Docstoc

An Evaluation of Three DUI Courts in Georgia

Document Sample
An Evaluation of Three DUI Courts in Georgia Powered By Docstoc
					        An Evaluation of Three
        DUI Courts in Georgia
                  James C. Fell
      Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation
                  Calverton, MD, USA
             Lifesavers 2011 Conference
                     Phoenix, AZ
                   March 27, 2011
                                          Pacific Institute fo r Research and Evaluatio n




              Acknowledgement
    This research was sponsored by the National
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration
     (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation,
     in Washington, DC, under contract number
     DTNH22-02-D-95121. The opinions expressed
     in this presentation are those of the authors
        d t             il th     f NHTSA.
     and not necessarily those of NHTSA
    Ms. DeCarlo Ciccel of NHTSA served as
     Technical Manager of the project and
     contributed as a co-author to the scientific
     article. Scott Tippetts from PIRE served as
     senior statistician and co-author of the final
     report.




                   Drug Courts
 Rehabilitative Approach to Justice
 Intensive Drug Treatment
 Close Supervision
 Offender Accountability
 Non-Violent Drug Offenders
 Alternative to Jail
 Evidence of Reduced Recidivism
 Status in the USA:
  1989 – 1 Drug Court
  1994 – 12 Drug Courts
  2008 – Over 2000




                                                                                            1
                        Background
   DWI Courts
         Modeled   after Drug Courts
   Elements
         Non-violent  repeat DWI offenders
         Agree  to requirements or incarcerated
         Frequent contact with the judge
         Intensive supervision probation
         Substance abuse treatment
         Transdermal alcohol monitoring
         Random alcohol/drug testing
         Counseling in lifestyle changes
         Positive reinforcement




             Evidence of Effectiveness

       Numerous Drug Courts Found Effective
         Six Drug Courts in NY: 29% reduction in
          recidivism over 3-year post-arrest period
             p       y (AZ)
        Maricopa County ( ) DUI Court
         421 randomly assigned offenders
         Compared    to standard probation
         Preliminary Analysis: Recidivism rate of DUI
          Court offenders approximately half the rate of
          control offenders: after 1 year, after 2 years
          and after 3 years




             Evidence of Effectiveness
       Bernalillo County (NM) DWI/Drug Court:
          Judge Michael Kavanaugh
          341 DWI Court graduates
          Standard Probation offenders served as
           control
          Reported 7% recidivism in first year for DWI
           Court graduates vs. 13% for standard
           probation
       Michigan DUI Courts (three):
          Reported  7.7% of DUI court participants
           rearrested after 2 years compared to 24% of
           repeat offenders in traditional programs.




                                                           2
         Individualized Sanctions
   Rockdale County (GA)
      Judge  William F. Todd
      Sanctions   tailored to offender
      Electronic monitoring, intensive supervision
       probation frequent breath testing, work
       probation,                   testing
       release, treatment, victim impact panel, etc.
      Standard probation offenders served as
       control
      6% recidivism in first year for the Todd Court
       graduates vs. 11% for standard probation




         U.S. Government Priority

   The establishment of DUI Courts is one of
    NHTSA’s four priority areas in dealing
    with impaired driving
   Three DUI Courts were established in
    Georgia with NHTSA grant funding in
    early 2003
     HallCounty/Gainesville
     ClarkeCounty/Athens
     Chatham County/Savannah




                   Objectives
             (Three Year Study)
   Determine the relative effectiveness of the
    GA DUI Courts in reducing offender
    recidivism

   Identify factors that help predict
    recidivism

   Compare costs associated with DUI
    Courts vs. traditional sanction programs




                                                        3
                 Technical Approach
    Group          DUI Court            Retrospective       Contemporaneous
                                      Comparison Group       Control Group

Description   Offenders in Athens,   From same 3           From Neighboring
              Savannah, and          counties. Arrested    counties arrested for
              Gainesville,           between July 2000     DUI since January
              sentenced to DUI       and June 2002,        2003 meeting same
              Court, since the DUI   meeting same          requirements as DUI
              Court began in early   requirements as DUI   Court group
              2003                   Court Offender
                                     Group                 Will attend the DUI-
                                                           Risk- Reduction and
                                                           Multiple-Offender
                                                           Program
Number        463 referred           300 (100 from each    300 (100 from each
              382 compliant          county)               neighboring county)
              ~300 completed as of
              4/06




              Technical Approach:
            DUI Court Offender Groups

   DUI Court Graduates – assigned to DUI Court and
    completed requirements

                                g
    DUI Court Terminated – assigned to DUI Court but
    terminated for cause (e.g. re-arrest; failing
    alcohol/drug tests repeatedly; left the area; died;
    etc.)

   Intent-to-Treat DUI Offenders – DUI Court
    graduates and terminated




          Technical Approach:
    DUI Offender Comparison Groups

   Retrospective DUI Offenders – would have
    qualified for DUI Court but convicted before DUI
    Courts established in the three counties
    (     h d         C      ff d     b          d
    (matched to DUI Court offenders by age, gender,
    priors); received standard probation program

   Contemporary DUI Offenders – DUI offenders in
    three matched counties in Georgia convicted at
    same time (matched with DUI Court offenders by
    age, gender, prior DUI convictions)




                                                                                   4
                Technical Approach
                   Data Sources
       Court Records

       Driver Records

       Criminal Records

       Socioeconomic Data

       Compliance with various phases and sanctions

       Alcohol/drug test results

       Other




                Analysis Approach
   Measures of Recidivism
     Re-arrest    for DUI/DWI
     Arrest   /citation for any alcohol/drug-related
      offense
     Arrest/citation for other offenses (including
      traffic)
     Convictions for any of the above
     Relapse in sobriety (measured or self-
      reported)
     Incidence of drinking 5+ drinks in a session
     Others




          Approach to Data Analysis

 Survival Analyses:
    Cox Regression
    Kaplan-Meier Method


         These techniques allow us to
         (1) Differentiate between those offenders
             who recidivate and those who do not;
             and
         (2) Differentiate recidivists who re-offend
             sooner vs. those who resist for a
             longer period




                                                        5
Chatham County Recidivism Rates




 Clarke County Recidivism Rates




  Hall County Recidivism Rates




                                  6
 Recidivism Rate for DUI and Other Alcohol
     Offenses Pooled Across Counties




Overall DUI Court Program (Intent to Treat:
  Graduates and Terminated Combined)
             Recidivism Rates




Recidivism Rates for Georgia DUI Offenders

     35
                                                                         4.3

     30

                                                                         7.5

     25

                         3.7                             6.9
     20
                                                                        11.3

                         9.0                             5.5
     15                                                                             4th year
                                         2.8
                                                                                    3rd year
     10                                                  5.6
                                         6.1
             2.1                                                                    2nd year
                         7.1
                                                                        12.4
     5       4.0                                                                    1st year
                                         4.0             7.6
             1.9         4.0
                                         2.2
             1.0
     0
          Graduates   Terminated   Intent to Treat   Contemporary   Retrospective
                                    (Graduates +
                                     Terminated)




                                                                                               7
         Reductions in Recidivism Rates

                 DUI          DUI         DUI           DUI
                Grads        Grads      Combined      Combined
                 vs            vs          vs            vs
               Contemp       Retro      Contemp         Retro
          0


         25
                                         38.2%


         50
                63.5%                                      65.0%

                             79.3%
         75


        100




     Analysis of Factors that Predict
               Recidivism
   Demographics
   Repeat offenses (type and “severity” of offense)
   Addiction status (assessment)
   Alcohol/drug test results
   Elements of program completed (compliance)
   Length of treatment
   Use of interlocks
   Use of transdermal alcohol monitoring (e.g.
    SCRAM)
   Lifestyle changes
   Frequency of contacts
   Other




              Predictors of Recidivism
                                 B   se(B) Wald       df      signif    Exp(B)
    Age
    (centered log function) -0.2680 0.1025 6.84       1       .009      0.765
    Priors
    (sqrt transform function) 0.6001 0.1196 25.18     1       .000      1.822
    [increased likelihood,
    relative to 1 prior]
        i
    2 priors                   28 2%
                               28.2%
    3 priors                   55.2%
    4 priors                   82.2%
    5 priors                  110.0%
    6 priors                  138.7%
    7 priors                  168.5%
    Variables not in the Equation              Wald   df       signif
    Sex                                     0.00205    1         .964
    Race                                    2.21119    3         .530
    Aggrav-DUI/high-BAC/
    drug                                    0.79332       1      .373




                                                                                 8
             Predictors of Recidivism

       AGE – youngest offenders (aged 18-25)
        most likely to recidivate.
       PRIOR DUI CONVICTIONS – each
        additional prior DUI conviction makes
        offender 28% more likely to recidivate




         Repeat DUI Arrests Prevented

       Number of additional re-arrests that would
        have been necessary to raise the DUI
        Court Offenders rate to that of the
            p       g    p
        comparison groups rate:
         Three DUI Courts prevented between 47 and
          112 new arrests
         Saved Georgia costs for jail, treatment,
          probation and crashes.




             Summary of DUI Courts
 Modeled after Drug Courts which have
  been shown to reduce recidivism
 Most components of DWI Courts:
    intensive supervision probation;
    alcohol and drug use monitoring; and
    treatment
          have been shown to be effective
 Preliminary evaluations of DWI Courts
  showing reductions in recidivism by
  about 50%




                                                      9
       Summary of DUI Courts

 Need more evaluations in peer-
  reviewed publications
 Need analysis of what components of
  DWI Courts have the most effect (every
  Court h diff
  C                  t           t ) I
       t has different components). Is it
  the intensive supervision probation?
  The frequent alcohol/drug testing? The
  frequent contact/caring of the judge?
 Cost/Benefit Analyses need to be
  conducted. Are they worth the cost?




      Contact Information
                James C. Fell
     Pacific Institute for Research and
               Evaluation (PIRE)
                        Drive,
     11720 Beltsville Drive Suite 900
        Calverton, MD 20705-3111
                301-755-2746
            E-mail: fell@pire.org



                                           ac
                                          P ific Institute fo r Researc h and Evaluatio n




                                                                                            10

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:6/19/2011
language:English
pages:10