ADAM project was funded by the
National Institute of Justice. The research team also collected data in the Tulsa County jail in the
third quarter of 2001 and from the second quarter of 2002 to the fourth quarter of 2003. The
Tulsa ADAM project was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) through
the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS).

Data were collected in both sites for 14 days each quarter. All surveys were conducted within 24
hours of arrest (about one half were conducted within 4 hours of arrest). Among other things, the
researchers asked the recent arrestees questions about drug and mental health treatment history.
In addition, the researchers collected a urine sample that was later tested for the presence of
drugs. Similar methodology was used in all other 33 ADAM sites across the country, allowing
for city-to-city comparisons. The research subjects for this analysis were the 3,625 respondents
who provided urine data to the 2000-2003 OKC-ADAM project (2,544 male arrestees and 1,081
female arrestees) and the 1,769 respondents who provided urine data to the 2001-2003 Tulsa-
ADAM project (1,330 male arrestees and 439 female arrestees).

The research team examined the extent to which arrestees had experienced mental health
treatment before coming to jail (thereby suggesting a need for further treatment). Table A2,
shows the percent of recent male and female arrestees who needed mental health treatment.



         Table A2. Percent of Oklahoma County (2000-2003) and Tulsa County (2001-2003)
         Arrestees Who Reported Mental Health Treatment Prior to Arrest. Source: Oklahoma
         County and Tulsa County ADAM project.



          Question                                     Oklahoma County                Tulsa County
          Ever in mental health treatment                   475/3,701                    223/1,797
          program before?                                    12.8%                        13.0%


          Admitted to mental health                          66/475                       40/223
          treatment program in past 12                       13.8%                        17.9%
          months?



Mental Health Court
The Oklahoma County Mental Health Court was established in 2002 due to a substantial private
donation and under the direction of the Oklahoma County Mental Health Court Task Force. In
April, 2003, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded a grant to the Oklahoma Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services to establish and support mental health courts in
Oklahoma. The grant was made available to the Oklahoma County Crisis Intervention Center to
create the Oklahoma County mental health court.


                                                       28
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
This mental health court, the first of its kind in Oklahoma, was begun under the leadership of the
District Judge Nancy Coats. The program partners for the court include the Oklahoma County
District Court; Law Enforcement; Public Defender’s Office; District Attorney’s Office;
Oklahoma Mental Health Consumer Council; NAMI-OK; Mental Health service providers;
Department of Corrections and legislators, District Court, community, MH providers, legislators,
the District Attorney’s Office, the Department of Corrections, Police Chiefs Association, and the
Sheriff’s Association. The court works with individuals who have a serious mental illness and
who are at risk of incarceration because of a misdemeanor or low level felony crime that was a
function of their illness.

The State of Oklahoma has passed legislation allowing mental health courts, and jurisdictions
may request support from state. Subsequent to the passage of this bill, the Department Of Mental
Health and Substance Abuse Services also received an additional state appropriation to support
mental health court client services. The mental health court expects to handle about 25 cases per
year. To be eligible, the offenses must be a misdemeanor or a low-level felony. Due to the
limited resources, participants must be severely mentally ill (including schizophrenia, bi-polar
disorder, and major depression with a history of occurrence).




                                                       29
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                               Appendix 3

Table A3. Estimating the proportion of Oklahoma Department of Corrections population for
FY2003 serving sentences for offenses related to substance abuse.


                                           Inmates      Multiplier     Adjusted       SA Pct

                   Drug Distribution          4,072        100.0%         4,072        17.7%

                   Drug Possession            2,669        100.0%         2,669        11.6%

                   DUI                         966         100.0%           966         4.2%

                   Sub-totals                 7,707                       7,707        33.5%




                   Homicide                   2,347        45.8%          1,075         4.7%

                   Sex Offenses               2,554        27.6%            705         3.1%
                   Robbery                    1,748        30.6%            535         2.3%

                   Assault                    1,426        32.4%            462         2.0%
                   Burglary                   1,610        33.6%            541         2.4%
                   Larceny                    1,449        32.4%            470         2.0%
                   Stolen Vehicles             345         10.3%             36         0.2%

                   Sub-totals                11,480                       3,823        16.6%


                   Bogus Check                 184           0.0%              0          0%
                   Forgery                     529           0.0%              0          0%

                   Fraud                       368           0.0%              0          0%
                   Embezzlement                  69          0.0%              0          0%
                   Escape                      414           0.0%              0          0%

                   Kidnapping                  161           0.0%              0          0%
                   Arson                       138           0.0%              0          0%

                   Explosives                    46          0.0%              0          0%

                   Weapons                     690           0.0%              0          0%
                   Misc. Non-Violent           598           0.0%              0          0%

                   Misc Violent                345           0.0%              0          0%

                   Unclassified                276           0.0%              0          0%

                   Sub-total                  3,819          0.0%              0          0%


                   TOTALS                    23,006                      11,530        50.1%




                                                      30
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                               Appendix 4

OJA Substance Abuse Testing Statistics
As of August 7, 2003, the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs database (JOLTS) contained
3,435 substance abuse testing records (Davis 2004). There were 183 duplicate records where the
juvenile and test date were the same although the values for other variables were different. This
report references the 3,252 unduplicated records for substance abuse testing.

Part I. Overall Test Results
There were 3,252 urinalysis tests including 2,229 with negative results and 1,023 (31.5%) with
positive results. A total of 1,708 juveniles were tested with 992 having one test and 716 having
more than one test. Altogether, 41.4% of the 1,708 juveniles tested had at least one positive
test for one or more of the five drugs in the urinalysis panel.

    •   992 juveniles were tested only once:
            o 673 (67.8%) tested negative.
            o 319 (32.2%) tested positive.

    •   716 juveniles were tested more than once:
            o 328 (45.8%) never tested positive.
            o 110 (15.4%) tested positive every time they were tested.
            o 278 (38.8%) tested positive at times and negative at other times.

Of the 278 juveniles with a mixed test history:
    • The last recorded test of 192 (69.1%) was negative.
    • The last recorded test of 86 (30.9%) was positive.



                                Table A4. Drug Tests on Oklahoma OJA
                                Juveniles. Source: (Davis 2004)

                                                       Tested         Pct +

                                   2002                    877        35.9%
                                   2003                 2,375         29.8%
                                   Total                3,252         31.5%




                                                      31
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Table A5. Drug Test Results by Stated Reason for Test by Year for Oklahoma OJA Juveniles. Source:
Sebastian Davis, OJA


                                                 Number Tested                   Percent Positive
                                                  2002            2003            2002               2003
               No Reason Given                     350             NA            39.1%                NA
               Court Ordered                       235             640           31.1%          28.1%
               DPA Agreement                        42             237           28.6%          30.8%
               Treatment Plan                      175             968           26.3%          21.2%
               State Office Request                  5             151           40.0%          23.8%
               Staff Suspicion                      70             379           64.3%          30.2%




    Table A6. Drug Test Results by Drug by Year for Oklahoma OJA Juveniles. Source: Sebastian Davis,
    OJA

                                                 Number Tested                   Percent Positive
                                                  2002            2003               2002            2003
               Amphetamine                         877            2,375              3.0%            2.7%
               Methamphetamine                     877            2,375              3.3%            2.9%
               Marijuana                           877            2,375          34.1%              27.2%
               Cocaine                             877            2,375              1.6%            1.3%
               Opiates                             877            2,375              1.5%            1.7%


Part II. Testing of Juveniles in Residential Placement
OJA performed over 500 drug tests on juveniles in residential placements during 2002 and 2003.


                                      Table A7. Drug Tests on Oklahoma
                                      OJA Juveniles in Residential Placement.
                                      Source: Sebastian Davis, OJA.

                                                               Total       Tested
                                                              Tested      Positive
                                       2002                      93         12.9%
                                       2003                     410          6.8%
                                       Total                    503          8.0%




                                                         32
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
  Table A8. Proportion of Population in Residential Placement Tested for Drugs by Oklahoma OJA Facility
  Type. Source: Sebastian Davis, OJA

                                                         2002                                  2003
Facility Type                                      Pop    Test       Pos           Pop          Test        Pos
Foster Home (FH)                                    46       5     10.9%            40             4      10.0%
Therapeutic FH                                      75       4      5.3%            50            12      24.0%
Specialized Community Home                         148      36     24.3%           103            26      25.2%
Substance Abuse Center                              13       1      7.7%            26             1       3.8%
OJA Group Home                                     108       0      0.0%           108            34      31.5%
Adventure Program                                  155       0      0.0%            93            35      37.6%
Level E Group Home                                 362       2      0.5%           393            71      18.1%
Secure Institution                                 716      45      6.3%           688           226      32.8%
Regimented Treatment Program                       407       0      0.0%           164             1       0.6%



                            Table A9. Proportion of population in residential facilities
                            testing positive for drugs in 2003 by selected facility. Source:
                            Sebastian Davis, OJA

                                                                      Tests              +
                           Therapeutic Foster Homes                      12         33.0%
                                Cimarron Valley                            4        25.0%
                                Eagle Ridge                                2         0.0%
                                Human Skills & Resources                   4        75.0%
                                Western Plains                             2         0.0%


                           Specialized Community Homes                   26         34.6%
                                Dash SCH                                   6        66.7%
                                Guzman SCH                                 6        33.3%
                                Morrison SCH                               2        50.0%
                                Owens SCH                                  7        14.3%
                                Parnell SCH                                4        25.0%
                                Tate SCH                                   1         0.0%


                           Level E Group Homes                           71          8.5%
                                Bethesda Girls                           15          0.0%
                                Bethesda Boys                              5         0.0%
                                Cornerstone                              11          9.1%
                                Lighthouse                               10          0.0%
                                ROCMND                                   18         11.1%
                                YHC Sex Offender                           1      100.0%
                                YHC Mental Health                          5        40.0%
                                YHC Delinquent                             6         0.0%


                           Secure Institutions                          226          2.2%
                                COJC                                     78          2.6%
                                SWOJC                                   141          1.4%
                                               1
                                Rader RTP                                  5         0.0%
                                           1
                                Rader ITP                                  2        50.0%




                                                           33
   Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Part III. Testing of Juveniles Not in Residential Placement:
OJA performed 2,749 drug tests on juveniles who were not in residential placements during 2002
and 2003.


                                              Table A10
    Drug tests on Oklahoma OJA Juveniles not in Residential Placement. Source: Sebastian Davis, OJA

                                                     Tested           % Positive
                                   2002                784              38.6%
                                   2003               1,965             34 6%
                                   Total              2,749             35.8%




                                                      34
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                Appendix 5
1. Drug and Alcohol Related Arrests by County.
This section arrays information from the OSBI data reflecting drug- and alcohol-related arrests
for each Oklahoma county in FY 2002, the most recently available data (Table A11).


       Table A11. Drug- and alcohol-related arrests (Juvenile and Adult) in FY 2002 in Oklahoma.
       Source: OSBI - Uniform Crime Reports, 2003.


                                        Drug Related           Alcohol Related            Total Arrests

        County                         Juv        Adult         Juv        Adult          Juv        Adult
        Adair                            1           40          10          299           38          922
        Alfalfa                          0           27           1           32           22           87
        Atoka                            6          133           6          205           73          595
        Beaver                           1           43           4           68           27          170
        Beckham                         14          205          19          444          100        1,274
        Blaine                           1           49           2          205           18          467
        Bryan                           25          371          24        1,062          204        2,267
        Caddo                           16          182          15          765          150        1,363
        Canadian                        35          255          44          596          599        2,839
        Carter                          32          353          69        1,582          432        2,776
        Cherokee                         5          143          19        1,507           97        2,339
        Choctaw                          6           59          10          225           59          590
        Cimarron                         0           19           0           38            0           89
        Cleveland                      142          908         189        2,209        1,869        5,711
        Coal                             8          106           2          115           27          283
        Comanche                        36          468          10          485          875        4,979
        Cotton                           2          104           2          104           21          270
        Craig                           12          152           9          208           67          602
        Creek                           16          307          67        1,134          521        2,821
        Custer                           5          245           8          555           82        1,200
        Delaware                        13          125          16          317          147          919
        Dewey                            2           30           0           84            6          252
        Ellis                            0            6           0           35            2           50
        Garfield                        19          237          39          495          539        1,991
        Garvin                          18          188           6          378          166          947
        Grady                           33          192          56          532          353        1,244
        Grant                            0           13           0           44            3          189
        Greer                            1           30           3           44            8          110
        Harmon                           3           12           6           58           22          126
        Harper                           0           21           0           13            8           84
        Haskell                          0           88           5          203           26          497
        Hughes                           6           80           3          258           64          540
        Jackson                          4           69           9          256          114          896
        Jefferson                        0           40           2           62           26          215
        Johnston                         0           25           3          270           16          526
        Kay                             27          183          65        1,138        1,035        2,100
        Kingfisher                       9          116          10          130           55          490
        Kiowa                            6           45           4          124           81          556
        Latimer                          1           66           5          185           18          528
        Leflore                         19          363          29          802          138        2,040
        Lincoln                          2          111          12          331           44          649




                                                       35
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                        Drug Related           Alcohol Related             Total Arrests

        County                         Juv        Adult         Juv        Adult          Juv        Adult
        Logan                           23          165            3         177          107         659
        Love                             0           53            1         214           22         399
        Major                            0           41            0          57            0         220
        Marshall                         1           98           14         430           51         829
        Mayes                            5          150           18         467           75       1,038
        McClain                         13          260           30         406          266       1,171
        McCurtain                       15          219           26         677          135       1,381
        McIntosh                        10          183           11         221           74         726
        Murray                           4          108            9         191           70         500
        Muskogee                        27          537           47         946          516       4,149
        Noble                            3           67           11         191           27         308
        Nowata                           0           33            0          95           49         330
        Okfuskee                         7           43           27         392          205         960
        Oklahoma                       568        4,782          354       8,042        5,830      30,681
        Okmulgee                         5          160           31         580          191       1,080
        Osage                            2          152           25         335           63         935
        Ottawa                           3          226           19         716          210       1,916
        Pawnee                           4          152            5         260           26         804
        Payne                           31          394           58       1,385          330       2,889
        Pittsburg                        9          285           54         739          257       2,149
        Pontotoc                        11          191           32         714          206       1,473
        Pottawatomie                    13          163           35         847          296       2,280
        Pushmataha                       1           99            5         260           39         660
        Roger Mills                      0           11            0          21            1          59
        Rogers                          14          301           25         653          145       1,829
        Seminole                         7          135           25         745           84       1,654
        Sequoyah                        32          909           17         441          138       2,085
        Stephens                        16          211           25         430          237       2,088
        Texas                           12          154           19         545           90       1,031
        Tillman                          5           37            3          78          120         247
        Tulsa                          348        3,180          256       7,633        5,183      24,416
        Wagoner                          7          148           29         397          181       1,439
        Washington                      28          257           23         403          285       1,863
        Washita                          1           58            7          88           19         216
        Woods                            4           74            4          93           29         310
        Woodward                        11           86           37         351          261       1,058
        State of Oklahoma            1,766       20,331        2,068      47,817       23,970     142,425




2. Alternative Data from County Jails
While the research team relied upon arrest data from OSBI to estimate jail and court expenditures
associated with substance abuse in this report, it is also interesting to explore the extent to which
other methodologies might be used to make these estimates. They can be useful for estimating
costs associated with local policing (since jail bookings reflect work done by the local police).

a. Jail Intake Data
In Table A12, for example, it is observed that the lead offense for arrestees in the Tulsa County
Jail for 2003 and 2002. Similar data were also obtained from the Oklahoma County Jail and from
the Oklahoma County MIS department.


                                                       36
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                            Table A12. Jail Lead Offense Type for 2003 Bookings
                            in the Tulsa County Jail. Source: Chris Howard, David L.
                            Moss Criminal Justice Center.

                             Offense Type                             2003      2002
                             Alcohol                                 1,418     1,395
                             Drugs                                   4,703     3,390
                             DUI/DWI/APC                             1,638     1,953
                             All other offenses                     27,549    29,501
                             Total                                  35,308    36,239


Based on this information, one may estimate the percent of arrestees booked into the jail for
substance abuse-related offenses in 2003. If the categories called “alcohol” (n=1,418), “drugs”
(n=4,703), and “DUI/DWI/APC” (n=1,638) were included, then one would estimate that about
22% of arrests in Tulsa were related to domestic violence in 2003. The percent of substance
abuse-related bookings for 2002 is slightly lower (18.6%). These estimates may be under counts,
however, because it is not known how many of the other charges are occurred because of
substance abuse. In addition, if a person was charged twice (e.g., once with homicide and once
with drugs), only the homicide charge would show up in these data (only lead offenses are used
here). These are some of the difficulties of using the available secondary data that jails can
provide. In addition, inferring from one jail to all jails is problematic. Thus, other data was
sought to obtain that might inform our estimates.

b. Jail Survey Data
Survey data can provide more detail about the arresting offense (a conservative estimate) and can
provide information about the percentage of arrestees who enter the jail while under the influence
of a substance (a less conservative estimate). In addition, surveys can reveal the percent of
arrestees who are at risk for substance abuse and dependence. These values can be obtained
using estimations from jail staff or directly from the inmates themselves. Fortunately, two major
Oklahoma jails (in Oklahoma County and in Tulsa County) hosted a research project that
conducted surveys and urinalyses of arrestees soon after arrest. The federally funded research
project was called the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. Unfortunately, both
projects lost funding in 2004 and no long provide data, so the research team did not rely on them
for our estimates. Still, their findings provide useful context for our study.

The ADAM research team collected data in the Oklahoma County jail over the period covering
2000-2003, (no data were collected in fourth quarter of 2003). The Oklahoma County ADAM
project was funded by the National Institute of Justice. The research team also collected data in
the Tulsa County jail in the third quarter of 2001 and from the second quarter of 2002 to the
fourth quarter of 2003. The Tulsa County ADAM project was funded by the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) through the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS). In 2004, the federal government cancelled the national
ADAM project in spite of the usefulness of the data to local policy makers. ODMHSAS
continued data collection through July 2004 until the CSAT funding was exhausted. After this
date, no such useful data will be available.

Data were collected in both sites for 14 days each quarter. All surveys were conducted within 24
hours of arrest (about one half were conducted within 4 hours of arrest). The researchers
interviewed a sample of recent arrestees (asking questions about drug use, mental health
                                                       37
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
treatment, and drug market participation) and collected a urine sample. The urine was then tested
for the presence of drugs. In Tulsa, ADAM also tested for alcohol but technical difficulties (long
delay between submission of the sample and the subsequent test) make interpretation of the
alcohol data questionable. Similar methodology was used in all other 33 ADAM sites across the
country, allowing for city-to-city comparisons. The research subjects for this analysis were the
3,625 respondents who provided urine data to the 2000-2003 OKC-ADAM project (2,544 male
arrestees and 1,081 female arrestees) and the 1,769 respondents who provided urine data to the
2001-2003 Tulsa-ADAM project (1,330 male arrestees and 439 female arrestees).

These data also tell us about how these inmates obtain their drugs – an important piece of
information for a study that examines the cost of substance abuse. The drug market information
is presented in Appendix 6. The ADAM data was used to assess the number of arrestees who
enter the Oklahoma County and Tulsa County jails while under the influence of illicit substances.
The research team also examined the extent to which arrestees were at risk for substance abuse or
dependence. Finally, ADAM data was used to identify the distribution of offenses for which
arrestees were charged.

i. Percent of Arrestees Testing Positive for Drugs.
Previous research suggests that drugs are costly to society because of the relationship between
drugs and other crime. Goldstein’s seminal paper (1985), for example, outlined the three ways in
which drugs and violence are related. The first two ways are what most people think about.
First, by “economic compulsion,” Goldstein referred to those who commit crimes to obtain
money for drugs. Second, Goldstein described the psychopharmacology of drugs that causes
users to behave criminally simply because of the effect of the drug on the body (including the
disinhibiting effect of substance use). The third way that drugs are related to violence is what
Goldstein called “systemic violence.” Goldstein suggested that drug market interaction plays a
major role in the relationship between drugs and crime. The protection of turf and the violence
associated with buying, selling, and transporting drugs makes the study of drug markets
interesting for academics but vital for law enforcement personnel.

The first issue to examine is the amount of drug use by male and female arrestees in each county.
Table A13 shows the percentage of recent male and female arrestees testing positive for drugs in
the Oklahoma County jail from 2000-2003. About half of the arrestees in the sample test positive
for marijuana. This puts Oklahoma County among the highest marijuana sites in the national
ADAM project.

About one-quarter of Oklahoma City arrestees tested positive for cocaine while about 13% tested
positive for methamphetamine. All other positive tests for drugs fell below 10 percent. About
two-thirds of the Oklahoma City arrestees tested positive for at least one drug included in the
“NIDA 5” (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, and PCP). The gender comparisons
are also interesting for Oklahoma County. Males tested positive for marijuana at a significantly
higher rate than females, although female arrestees in Oklahoma County still ranked among the
highest in the country for testing positive for marijuana. Males also were more likely to test
positive for PCP, although the difference was not statistically significant.

On the other hand, females in Oklahoma County tested positive at a higher rate than did males for
almost all the other drugs. Specifically, females tested positive significantly more often for
cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, benzodiazepine and barbiturates. A higher percentage of
females test positive for Darvon and methadone as well (although the difference is not
significant). There is almost no difference between males and females in the rate of testing
positive for at least one of the NIDA 5 drugs.

                                                       38
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                   Table A13. Percent of Oklahoma County Arrestees in 2000-2003 Testing
                   Positive for Drugs (n=3,625). Source: Oklahoma County ADAM project.

                                                               Males             Females            Chi.Sq.
                                             Test +
                Drug                                         N=2,544             N=1,081       Significance
                 Marijuana                  49.7%                52.8%            42.5%              .000

                 Cocaine                    25.0%                23.1%            29.3%              .000
                 Opiates                     3.9%                 3.6%             4.8%              .020

                 Methamphetamine            12.9%                11.5%            16.2%              .000
                 Phencyclidine               4.0%                 4.1%             3.7%              .082
                 Benzodiazepine              9.8%                 9.1%            11.4%              .010
                 Darvon                      1.4%                 1.3%             1.7%              .059
                 Methadone                   0.4%                 0.3%             0.6%              .053

                 Barbiturates                0.7%                 0.5%             1.0%              .021
                 NIDA 5                       67.9               68.6%            66.4%              .073



Table A14 shows the percentage of recent male and female arrestees testing positive for drugs in
Tulsa County from 2001-2003. As in Oklahoma County, almost half of the arrestees in the Tulsa
County sample tested positive for marijuana. More than one in five Tulsa arrestees tested
positive for cocaine while about 17% tested positive for methamphetamine. All other positive
tests for drugs fell at or below 10 percent while almost two-thirds of the arrestees tested positive
for at least one of the NIDA 5 drugs.


                   Table A14. Percent of Tulsa County Arrestees in 2001-2003 Who Tested
                   Positive for Drugs (n=1,769). Source: Tulsa County ADAM project.


                                                                      Males                Females    Chi
                 Drug                            Test +             N=1,330                  N=439    Sq
                  Marijuana                     47.5%                    51.4%              35.8%    .000
                  Cocaine                       22.3%                    21.4%              25.1%    .061
                  Opiates                         5.4%                    4.7%               7.5%    .017

                  Methamphetamine               17.3%                    15.1%              23.9%    .000
                  Phencyclidine                   2.0%                    2.3%               1.4%    .172
                  Benzodiazepine                10.2%                     9.2%              13.2%    .013
                  Darvon                          1.5%                    1.4%               2.1%    .206
                  Methadone                       0.6%                    0.5%               0.9%    .219

                  Barbiturates                    0.3%                    0.2%               0.7%    .166
                  NIDA 5                             68.6                68.6%              68.6%       -

Like in Oklahoma County, there are interesting differences by gender for Tulsa arrestees as well.
Male arrestees tested positive for marijuana at a significantly higher rate than female arrestees in
Tulsa. Female arrestees in Tulsa County tested positive at a higher rate than did men for almost

                                                            39
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
all the other drugs. Females tested positive significantly more often for opiates,
methamphetamine and benzodiazepine. There were no significant differences by gender for
cocaine (although it is nearly significant), PCP, Darvon, methadone and barbiturates.
Interestingly, there is absolutely no difference between men and women in the rate of testing
positive for at least one of the NIDA 5 drugs (both are at 68.6%).

Thus, based on these tables, a liberal estimate of the percentage of arrestees who enter jails in
Oklahoma because of substance abuse is approximately 68%. This is probably an over-estimate,
however, since one cannot know that arrestees who have drugs in their system are incarcerated
for a substance abuse-related offense. A different measurement might examine the extent to
which arrestees abuse or are dependent upon drugs. This question is addressed in the next
section.

ii. Arrestee Risk for Substance Abuse and Dependence.
The ADAM survey was designed to assess the extent to which arrestees were at risk of abusing
substances or becoming dependent upon substances. A series of questions were asked of the
arrestees and a scale was created that calculated the risk of the arrestee abusing alcohol or drugs
and the risk that they are dependent on alcohol or drugs. The results for Tulsa County and
Oklahoma County are presented in Table A15.


              Table A15. Using ADAM Data to Estimate Percent of Arrestees who are At-Risk
              for Substance Abuse or Substance Dependence in the Oklahoma County Jail
              (2000-2003) and the Tulsa County Jail (2001-2003). Source: Oklahoma County
              and Tulsa County ADAM project.


                                                                         Males          Females
               Oklahoma County                                         (n=1,688)        (n=546)
               Alcohol
                  No risk for dependence or abuse                         31%             34%
                  At risk for abuse                                       15%             10%
                  At risk for dependence                                  55%             56%
               Drugs
                  No risk for dependence or abuse                         25%             22%
                  At risk for abuse                                       14%             12%
                  At risk for dependence                                  62%             67%


                                                                         Males          Females
               Tulsa County                                             (n=284)         (n=117)
               Alcohol
                  No risk for dependence or abuse                         33%             36%
                  At risk for abuse                                       15%             10%
                  At risk for dependence                                  53%             54%
               Drugs
                  No risk for dependence or abuse                         30%             19%
                  At risk for abuse                                       11%             16%
                  At risk for dependence                                  59%             65%



The findings for both counties are remarkably similar. About 54% of male arrestees are at risk
for alcohol dependence (55% in Oklahoma County and 53% in Tulsa County). About 55% of
female arrestees are at risk for alcohol dependence (56% in Oklahoma County and 54% in Tulsa
County). About 61% of male arrestees are at risk for drug dependence (62% in Oklahoma
County and 59% in Tulsa County). About 66% of female arrestees are at risk for drug
dependence (67% in Oklahoma County and 65% in Tulsa County). In both counties, only about
                                                       40
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
one in five female arrestees was not at risk for either abuse or dependence of illicit drugs, while
only about one in three was not at risk for either abuse or dependence of alcohol. Male arrestees
in both counties were about as likely to be at risk for abuse or dependence for drugs (about 73%)
compared to alcohol (about 69%).

Thus, based on these tables, another relatively liberal estimate of the percent of arrestees who
enter jails in Oklahoma who are at risk for substance abuse or dependence is approximately 71%.
This, too, is probably an over-estimate of the proportion of arrestees who are in the criminal
justice system because of a substance abuse-related offense. Referring to charges reported during
booking might be a better estimate of “substance abuse” related incarceration. This question is
addressed in the next section.


iii. Arrestee Charge Data.
In addition to charging information available directly from the jail, an alternative source of
charging information is the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program data. An
advantage of using the ADAM data set is that it provides information on up to three charges for
each booking (ranked in seriousness). Another advantage is that ADAM provides greater detail
on the specifics of the charge. For example, the ADAM data codes differentiate between drug
sales and drug possession as an offense while the jail data does not. More importantly, ADAM
data provides specific charge information for both state and municipal charges while the jail data
collapses all of the municipal charges. One disadvantage, however, is that ADAM only provides
data on a random sample of inmates who were interviewed over 56 days in a given year. Still, if
it is assumed that this is a random sample of arrestees, then these estimates should still be useful.

There are two ways to make these estimates using the ADAM data. First, one can calculate the
percentage of arrestees who were selected into the ADAM project who were charged with a
substance abuse offense. This would include individuals who were not interviewed (i.e. they
refused or were not available). The most common reason for arrestees not being available for
interview is their having been released. Second, one could use only those who participated fully
in the survey and provided a urine sample. The former data are probably preferable since they are
not biased (they are a truly random sample). Both sets of data are presented in Table A16.

The findings are remarkably consistent for both cities regardless of the sample that is used.
Among all arrestees selected into the sample, 41% of the Oklahoma County arrestees and 42% of
the Tulsa County arrestees had a substance abuse-related offense listed as one of their three
charges. This includes arrestees who did not complete the survey and urinalysis. Among all
arrestees who completed the survey, 42% of the Oklahoma County arrestees and 44% of the
Tulsa County arrestees had a substance abuse-related offense listed one of their three charges.

Thus, a relatively conservative estimate of the percent of people booked into county and
municipal jails would be about 42% (when survey data is used). The research team could make
this figure more realistic by completing the Harwood et al. multipliers, but since the ADAM data
are no longer available, the research team decided to simply rely on the available data from the
OSBI.




                                                       41
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Table A16. Using ADAM Data (First, Second, or Third Charge) to Estimate Percent of Bookings Related to
Substance Abuse in the Oklahoma County Jail (2000-2003) and the Tulsa County Jail (2001-2003). Source:
Oklahoma County and Tulsa County ADAM project.



                                                             Oklahoma County               Oklahoma County
                                                            Selected into Sample           Completed Survey
                                                                  (n=3,657)                    (n=2,436)



 Oklahoma County ADAM charge codes                          Charged                Pct     Charged            Pct
    Drug/Alcohol Offense                                        1512            41.3          1019           41.8
        DWI/DUI                                                  375            10.3           224            9.2
        Drug possession                                          837            22.9           588           24.1
        Drug sales                                               248               6.7         171            7.0
        Liquor                                                     7               0.2            6           0.3
        Possession of alcohol                                     37               1.0          24            1.0
        Other drug offenses                                        8               0.2            6           0.2



                                                                Tulsa County
                                                                                         Tulsa County Completed
                                                            Selected into Sample
                                                                                             Survey (n=1,760)
                                                                  (n=3,006)




 Tulsa County ADAM charge codes                             Charged              Pct       Charged            Pct
    Drug/Alcohol Offense                                      1,257             41.8           773           43.9
        DWI/DUI                                                  415            13.8           212           12.1
        Drug possession                                          620            20.6           410           23.3
        Drug sales                                               147               4.9         106            6.0
        Liquor                                                     3               0.1            1          0.06
        Possession of alcohol                                     45               1.5          23            1.3
        Other drug offenses                                       27               0.9          21            1.2




                                                       42
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                Appendix 6

Drug Market Patterns for Oklahoma Arrestees
In Table A17, observes data showing where the Oklahoma County male and female arrestees
reported obtaining their drugs. The patterns were different depending on the type of drug that
was being purchased. The majority of the drug sales reported by the arrestees took place inside
someone’s house or apartment. Only heroin (at 43% for males and 50% for females) had less
than two-thirds of the sales taking place in the house or apartment. Note, however, that only 20
of the arrestees admitted to obtaining heroin in the past 30 days. Still, heroin seems to be a much
more public marketplace than the other drugs for both male and female arrestees in Oklahoma
City, since about one-half of the sales took place on the street, in outdoor areas, or, for men only,
in public buildings.


Table A17. Drug Market Dynamics in Past 30 Days among Oklahoma County Arrestees in 2000-2003.
Percent of male and female arrestees reporting circumstances under which each drug was obtained (row
percentages). Source: Oklahoma County ADAM project.


                                                Public      Abandoned           House/       Street/    Outdoor
 Drug Obtained              Gender        N    Building       Building       Apartment        Road         Area
                                  M     607         12%              1%            66%          12%           8%
 Marijuana
                                  F     151         13%              0%            73%           7%           8%
                                  M     215          7%              2%            65%          18%           7%
 Crack Cocaine
                                  F     128         13%              2%            68%           9%           6%
                                  M     117         14%              2%            70%           6%           8%
 Powder Cocaine
                                  F      46         17%              0%            76%           4%           2%
                                  M      14         14%              0%            43%          21%          21%
 Heroin
                                  F       6          0%              0%            50%          33%          17%
                                  M     147          9%              2%            80%           3%           4%
 Methamphetamine
                                  F      62          7%              0%            77%           3%           8%



Besides heroin, the most common drug obtained on the street or road in Oklahoma City was crack
cocaine (18% for males and 9% for females). Females in Oklahoma City seemed more likely to
obtain crack cocaine in public buildings than male arrestees. In Oklahoma City, male arrestees
seemed more likely to obtain marijuana on the street, putting them at greater risk of apprehension.
Otherwise, the location of drug purchases among Oklahoma City male and female arrestees
seems fairly similar.

Table A18 presents data showing where the Tulsa County male and female arrestees reported
obtaining their drugs. Like in Oklahoma City, the patterns were different depending on the type
of drug that is being purchased. The majority of the drug sales reported by the Tulsa arrestees
took place inside someone’s house or apartment. Unlike Oklahoma City, heroin was most likely
to be obtained in the house or apartment (86% for males and 75% for females). Note, however,
that only 11 of the arrestees admitted to obtaining heroin in the past 30 days. Still, heroin
transactions appear to be much more private in Tulsa than in Oklahoma City.



                                                       43
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Table A18. Drug Market Dynamics in Past 30 Days among Tulsa County Arrestees in 2001-2003. Percent
of male and female arrestees reporting circumstances under which each drug was obtained (row
percentages). Source: Tulsa County ADAM project.


                                                  Public      Abandoned        House/         Street/     Outdoor
Drug Obtained                 Gender       n     Building      Building       Apartment       Road         Area
                                 M        313      10%            2%             62%            9%          14%
Marijuana
                                 F        53        9%            0%             79%            6%          7%

                                 M        107      11%            2%             54%           23%          7%
Crack Cocaine
                                 F        41       12%            0%             71%            2%          5%

                                 M        47       17%            0%             68%            4%          9%
Powder Cocaine
                                 F         9       22%            0%             67%            0%          0%
                                 M         7        0%            0%             86%            0%          14%
Heroin
                                 F         4        0%            25%            75%            0%          0%
                                 M        109      13%            1%             72%            6%          6%
Methamphetamine
                                 F        32       13%            0%             81%            3%          3%



Obtaining crack cocaine in Tulsa is also different from Oklahoma City. In Tulsa, male arrestees
reported obtaining crack cocaine in public buildings (11%) and on the street (23%) more
commonly than arrestees in Oklahoma County (7% and 18% respectively). This might reflect
differential policing practices in the two cities, where the Oklahoma City police may have driven
male crack purchasers indoors. On the other hand, females who obtained crack cocaine in Tulsa
were less likely buy it from a person in public (2% in Tulsa compared to 9% in Oklahoma City).
Female arrestees in Tulsa were also more likely to have obtained methamphetamine in a house or
apartment (81%) than male arrestees (72%). Otherwise, the location of drug purchases among
Tulsa male and female arrestees seems fairly similar.

When considering the drug economy, one might be tempted to assume that illicit drug markets are
conducted primarily a with cash transaction. That is not the case. In fact, among the arrestees
who reported having obtained drugs in the previous 30 days, more than half reported doing so
without using cash. Females tend to participate in non-cash transactions more often than men.
Tables A19 and A20 how the percent of Oklahoma City and Tulsa arrestees who obtained drugs
without using cash by gender.

There are three significant differences. Female arrestees in Oklahoma are significantly more
likely to obtain marijuana, powder cocaine, and methamphetamine without using cash than are
male arrestees. Female arrestees in Oklahoma are also more likely to obtain crack cocaine and
heroin without using cash than are male arrestees, but these difference are not significant.




                                                       44
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Table A19. Drug Market Dynamics in Past 30 Days among Oklahoma County Arrestees in 2000-2003.
Percent reporting non-cash transaction for male and female arrestees who reported obtaining drugs in the
previous 30 days. Source: Oklahoma County ADAM project.


                                                                             Chi
                                                     Male    Female       Square          P
                       Marijuana                     77%        85%          13.9      0.00

                       Crack                         60%        65%            1.3     0.26

                       Powder Cocaine                64%        79%            7.2     0.01

                       Heroin                        55%        77%          1.80      0.18

                       Methamphetamine               77%        84%          2.65      0.10




Table A20. Drug Market Dynamics in Past 30 Days among Tulsa County Arrestees in 2001-2003. Percent
reporting non-cash transaction for male and female arrestees who reported obtaining drugs in the previous
30 days. Source: Tulsa County ADAM project.


                                                                             Chi
                                                     Male     Female      Square          P

                       Marijuana                     76%         90%         15.6      0.00

                       Crack                         73%         75%         2.99      0.22

                       Powder Cocaine                61%         76%         6.90      0.03

                       Heroin                        67%         56%         0.23      0.63

                       Methamphetamine               77%         92%         9.80      0.00




The survey also asks the arrestees how they obtained the drugs if they did not use cash. For both
male and female arrestees in each site, the most common non-cash transaction for each drug was
receiving it as a gift. These data are presented in Table A21. For each drug in each city, female
arrestees were more likely to obtain drugs as a gift (except for heroin in Tulsa). The second most
common non-cash transaction was involvement in the drug trade (harvesting or making the drug,
fronting the drug, or trading other drugs). Females are underrepresented in this category. In
Oklahoma County, for example, 12% of the males who obtained methamphetamine did so by
making it compared to 4% of the females who obtained methamphetamine.

Similarly, in Tulsa County, 12% of the males who obtained methamphetamine did so by making
it compared to 6% of the females who obtained methamphetamine. Almost no female arrestees
reported being fronted drugs for sale. The highest percentage of drug fronting for females is 6%
of the Oklahoma County females who obtained methamphetamine. For males, however, this
technique is much more common. For female arrestees also traded sex for some drugs crack
(13% in Tulsa County and 6% in Oklahoma County) and methamphetamine (5% in Tulsa County
and 2% in Oklahoma County).

                                                       45
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Table A21. Drug Market Dynamics in Past 30 Days among Oklahoma County and Tulsa County Arrestees
in 2000-2003. Percent of non-cash transactions that were the result of a gift for males and females. Source:
Oklahoma County and Tulsa County ADAM project.


                                                      Oklahoma County                Tulsa County
                                                      Male     Female            Male      Female
               Marijuana                              74%           85%          66%          74%

               Crack                                  54%           62%          45%          49%
               Powder Cocaine                         63%           76%          61%          76%
               Heroin                                 53%           70%          67%          56%
               Methamphetamine                        58%           71%          77%          92%


An examination of the rate at which purchases are made is instructive for law enforcement
personnel since the transactions (1) cause the most number of civil problems and complaints, and
(2) are most likely to result in arrest. The data in Table A22 present information about the
frequency of drug purchases by drug using arrestees in the 30 days prior to arrest for each city.
The question was only asked of people who said that they had bought drugs in the previous 30
days.


Table A22. Drug Market Dynamics among Oklahoma County and Tulsa County Arrestees in 2000-2003.
Among recent drug buyers, average number of days (out of previous 30) that drugs were purchased.
Source: Oklahoma County and Tulsa County ADAM project. * p<0.10 ** p<0.01


                                                      Oklahoma County           Tulsa County
                                                      Male     Female           Male      Female
               Marijuana                                7.0          6.6         6.04           5.9
               Crack                                   10.8         12.1         14.4          15.5
               Powder Cocaine                           5.4        9.1**          5.1          2.8*
               Heroin                                  10.3         15.5         14.5           5.5
               Methamphetamine                          8.7          7.8          7.8           9.0



In Oklahoma County, heroin and crack cocaine are purchased the most frequently (about one out
of every 3 days for each drug). In Tulsa, there is a similar but more frequent pattern for crack
cocaine and heroin. Both drugs are bought about every other day. Since so few females in Tulsa
reported buying heroin (n=4), the data is not interpreted. The only significant difference by
gender is the opposite for the two counties. In Oklahoma County, females who buy powder
cocaine do so 9 days per week, almost twice the rate of males (5 days per week). In Tulsa
County, male arrestees purchase powder cocaine at a rate of 5 days per month (as in Oklahoma
County) while the females report purchasing powder cocaine at a rate of only three days per
week. While this difference is statistically significant, caution is urged in over interpreting this
finding since only 8 female arrestees reported buying powder cocaine in the previous 30 days.




                                                       46
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                Appendix 7
         Table A23. Police Reports Domestic Violence by County in Oklahoma, 1998-2000

                                                                   Avg          Per
                                                     2000
                                                               Reports     100,000
                                                Population
                                 County                      1998-2000   population
                                 State           3,450,654      21,203         614
                                 Kay                48,080         844        1,755
                                 Comanche          114,996       1,818        1,581
                                 Greer               6,061          82        1,353
                                 Jackson            28,439         370        1,301
                                 Garfield           57,813         674        1,166
                                 Washington         48,996         478          976
                                 Sequoyah           38,972         333          854
                                 Tulsa             563,299       4,698          834
                                 McCurtain          34,402         284          826
                                 Woodward           18,486         145          784
                                 Muskogee           69,451         541          779
                                 Grady              45,516         344          756
                                 Pottawatomie       65,521         451          688
                                 Bryan              36,534         249          682
                                 Carter             45,621         311          682
                                 Custer             26,142         177          677
                                 Latimer            10,692          69          645
                                 Love                8,831          56          634
                                 Okmulgee           39,685         232          585
                                 Harmon              3,283          19          579
                                 Seminole           24,894         144          578
                                 Canadian           87,697         506          577
                                 Garvin             27,210         157          577
                                 Cotton              6,614          38          575
                                 Major               7,545          43          570
                                 Coal                6,031          34          564
                                 Cherokee           42,521         228          536
                                 Stephens           43,182         231          535
                                 Pontotoc           35,143         177          504
                                 Pittsburg          43,953         221          503
                                 Blaine             11,976          60          501
                                 Delaware           37,077         181          488
                                 Jefferson           6,818          33          484
                                 Murray             12,623          61          483
                                 Pushmataha         11,667          56          480
                                 Craig              14,950          71          475
                                 LeFlore            48,109         224          466
                                 Lincoln            32,080         146          455
                                 Rogers             70,641         318          450
                                 Osage              44,437         198          446
                                 Kingfisher         13,926          62          445
                                 Oklahoma          660,448       2,938          445
                                 Caddo              30,150         134          444
                                 Marshall           13,184          56          425
                                 Choctaw            15,342          65          424
                                 Hughes             14,154          60          424
                                 Kiowa              10,227          43          420
                                 Payne              68,190         285          418
                                 Okfuskee           11,814          49          415
                                 McClain            27,740         114          411
                                 Alfalfa             6,105          25          410
                                 Beckham            19,799          80          404
                                 Ottawa             33,194         133          401
                                 Tillman             9,287          37          398
                                 Logan              33,924         132          389
                                 McIntosh           19,456          73          375
                                 Woods               9,089          34          374
                                 Haskell            11,792          43          365
                                 Pawnee             16,612          60          361
                                 Texas              20,107          72          358
                                 Mayes              38,369         135          352
                                 Dewey               4,743          16          337
                                 Cleveland         208,016         644          310
                                 Creek              67,367         207          307
                                 Nowata             10,569          32          303
                                 Washita            11,508          33          287
                                 Adair              21,038          59          280
                                 Atoka              13,879          37          267
                                 Wagoner            57,491         153          266
                                 Harper              3,562           9          253
                                 Beaver              5,857          13          222
                                 Johnston           10,513          23          219
                                 Noble              11,411          25          219
                                 Grant               5,144           8          156
                                 Roger Mills         3,436           5          146
                                 Ellis               4,075           5          123
                                 Cimarron            3,148           2           64




                                                       47
Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
                                                Appendix 8

Estimating Domestic Violence Rates Using Jail Survey Data
One source of information is the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program data (See
Appendix 5). One advantage of using the ADAM data set is that it provides information on up
three charges (ranked in seriousness). Another advantage is that it provides greater detail on the
specifics of the charge. For example, the ADAM data codes “violation of protective order” as an
offense. One disadvantage, however, is that it only provides data on a random sample of inmates
who were interviewed over 56 days in a given year. In addition, the project has been dissolved,
so no new data are available.

There are two ways to make estimates using the ADAM data. First, one can calculate the
percentage of arrestees who were selected into the ADAM project who were charged with a
domestic violence offense. This would include individuals who were not interviewed (i.e., they
refused or were not available). The most common reason for arrestees not being available for
interview is their having been released. Second, one could use only those who participated fully
in the survey and provided a urine sample. In addition, one could examine the percent of male
arrestees charged with domestic violence charges as well, but since the research project are
interested in calculating the total cost of domestic violence, it makes more sense to include data
for males and females. The data is presented for each sample category but use the preferred
sample of arrestees selected for the study to create our multiplier since it is a true random sample.

Table A24 presents findings from Tulsa County and Oklahoma County ADAM data sets
(including data for male arrestees only). The findings are similar no matter how the data are
examined, with Tulsa County exhibiting slightly higher percentages of bookings for domestic
violence-related offenses. When data from 2000-2003 in Oklahoma County is examined, it yields
that about 8.8% of the arrestees selected into the ADAM sample (n=3,657) were booked for a
domestic violence charge (as one of their first three offenses). Among the Oklahoma County
arrestees that completed the survey and urine screen (n=2,436), about 9.6% were booked for a
domestic violence offense (as one of their first three offenses).

Table A24. Using ADAM Data (First, Second, or Third Charge) to Estimate Percent of Bookings Related to
Domestic Violence in the Oklahoma County Jail (2000-2003) and the Tulsa County Jail (2001-2003).
Source: Oklahoma County and Tulsa County ADAM project.

                         Oklahoma County ADAM                           Sample      % DV
                         Selected to be interviewed                       3,657       8.8
                         Completed interview and urine                    2,436       9.6
                         Males selected to be interviewed                 2,501       9.9
                         Males who completed interview                    1,657      10.8

                         Tulsa County ADAM
                         Selected to be interviewed                       3,006       9.9
                         Completed interview and urine                    1,760      10.1
                         Males selected to be interviewed                 2,290      10.3
                         Males who completed interview                    1,323      11.3


In the Tulsa County ADAM data for 2001-2002, it is observed that about 9.9% of all arrestees
selected into the sample (n=3,006) had been booked on a domestic violence charge (among their
first three offenses). Among those who completed the survey and urinalysis (n=1,760), about

                                                         48
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
10.1% had been charged with a domestic violence offense (among their first three charges).
Thus, about 9.4% of the Oklahoma County and Tulsa County arrestees selected into the sample
had been arrested for a domestic violence offense.

Thus, using data available from the Oklahoma County and Tulsa County jail provided us with an
estimate of approximately 4-5% of all arrests being related to domestic violence while using
ADAM data provides estimates about twice as high (an average of 9.4% of those selected to be
interviewed). Since ADAM data will no longer be collected, though, the research team relied
upon the available jail data to create our multiplier.

ADAM Domestic Violence Addendum
The following information is provided for information purposes only
and is not used to calculate multipliers. Another way to assess the
impact of domestic violence on the criminal justice system is to survey
recent arrestees about their victimization experiences.

From December 2000 to May 2002, the Oklahoma County Arrestee
Drug Abuse Monitoring project used female interviewers to conduct
in-person interviews of 439 female arrestees. The project was entitled
the “Arrestee Health and Relationships Study” (Malcoe and
Damphousse, 2002). The interview lasted between 20 and 30 minutes
and each respondent was paid $5 cash for participation. To be eligible,
the respondent must have participated in the ADAM survey (provided
a urine sample) and she must have had an intimate relationship with a man lasting at least 6
months in the past year. The goal of the project was to assess individual and joint effects of
women’s and men’s alcohol and drug use on IPV against women and to determine the prevalence
of various types of trauma experienced by female arrestees. The findings were startling.

Using a slightly modified version of the Revised Conflict Tactic Scales, the researchers collected
data on past year frequency of various types of physical and sexual IPV, lifetime prevalence of
IPV by any partner, and of IPV-related injuries. The data concern both male-to-female IPV and
female-to-male IPV. In addition, data were collected on power-control tactics used by the woman
and her partner.

Physical IPV was measured by asking “In the past 12 months (or lifetime), how often did
(partner): Push or shove you in anger? (minor), Slap you? (minor), Twist your arm or pull your
hair? (minor), Punch or hit you with his fist or something that could hurt? (Severe), Kick you?
(severe), or Beat you up? (severe).

Sexual IPV was measured by asking “In the past 12 months (or lifetime), how often did (partner):
Insist on having oral, anal, or vaginal sex with you, when you definitely did not want to, but did
not use force? (minor), Use verbal threats to make you have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with him?
(severe), or Use force, like hitting you, holding you down, or using a weapon, to make you have
oral, anal, or vaginal sex with him? (severe).

Injury IPV was measured by asking “In the past 12 months (or lifetime), how often did: Your
partner cause you to have a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with him? (minor), Your
partner made you pass out by hitting you in the head? (severe), You go to the hospital or see a
doctor because of injuries caused by your partner? (severe), or you need to see a doctor because
of injuries caused by your partner but did not go? (severe).

                                                       49
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence
Lifetime prevalence. Approximately 88% of female arrestees reported some type of lifetime
physical abuse from their partners and a total of 82% of all female arrestees reported severe
physical IPV. Nearly two-thirds of women said that, in their lifetime, a partner had beaten them
up. Almost 40% of women had at least one partner in their lifetime who forced them into sex or
who threatened them to make them have sex.

The vast majority of women reported experiencing partner-perpetrated injuries in their lifetime,
and over two-thirds of women reported severe IPV-related injury. Approximately 40% of women
reported going to a hospital in their lifetime due to an injury caused by their male partner.
Needless to say, these are EXTREMELY high rates of partner-perpetrated injury.

Previous year. A total of 41.8% of all women reported at least one instance of severe physical
IPV in the previous year. This is in contrast to national data showing an annual prevalence of 1-
3% of all women reporting severe physical IPV. Approximately one-quarter of female arrestees
reported sexual coercion or abuse by a male partner in the past year, and 9% reported being
forced into sex or receiving threats by a partner to make them have sex. Approximately 40% of
participants reported some type of partner-perpetrated injury in the past year and over a quarter of
all women reported at least one severe injury in the past year.

Nearly 20% of all women reported their partner giving them a black eye or bloody lip in the past
year; 12.5% of women reported getting a black eye or bloody lip on 2 or more occasions (these
are not mutually exclusive categories). A total of 4% of women reported a miscarriage in the past
year due to a fight with her partner. Over 15% of women reported needing to see a doctor at least
once in the past year because of injuries caused by their partner, but did not go. Over 11% of
women reported that this occurred on at least 2 occasions.

A total of 12% of women said they went to a hospital or saw a doctor at least once in the past year
because of injuries caused by their partner. Half of these women (6% of total) reported receiving
medical attention 2 or more times in the past year due to partner-perpetrated injuries.

In summary, female arrestees appear to have extremely high levels of lifetime and past year
physical and sexual IPV, and IPV-related injury. Thus, female arrestees are in great need of
mental health and social services to address their current and past experiences of intimate partner
violence.




                                                       50
 Governor’s and Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence

								
To top