0% found this document useful (0 votes)

107 views293 pages

Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Lindquist, Rempel, Willison, Downey and Fahrney (2011)

This document provides a summary of a study evaluating adult drug courts across multiple sites. It was authored by Shelli B. Rossman and others and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes, impacts, and costs of adult drug courts using a multi-site research design. Data was collected from over 20 drug courts across 10 states and comparison groups. The document describes the study overview, research questions, data collection methods, measures, and design that were used to evaluate the adult drug court programs.

Uploaded by

shaun.stephen.yates1991

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

107 views293 pages

Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Lindquist, Rempel, Willison, Downey and Fahrney (2011)

Uploaded by

shaun.stephen.yates1991

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 293

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation:

Study Overview and Design, Volume 1

Author: Shelli B. Rossman, John K. Roman, Janine M.

Zweig, Christine H. Lindquist, Michael Rempel,
Janeen Buck Willison, P. Mitchell Downey,
Kristine Fahrney

Document No.: 237109

Date Received: December 2011

Award Number: 2003-DC-BX-1001

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-
funded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Final Version

FINAL REPORT: VOLUME 1

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court
Evaluation: Study Overview and
Design

NOVEMBER 2011
Shelli B. Rossman, John K. Roman, Janine M.
Zweig, Michael Rempel, and Christine H.
Lindquist (Editors)

Volume 1 Authors:

Shelli B. Rossman
John K. Roman
Janine M. Zweig
Christine H. Lindquist
Michael Rempel
Janeen Buck Willison
P. Mitchell Downey
Kristine Fahrney

URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

URBAN INSTITUTE The views expressed are those of the authors, and should
Justice Policy Center not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its
2100 M STREET, NW funders.

WASHINGTON, DC 20037
www.urban.org

© 2011 Urban Institute

This project was supported by Award No. 2003-DC-BX-1001, awarded by the National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Acknowledgments
The National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE)
entailed multi-site, multi-year process, impact, and cost-benefit data collection, analysis, and
reporting that required the collaboration of numerous individuals and organizations to whom we
extend our appreciation for their contributions to the successful completion of this study.

In particular, we thank the Office of Justice Programs for its support through the Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program, and for other support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. We
also are deeply indebted to the judges, drug court coordinators, and staff of drug courts, as well
as the administrators and staff of the comparison jurisdictions, whose efforts form the foundation
without which this research would not have been possible:

Florida
Osceola County Drug Court⎯Kissimmee, FL
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program⎯Deland, FL

Georgia
Fulton County Drug Court⎯Atlanta, Georgia
Hall County Drug Court⎯Gainesville, GA

Illinois
Cook County Drug Court Rehabilitation Alternative Program (R.A.P.)⎯Chicago, IL
Kane County Rehabilitation Court⎯St. Charles, IL

New York
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court⎯Auburn, NY
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court⎯Batavia, NY
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment Court⎯Niagara Falls, NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court (Canandaigua City)⎯Canandaigua, NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court, Felony Division (Ontario County)⎯Canandaigua, NY
Lackawanna City Drug Court⎯Lackawanna, NY
Syracuse Community Treatment Court⎯Syracuse, NY
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court⎯Lyons, NY

Pennsylvania
Chester County Drug Court⎯West Chester, PA
Philadelphia Treatment Court⎯Philadelphia, PA

South Carolina
York County Drug Treatment Court⎯York, SC

Acknowledgments i
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Washington
CHART Court (Snohomish County)⎯Everett, WA
King County Drug Diversion Court⎯Seattle, WA
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court⎯Port Orchard, WA
Pierce County Felony Drug Court⎯Tacoma, WA
Thurston County Drug Court Program⎯Olympia, WA

Comparison Sites
Human Services Associates, Inc.⎯Orlando, FL
Stewart-Marchman Center for Chemical Independence⎯Daytona Beach, FL
Illinois TASC⎯Chicago, IL
Judicial Division 3, North Carolina Probation⎯NC
Judicial Division 4, North Carolina Probation⎯NC
Pierce County Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative and Breaking the Cycle⎯Tacoma, WA

We further acknowledge the contributions and assistance of the National Crime Information
Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation for providing data from the Interstate Identification
Index (III) System. Similarly, we thank the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE),
Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ILCJIA), New
York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), North Carolina Department of Justice,
North Carolina Department of Correction, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
(PCCD), Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, South Carolina Office of Research and
Statistics (SCORS), Washington Department of Corrections, and the State of Washington
Administrative Office of the Courts for the provision of state-level official records data. We are
also grateful to the county jails and state departments of corrections and their staffs that
facilitated our ability to perform follow-up survey data collection with respondents who were
incarcerated at the time their interviews were scheduled. The authors are solely responsible for
any errors in the use of these data.

During the course of this study, we had the good fortune to be guided by Janice Munsterman, our
initial NIJ technical monitor and subsequently Director of the State Justice Institute; Christopher
Innes, former Chief of the Justice Systems Research Division at NIJ and currently Chief of
Research and Evaluation at the National Institute of Corrections; and Linda Truitt, who ably
served as our NIJ technical monitor throughout most years of MADCE. We convened three
working group meetings with public and private substantive and technical experts in April 2004,
February 2006, and May 2009. We greatly appreciate the assistance and support we received
from

¾ Jennifer Columbel, formerly with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and currently at the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
¾ Donald J. Farole, Jr., Bureau of Justice Statistics
¾ Michael Finigan, NPC Research
¾ Gerald Gaes, Florida State University

Acknowledgments ii
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

¾ Adele Harrell, former director of the Justice Policy Center at The Urban Institute
¾ Pamela Lattimore, RTI International
¾ Akiva Liberman, formerly with NIJ and currently at The Urban Institute
¾ Douglas Marlowe, Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania
¾ Antonio-Morgan Lopez, RTI International
¾ Ruby Qazilbash, Bureau of Justice Assistance
¾ David B. Wilson, Criminology, Law, and Society at George Mason University
¾ Philip Wirtz, School of Business and Public Management at The George Washington
University
¾ Douglas Wissoker, The Urban Institute

Aside from the authors, many staff of UI, RTI, and CCI supported this effort. We thank Nancy
LaVigne, Director of the UI Justice Policy Center, and Terry Dunworth, former center director,
for supporting this project from initiation through completion of the final report. We thank
Ritahdi Chakravarti, Aaron Chalfin, Dionne Davis, Douglas Gilchrist-Scott, Rayanne Hawkins,
Shalyn Johnson, Michael Kane, Carly Knight, Aaron Morrissey, Kevin Roland, and David
D’Orio for their respective contributions in providing data collection, analytic, and
administrative assistance to this effort. Lastly, we extend our thanks to the field coordinators and
field supervisors, whose dedication to conducting baseline and follow-up interviews was critical
to the research effort.

Acknowledgments iii
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Contents
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ i
Highlights........................................................................................................................................ 1
Key Features of the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation .................................................... 1
Volume 1. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview and Design ............ 3
Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives ................................................................. 5
Overview of the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation Final Report .................................... 5
The Emergence of Adult Drug Courts ........................................................................................ 6
Adult Drug Courts as Justice-Treatment Partnerships ................................................................ 7
The Federal Role ....................................................................................................................... 10
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation ........................................................................... 11
The Research Objectives....................................................................................................... 13
The MADCE Conceptual Framework .................................................................................. 13
Modifications to MADCE as Proposed ................................................................................ 19
References ................................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 2. Review of the Literature .............................................................................................. 23
The Drug-Crime Nexus............................................................................................................. 23
The Theory of Drug Courts....................................................................................................... 24
Procedural Justice ................................................................................................................. 25
Deterrence Theory ................................................................................................................ 27
Effectiveness of Drug Courts .................................................................................................... 30
Impact on Retention in Treatment ........................................................................................ 31
Impact on Criminal Involvement .......................................................................................... 31
Impact on Drug Use .............................................................................................................. 33
Impact on Psychosocial Outcomes ....................................................................................... 34
For Whom Drug Courts Work .................................................................................................. 35
Isolating the Impact of Specific Drug Court Components........................................................ 35
Appearances before Drug Court Judge ................................................................................. 35
Treatment .............................................................................................................................. 36
Sanctions ............................................................................................................................... 38
Other Judicial Characteristics ............................................................................................... 38
Economic Studies...................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................................................. 41
Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection and Analysis Strategy ..................................... 53
MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey .......................................................................................... 53
Site Selection ............................................................................................................................ 54
Key Drug Court Components for Site Selection................................................................... 55
Identifying and Recruiting the Drug Court and Comparison Sites ....................................... 57
Description of Final Drug Court Sites and Variability along Key Drug Court Components 62
Description of Final Comparison Sites and Variability along Key Components ................. 66
Offender Interviews .................................................................................................................. 68
Instrument Design ................................................................................................................. 68
Administration of Offender Interviews ................................................................................. 74
Recruitment and Retention of Respondents.......................................................................... 76

Volume 1. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Design and Overview iv
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Oral Fluid Tests......................................................................................................................... 78

Site Visits .................................................................................................................................. 78
Administrative Data .................................................................................................................. 82
Administrative Data Negotiations......................................................................................... 83
Acquisition and Processing of State Criminal Justice Agency Data .................................... 85
NCIC Criminal History Records ........................................................................................... 86
Cost-Benefit Data...................................................................................................................... 88
Analytic Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 89
Process Study: Examining the Drug Court Experience ........................................................ 89
Impact Study: Testing the Outcomes and Impact of Drug Courts ........................................ 90
Cost-Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................... 94
References ................................................................................................................................. 98
Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved Offenders in
Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research ......................................................................... 100
Study Overview ...................................................................................................................... 100
Methodological Approach ...................................................................................................... 101
Study Enrollment and Retention ............................................................................................. 104
Gaining Cooperation: Strategies Contributing to Successful Recruitment in the Study ........ 106
Retaining Study Participants: Strategies Contributing to High Response Rates .................... 107
Implications............................................................................................................................. 109
References ............................................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data Collection for
Criminal Justice Populations....................................................................................................... 110
Human Subjects Protection Issues for Criminal Justice Populations ..................................... 110
Summary of the MADCE Longitudinal Interview Component .............................................. 110
Lessons Learned in Human Subjects Protection..................................................................... 112
Lesson 1: Thorough and Periodic Interviewer Training on Real World Scenarios Is Critical
............................................................................................................................................. 112
Lesson 2: Avoid Association with the Criminal Justice System as Much as Possible ....... 113
Lesson 3: Study Materials Must Not Reveal the Purpose of the Study or the Respondent’s
Status as Criminally- or Drug-Involved.............................................................................. 115
Lesson 4: Be Prepared for Common Issues that Arise when Interviewing in Correctional
Institutions........................................................................................................................... 116
Implications............................................................................................................................. 118
Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline Characteristics of Study
Participants.................................................................................................................................. 119
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 119
Background Characteristics of Study Participants.................................................................. 121
Family Characteristics of the People in the Study .............................................................. 123
Drug Use Patterns at Baseline............................................................................................. 124
Alcohol and Drug Treatment before Program Entry .......................................................... 129
Criminal History and Patterns of Criminal Activities......................................................... 132
Mental and Physical Health ................................................................................................ 134
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A. Survey Item Catalog .............................................................................................. 136
Appendix B. Core Administrative Data Elements ..................................................................... 259

MADCE Volume 1. The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview
and Design v
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation .................................................................................... 260

Criminal History Information Request Details ....................................................................... 260
OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 260
DATA LIST ........................................................................................................................ 260
Appendix C. NIBRS Offense Structure ..................................................................................... 262
NIBRS Crime Classifications (plus Traffic Violations) ......................................................... 263
Appendix D. Constructing the Net Benefits Variable ............................................................... 264
Constructing the Net Benefits Variable .................................................................................. 265
Social Productivity .................................................................................................................. 265
Criminal Justice ...................................................................................................................... 271
Crime and Victimization ......................................................................................................... 277
Service Use ............................................................................................................................. 279
Financial Support Use ............................................................................................................. 283
References ................................................................................................................................... 285
About the Authors ....................................................................................................................... 287
Editors ..................................................................................................................................... 287
Authors.................................................................................................................................... 288

Figures
Figure 1-1.1. Elements of the Temple University Conceptual Framework .................................. 14
Figure 1-1.2. Elements of the RAND Conceptual Framework..................................................... 15
Figure 1-1.3. NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation Conceptual Framework ................ 16
Figure 1-1.4. Final Drug Court Clusters and Comparison Sites Included .................................... 20
Figure 1-4.1. MADCE Interview Schedule ................................................................................ 101
Figure 1-4.2. MADCE Methodological Features ....................................................................... 103
Figure 1-4.3. Response Rates and Cases Interviewed at Each Interview Wave ......................... 105
Figure 1-4.4. Disposition of Cases by Interview Wave .............................................................. 105
Figure 1-6.1 Drug Use History .................................................................................................. 126
Figure 1-6.2 Primary Drug of Choice Before Program Entry ................................................... 130

Tables
Table 1-3.1. Drug Court Site Configurations................................................................................ 56
Table 1-3.2. Total Number of Drug Courts by Leverage and Sanction Scores ............................ 56
Table 1-3.3. Comparison Site Configurations .............................................................................. 57
Table 1-3.4. List of MADCE Drug Court and Comparison Sites when Data Collection Began in
March 2005 ................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 1-3.5. Final List of MADCE Drug Court and Comparison Sites Included in Study .......... 61
Table 1-3.6. Final Drug Court Sites by Leverage and Predictability of Sanction Scores............. 63
Table 1-3.7. Brief Description of Drug Court Sites ...................................................................... 64
Table 1-3.8. Comparison Group Configurations .......................................................................... 68
Table 1-3.9. Domains and Constructs Covered in Interview ........................................................ 70
Table 1-3.10. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Baseline Interviews .................... 79
Table 1-3.11. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Six-Month Follow-up Interviews80
Table 1-3.12. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Eighteen-Month Follow-up
Interviews...................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 1-3.13. Components of Net Benefits .................................................................................. 97

MADCE Volume 1. The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview
and Design vi
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-5.1. Number and Proportion of the MADCE Sample Who Were Incarcerated or Under
Community Supervision, by Interview Wave ............................................................................. 112
Table 1-6.1. Baseline Background Characteristics of Sample Members by Research Group .... 122
Table 1-6.2. Baseline Family Characteristics of Sample Members by Research Group ............ 124
Table 1-6.3. Drug Use Six Months before Program Entry by Research Group ......................... 128
Table 1-6.4. Baseline Drug or Alcohol Treatment before Program Entry for Sample Members by
Research Group........................................................................................................................... 131
Table 1-6.5. Baseline Criminal History and Activities of Sample Members by Research Group
..................................................................................................................................................... 133
Table 1-6.6. Baseline Mental and Physical Health of Sample Members by Research Group .... 134

MADCE Volume 1. The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview
and Design vii
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Highlights
Key Features of the Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation

The Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, RTI International, and the Center for Court
Innovation conducted a multi-year, process, impact, and cost-benefit evaluation of drug court
impact funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The objectives of NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult
Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) were to evaluate the effects of drug courts on substance use,
crime, and other outcomes, and to illuminate which policies and practices, and which offender
attitudes, are responsible for any positive effects that were detected.

Portrait of Adult Drug Courts. A web-based survey of drug courts that primarily served adult
clients and had been operational at least one year was conducted between February and June
2004 to develop a portrait of drug courts, and to identify variation across key participant and
program domains. Of 593 drug courts that met those criteria, 380 (64 percent) completed the
Adult Drug Court Survey.

Process, Impact, and Cost-Benefit Components. The MADCE study tests a series of
theoretically-grounded hypotheses on drug court participants and comparison group subjects
across 23 drug courts, and 6 comparison sites. NIJ’s evaluation: (1) tests the hypothesis that drug
court participants have lower rates of drug use and criminal activity and show improved
functioning compared to similar offenders not offered drug court; (2) tests the effects of variation
in drug courts on the outcomes of participants; and (3) assesses drug court costs and benefits.
Impact analyses incorporate a multi-level framework. Specifically, individual-level outcomes are
modeled as a function of drug court status (drug court or comparison site); exposure to various
court policies (e.g., treatment, judicial status hearings, drug testing, and case management), and
offender attitudes (e.g., perceptions of the judge, perceived consequences of noncompliance, and
motivation to change), while controlling for personal and community characteristics on which
the 1,781 offenders and 29 sites may differ.

Findings from the Adult Drug Court Survey guided the selection of adult drug courts, and
comparison sites, which were chosen to ensure variation in eligibility criteria, program
requirements, community settings, and treatment and testing practices. MADCE drug courts
included two courts in Florida, two courts in Illinois, two courts in Georgia, eight courts in New
York, two courts in Pennsylvania, one court in South Carolina, and six courts in Washington.
Comparison sites included two sites in Florida, one site in Illinois, two sites in North Carolina,
and one site in Washington. Site visits were conducted to each location from mid-year 2004
through early 2005, and again in the spring of 2006, to review program operations, hold semi-
structured interviews with key stakeholders, and perform structured court observations.

Study participants were recruited using a rolling enrollment from March 2005 through June
2006. Three waves of participant surveys were administered using Computer Assisted Personal
Interview (CAPI) technology, and Buccal Swab Oral Fluids drug tests were collected at the third
survey wave from consenting non-incarcerated participants, as shown below:

MADCE Volume 1. Highlights 1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Survey and Oral Sample Data Collection and Response Rates

Dates of Survey Total

Administration Drug Court Group Comparison Group Number
Baseline March 2005 –
Interviews June 2006 1,157 627 1,784
1,540
6-Month August 2005 – (86% of baseline
Interviews December 2006 1,012 528 sample)
1477
18-Month September 2006 – (83% of baseline
Interview January 2008 952 525 sample)
1147
18-Month (95% of non-
Oral fluids September 2006 – incarcerated, 18- month
Samples January 2008 764 383 sample)

Additional data were obtained from administrative records from the National Crime Information
Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state-level databases to capture recidivism at
24 months following baseline.

Design Strengths. Overall, the MADCE research approach has a number of strengths. First, the
study was theory-driven based on a conceptual framework spelling out the linkages between
drug courts strategies and individual behavior change. Second, the size of the pooled sample and
the collection of both offender data and process evaluation data from courts allowed us to open
the “black box” of effective drug court practices far beyond past studies of individual drug
courts. Third, although quasi-experimental, the MADCE design affords many benefits that a
traditional experimental study could not provide. Since we did not require courts to be large
enough to generate potentially eligible drug court participants to populate both treatment and
control samples, we were able to include small- to medium-sized courts, as well as large courts,
the latter of which had already been the subject of a sizable number of drug court studies. The
results of this diverse range of community contexts are likely to yield more generalizable results
than those from courts in only the largest urban centers. Fourth, by including courts that vary in
size, we likely increased the breadth of variation in drug court practices that we were able to
study, beyond what would have been possible in the limited number of sites that might have
supported a randomized experiment. Lastly, we ultimately were able to include many more drug
courts—23 in total—than was originally planned given our ability to geographically cluster sites
and pool data across sites.

Given the MADCE quasi-experimental design, however, we had to address three important
threats to validity when implementing the impact study: (1) selection bias, (2) attrition bias, and
(3) clustering of outcomes within sites. The first two problems—selection and attrition—were
handled simultaneously with propensity score modeling and a strategy that we refer to as super
weighting. The third problem—site-level clustering—was handled with hierarchical modeling.

MADCE Volume 1. Highlights 2

Final Version

Volume 1. The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview

and Design

This volume identifies the context and goals of NIJ’s evaluation. In addition to discussing the
key components of drug courts, we present a brief history of their evolution and the federal
initiative that not only spurred the growth of the movement, but also gave rise to the MADCE.
Also, we identify the conceptual framework developed to guide the MADCE research.

In the second chapter, we provide a comprehensive review of the literature that covers drug court
theory, including the relevance of both procedural justice and deterrence theory. We also address
the literature on effectiveness of drug courts with respect to retention in treatment, reduction in
drug use and criminal activities, and other psychosocial benefits, as well as what is known about
for whom drug courts work and the impact of specific drug court elements (such as judicial
characteristics, treatment, sanctions) on outcomes. Lastly, we summarize economic studies as a
background for the MADCE cost-benefit analyses.

Chapter 3 presents a detailed discussion of the design, data sources, and analytic strategy
employed for this study. We cover the web-based Phase 1 Adult Drug Court Survey that was
conducted during the planning period and detailed in Volume 2 of this report. We provide an
explanation of: how treatment and comparison sites were selected, the design of the individual
survey for drug court participants and comparison group members, the collection of oral
specimens to validate self-reported sobriety/drug use, and the administrative records used to
augment the criminal histories reported during individual interviews. Additionally, we delineate
the MADCE analytic strategy in broad terms, with the intent to provide additional details in other
volumes, where relevant to particular findings. The exception is our cost-benefit approach for
which a detailed technical appendix is provided in this volume.

Lastly, we have included three chapters that together describe the baseline characteristics of the
offender sample, as well as lessons learned in ensuring high response rates and human subjects’
protections for such populations:

¾ Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug- and Criminal Justice System-
Involved Offenders in Longitudinal Survey Research describes the methodology used
in the MADCE longitudinal offender interview component, highlighting the strategies
found to be particularly effective in recruiting participants into the study and retaining
them throughout the 18-month follow-up period. In the MADCE, 85 percent of the
baseline sample was successfully interviewed at the 6-month follow-up period, and 83
percent was successfully interviewed at the 18-month follow-up. These high rates were
achieved by employing professional field interviewers who were well-trained and closely
supervised, and by sharing their successful techniques among the field team. Key
techniques included planning ahead for future locating by strategic questioning of
respondents, engaging in mid-wave contact, offering “call-in” bonuses, utilizing helpful
public records, and maintaining continuity of interview assignments.

MADCE Volume 1. Highlights 3

Final Version

¾ Lessons Learned from the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation in Maximizing
Human Subjects Protection in Data Collection Among Criminal Justice-Involved
Populations discusses challenges to maintaining human subjects’ protection when
interviewing prisoners and other individuals under criminal justice supervision. Among
the key lessons learned are the need to thoroughly train interviewers (and hold periodic
refresher trainings) on real-world circumstances, conduct the research as independently
as feasible from the criminal justice system, and be proactive in preparing for common
issues that occur when interviewing individuals in institutional facilities.

¾ The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline Characteristics of Study

Participants provides information about the characteristics of the sample when they
enrolled in the study. The chapter explores the comparability of characteristics between
the drug court and comparison group members, illustrating that the sample members have
extensive criminal histories, substance abuse histories, histories of mental health
problems, and relationships with both family and friends who also have used drugs and
been involved in the criminal justice system. Lastly, the discussion identifies a number of
statistically significant differences between drug court participants and the comparison
group found across several important dimensions.

MADCE Volume 1. Highlights 4

Final Version

Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives

Shelli B. Rossman

Overview of the Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation Final Report

Beginning in 2003, the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute (UI-JPC) partnered with RTI
International (RTI) and the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) to conduct the Multi-Site Adult
Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The main
objectives of this project were to evaluate the effect of drug courts compared to other criminal
justice responses for individuals with substance use issues, and to examine the effect of different
drug court practices and key components on participant outcomes. The project was structured in
two phases. During the first phase, the research team undertook a one-year planning process in
which we developed instruments and data collection protocols, as well as conducted a national
web-based survey both to develop a countrywide picture of adult drug courts, and to complete
site selection. The second phase entailed three major components focused on performing process,
impact, and cost-benefit evaluations.

Findings from the MADCE study are presented in the Executive Summary and four volumes
detailing the research activities and findings. This Volume (Volume 1) begins by identifying the
context, goals, and conceptual framework for the MADCE. Other topics covered in this Volume
are a review of the literature, discussion of the research design and data collection strategy, and
three chapters that describe lessons learned about retaining and protecting research subjects and
the characteristics of the study participants at baseline.

Volume 2 presents a portrait of adult drug courts that had been in operation for at least one year1
as of February 2004, when we undertook the MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey. The Volume
provides descriptive information about adult drug court program characteristics and operations,
and how these characteristics and operations relate to one another. Volume 2 also details how
characteristics and operations can be combined to classify courts across several dimensions at
one time to identify various profiles of courts around the country. In addition, it includes an
analysis of the extent to which drug courts implement best practice recommendations from a
decade ago.

Volume 3 contains a compilation of five chapters that describe various aspects of the drug courts,
including descriptions of (1) the programs that participated in the MADCE, (2) drug court
supervision, (3) treatment in adult drug courts, (4) participant attitudes about their experiences,
and (5) program retention rates.

Results from the impact and cost benefit analyses are described in Volume 4. The Volume
presents findings on drug use, criminal involvement, and psychosocial impacts. It also describes

1
The one-year timeframe was selected to ensure that the subsequent impact evaluation would include court
programs that had been in operation for a minimum of two years, as required by NIJ.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 5

Final Version

how drug courts work to generate such results, the relationship between service dosage and
outcomes, and economic analyses of drug court effectiveness.

The Emergence of Adult Drug Courts

In the 1980s, crime and violence associated with illegal drug use, particularly the epidemic of
crack cocaine, had an enormous effect on the criminal justice system: penalties for drug
possession and sales were toughened, and drug offenders were arrested and prosecuted in
unprecedented numbers. The enormity of the problem encouraged a variety of innovative
responses within the justice system. Some courts, for example, tried responding to rapidly
growing caseloads by implementing specialized court dockets—“rocket dockets”—to expedite
case processing. However, such responses did little to address underlying substance use issues,
co-occurring mental health disorders, or the repeated cycling of drug-abusing offenders through
the court system.

In keeping with burgeoning evidence of the effectiveness of treatment, other judicial responses
emerged to treat drug- and alcohol-abusing offenders in the community with criminal justice
system oversight. One of the first widespread interventions—Treatment Accountability for Safer
Communities (TASC), originally called Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime—redirected drug
offenders from the court system into treatment facilities. TASC linked the judicial system with
treatment services, offering participation incentives in the form of case dismissal for successful
completion of treatment regimens (Nolan 2001). Similarly, another strategy—Intensive
Supervision Probation (ISP)—was developed in the late 1980s to monitor drug offenders in the
community, as an alternative to incarceration, with the twin goals of reducing prison crowding
and providing more thorough supervision than regular probation (Tonry 1990).

Unlike those interventions, drug treatment courts (or, simply, drug courts) essentially emerged as
a grassroots movement from a model implemented in June 1989 as a partnership among the
Court, the State Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office in Miami-Dade County, FL,
to deal with drug-related crimes and drug-using offenders by offering court-monitored drug
treatment to reduce both defendants’ drug use and the constant recycling of such offenders
through the court system. Subsequently, other jurisdictions began handling their drug-related
crimes in a similar fashion.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 6

Final Version

Adult Drug Courts as Justice‐Treatment

Partnerships THE DRUG COURT MODEL

In 1997, the Office of Justice Programs

Virtually, all adult drug courts are community-justice and the National Association of Drug
partnerships that include public agencies and Court Professionals described ten basic
community organizations such as drug treatment and elements of drug courts, including:
social services providers. Generally speaking, drug
courts have implemented deferred prosecution or 1. Integration of alcohol and drug
treatment with justice system case
post-adjudication case-processing approaches, or processing.
have blended both in their organizational structures.2
In drug courts using deferred prosecution, defendants 2. Use of a non-adversarial approach
waive rights to a speedy trial and enter a treatment through which prosecution and
program shortly after being charged; those who defense promote public safety, while
protecting defendants’ rights to due
subsequently fail to complete the treatment program process.
have their charges adjudicated, while those who
complete the program are not prosecuted further, or 3. Early identification and prompt
have their charges dismissed. In the post-adjudication placement of eligible participants in
model, defendants are tried and convicted, but either the program.
have deferred sentences or suspensions of 4. Access to a continuum of treatment,
incarceration until they complete or withdraw from rehabilitation, and related services.
the program. The first approach offers individuals the
opportunity to obtain treatment and avoid the 5. Frequent alcohol and drug testing.
possibility of a felony conviction, while the second
6. A coordinated strategy among the
provides a rehabilitation incentive because treatment judge, prosecution, defense, and
progress is factored into the sentencing determination treatment providers to oversee
(General Accounting Office 1995). participants’ compliance.

Drug court participants attend regularly held judicial 7. Ongoing judicial interaction with
each participant.
status hearings or court sessions, receive access to
comprehensive treatment services (including 8. Monitoring and evaluation to
substance abuse treatment, as well as other services measure achievement of program
such as employment assistance, physical or mental goals and gauge effectiveness.
health care, and family services), participate in
9. Continuing interdisciplinary
frequent drug testing, and receive sanctions for education to promote effective
behavioral infractions, or conversely, incentives for planning, implementation, and
achievements. The courtroom experience, including program operations.
the interaction between the judge and the participant,
the public aspect of being sanctioned or incentivized, 10. Partnerships with public agencies
and community-based organizations
and the collaborative approach among the “key to support effectiveness.
stakeholders” (including prosecution and defense)
are thought to be essential to drug courts.

2
Also, some drug courts have opened enrollment to probation or parole violators, or have used the court as a reentry
program for those returning from jail or prison.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 7

Final Version

Drug courts differ from conventional court case processing in a number of fundamental ways
(Berman and Feinblatt 2005; Casey and Rottman 2003; Farole, Puffett, et al. 2005; Office of
Justice Programs and National Association of Drug Court Professionals 1997):

1) Participation is voluntary.

2) A non-adversarial, problem-solving focus.

3) Integration of treatment services that ideally represent a continuum of outpatient and

residential treatment, as well as support groups, with treatment assignment and frequency
of attendance depending on participants’ particular needs.

4) Intensive supervision of the treatment process by judges and case managers.

5) Direct conversational interaction between defendants and the judge during frequent status
hearings.

6) Graduated sanctions, such as more frequent court appearances or increased drug testing, are
used to monitor compliance and respond to problems.

7) Routine drug testing.

8) A team approach to decision-making.

9) Incentives are used to motivate and acknowledge accomplishments.

Essentially, drug courts incorporate behavior modification principles from psychology—

escalating legal sanctions for noncompliance and incentives for compliance—to induce good
behavior and positive outcomes from drug-involved offenders (see Marlowe and Kirby 1999).

While drug courts share a general approach, often predicated on key components identified by
the Office of Justice Programs and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997),
precise policies and practices vary across several interconnected domains, including the
community context, characteristics of offenders, and court management and operations.
Community characteristics—local crime rates, drug markets, unemployment levels, housing
availability, social norms, and access to treatment and supportive social services—affect both the
behavior of program participants and court decision making.

Participant characteristics—demographic profile, criminal history, substance abuse severity, and

family functioning—create variation in recidivism risk and treatment needs. Drug Courts
typically serve targeted populations of non-violent offenders with substance abuse histories.
Despite the pervasiveness of the drug treatment court model, drug courts routinely exclude most
of the eligible population; many simply do not have the capacity to serve the number of
offenders who meet the eligibility criteria to be in the program (see Volume 2 of this report).
Few drug courts accept clients with any prior violent convictions. Individuals who are drug
dependent, but facing charges of misdemeanor or felony sales are excluded from the majority of

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 8

Final Version

drug courts. Other charges that routinely lead to exclusion include: property crimes commonly
associated with drug use (theft, fraud, prostitution), young offenders with marijuana charges, and
current domestic violence cases. Many of the adult drug treatment courts also reject offenders
with co-occurring disorders or those who present with drug problems deemed too serious for the
program to handle, while others reject arrestees whose problems are not sufficiently severe to
warrant the use of limited resources. A 2005 Government Accountability Office review found
that participants were generally in their early thirties, male, and unemployed upon program
entry; however, these characteristics were not uniform across the programs reviewed. For
example, the average age at program entry ranged from 24 to 36 years, the percentage of
respondents who were male ranged from 46 percent to 88 percent, and the percent of participants
who were employed at program entry ranged from 16 percent to 82 percent (GAO 2005).

Drug court characteristics vary across a number of other dimensions, as well, including (but not
limited to) such critical factors as: court size; reliance on systematic screening and assessment
tools to determine eligibility; clients’ entry points into the court program; the nature, duration,
and intensity of treatment; monitoring and accountability; the courtroom supervision style of the
judge;3 and the nature and extent of their funding.4 For example, our 2004 MADCE Adult Drug
Court Survey found (see Volume 2 of this report):

• 91 percent of the responding drug courts required participants to sign contracts agreeing
to program rules; 57 percent also required participants to agree to compliance with
treatment providers’ program rules. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of these courts
required clients to sign contracts waiving their rights in court, and 47 percent had clients
sign contracts agreeing to accept alternative sentences if they failed to complete the drug
court program (despite the fact that 80 percent of the courts reported no established
minimum alternative sentence, and 73 percent reported no established maximum
alternative sentence—so ostensibly, participants were agreeing to the alternative in the
event of non-compliance, without knowing what that might entail). Twenty-eight percent
require clients to sign contracts with all four requirements.

• While 4 percent of responding courts required no minimum time from program entrance
to completion, 80 percent required a minimum of at least 12 to 18 months before
graduation; 61 percent required a minimum of 12 months of drug court participation, but
there was so little variation that the average minimum time required before graduation
was 13 months.

Referral to additional services and support (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), use of graduated
versus case-by-case sanctions, and the nature and frequency of drug testing are not consistent
across all programs. Also, graduation requirements vary; some programs require participants to

3
That is, direct conversation and eye contact between judges and participants are hypothesized both to contribute to
the belief that judges care about progress, and to affect treatment participation. In fact, judicial encouragement may
be the primary incentive used by drug courts, made tangible in recognition ceremonies and token gifts (see Satel
1998). Nonetheless, because the drug court model also emphasizes the importance of sanctioning non-compliant
behavior, different courts and judges strike widely varying balances between positive and negative reinforcement.
4
Drug courts often merge funding from a variety of sources, including federal grants, local taxes and surcharges,
state alcohol and drug agency funds, private foundation monies, and participant fees (GAO 1995).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 9

Final Version

meet conditions in addition to completing treatment, such as a set period of abstinence from
substance use or complete payment of fees or restitution.

The Federal Role

Nearly three dozen drug courts emerged prior to the passage of Title V of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322)—also known as the 1994
Crime Act—that authorized the Attorney General to award and administer discretionary grants to
states, local governments, Indian tribal governments, and state or local courts to plan, implement,
or enhance drug courts in which judges continuously supervised the progress of nonviolent
offenders with substance abuse problems.5 The court programs were expected to incorporate
both treatment services and judicial sanctions for noncompliance. In addition, the Act
specifically required drug courts to include (1) mandatory testing for the use of prohibited
substances; (2) diversion, probation, or other supervised releases with the possibility of
prosecution, confinement, or incarceration for failure to demonstrate adequate progress or to
complete program requirements; and (3) ancillary services, such as relapse prevention, health
care, education, vocational training, job placement, housing assistance, and child care assistance
(GAO 1995). The grants could not be used by courts solely for the purpose of expediting case
processing of drug crimes, nor could they be used for programs that permitted violent offenders6
to participate (GAO 1995).

The 1994 Crime Act also authorized the Attorney General to provide for a national evaluation of
the impact and effectiveness of the federal grants. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) within
the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) was charged with
administering (1) the national impact evaluation and (2) ensuring that federally-funded drug
court programs used part of their grants to conduct process evaluations to determine whether
programs achieved stated objectives and how drug courts affected the rest of the court system
and other elements of the criminal justice system (GAO 1995). Also, OJP established the Drug
Court Program Office (DCPO) to administer the federal implementation grants (National
Institute of Justice 1997).

While a number of evaluations of individual drug court programs had been performed, no
national impact evaluation had been conducted as of late 1997 when NIJ issued a solicitation for
a two-phase project (NIJ 1997). In 1998, RAND was awarded the grant to (1) develop a
conceptual framework for evaluating the 14 drug courts7 that received initial DCPO
implementation and enhancement funding, (2) describe the courts’ implementation processes, (3)

5
Until the 1994 Crime Act, there was no federal grant program specifically designed for drug courts. However,
some drug court programs received funding or technical assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) or
Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT).
6
Violent offenders are defined as persons charged with, or convicted of, offenses involving a firearm, dangerous
weapon, death, serious bodily injury, or force; or persons who have one or more prior convictions for a violent
felony crime.
7
The initial 14 grantees included: Tuscaloosa County Commission and University of Alabama-Birmingham,
Alabama; Riverside, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara Counties, California; Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida;
Fulton County (Atlanta), Georgia; Kankakee and Cook Counties, Illinois; Douglas County (Omaha), Nebraska; New
York State Unified Court System-Brooklyn; Mental Health and Anti-Addiction Services (San Juan), Puerto Rico;
Virginia Supreme Court (Roanoke), Virginia; and Spokane County, Washington (GAO, 2002).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 10

Final Version

determine the feasibility of including these court programs in an impact evaluation, and (4)
develop a suitable impact evaluation design that included post-program results. The first phase
was completed, but NIJ elected not to proceed with the second phase impact evaluation when the
first phase ended without agreement on a viable design strategy (General Accounting Office
2002).

Subsequently, in October 2002, NIJ, in cooperation with the DCPO, requested proposals for the
National Drug Court Evaluation Multi-Site Longitudinal Impact Study (NIJ 2002). The study—
subsequently renamed NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—was intended to conduct
offender-based, longitudinal research to evaluate the impact of drug court participation on post-
program outcomes, specifically, recidivism. Researchers were expected to:

• Develop a sample of up to ten adult drug courts, selected from among courts that had
received DCPO funding and were operational for at least two years at the time evaluation
data collection commenced.

• Select drug court programs that displayed variations in: geographic location; the size of
the courts’ caseloads; the courts’ strategy in implementing a diversion or post-conviction
program; and participants’ characteristics, particularly those related to substance use and
crime.

• Use an experimental or quasi-experimental design with a valid comparison group.

• Follow study participants through their entire drug court experience (i.e., graduation or
termination) and for one year thereafter; and track the comparison group for a similar
timeframe.

• Perform process, impact, and cost-benefit analyses using qualitative and quantitative
primary data (e.g., interviews with offenders and drug court stakeholders) and secondary
data (e.g., program records, criminal justice administrative records).

NIJ planned to have the work proceed in two phases. The first phase was conceptualized as an
implementation and planning effort, during which sites would be selected. The second phase
would entail the conduct of process, impact, and cost-benefit research.

The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation

UI-JPC, RTI, and CCI formed a partnership to respond to that solicitation. Our response,
submitted February 2003, proposed to study a sample of drug court participants from a diverse
set of drug courts, selected purposively to achieve variation in eligibility criteria, substance use
patterns, program requirements, community settings, and treatment and testing practices. We
anticipated conducting a nationwide survey of adult drug courts during the first year of the
project, which constituted the phase 1 planning period, to identify variation in operations and
context, and to guide the selection of approximately 14 drug courts. We also planned to select
four to six comparison courts based on a number of criteria, including not having a drug court

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 11

Final Version

program, while having the ability to produce a sufficient number of offenders who met the
standard drug court eligibility criteria.

Our intent was to sample a total 1400 drug court participants and 600 comparison group subjects
similar to the drug court participants across a number of domains (e.g., substance abuse and
criminal history, demographics). We expected to conduct multi-level analyses by pooling the
samples across courts to examine (1) individual-level outcomes as a function of exposure to
treatment, legal leverage, and supervision, controlling for personal and community
characteristics, and (2) court-level outcomes as a function of drug court practices and community
characteristics, controlling for differences in the offender population.

We viewed this approach as having a number of advantages over the traditional approach. We
anticipated being able to (1) include diverse, small- to medium-sized, often understudied drug
courts (which would likely yield more generalizable results, since most drug courts are not as
large as those typically evaluated up to that point); (2) ultimately evaluate more courts (i.e., 14,
rather than the 10 required by the RFP); (3) recruit a sufficient number of treatment subjects via
the group design by pooling observations across sites; and (4) isolate an adequate comparison
group from comparable jurisdictions without a drug court in place. In our view, the planned
approach would provide an overall estimate of the effects of drug court and an understanding of
factors that affect various individual- and system-level outcomes.

We selected a quasi-experimental design because we perceived that the number of settings in

which random assignment experiments could be implemented would be narrow, unlikely to
represent the breadth of variation in drug court practices, and limit the potential for pooling
subjects from multiple courts. This approach also expanded the pool of potentially eligible drug
courts beyond large urban drug courts, many of which had already been the subject of study, by
including drug courts from smaller jurisdictions with smaller annual participant flows and by not
requiring that each site have sufficient flow of non-participants for the comparison group.
However, we recognized that it would be necessary both to screen comparison subjects carefully
to ensure comparability and to use statistical techniques to control for unmeasured differences.
We planned to measure outcomes (e.g., reductions in drug use and criminal activity,
improvements in health and employment) consistently over standard time periods for all
subjects.

The proposed design was theory-driven by a conceptual framework that spelled out the linkages
between drug court strategies and individual behavior change by measuring interim outcomes
including treatment entry, retention, and changes in motivation. The framework, detailed below,
augmented the dimensions suggested by earlier studies (Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001;
Longshore, Turner, et al. 2001), and greatly expanded the measures of intermediate outcomes to
explain how these dimensions affect the behavior and cognitions of participants. Our goal was to
develop findings that could guide future drug court implementation.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 12

Final Version

The Research Objectives

The objectives of the MADCE research are to:

• Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated
with drug abuse, in comparison with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts;

• Isolate key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in
achieving their desired outcomes (answering for whom and how drug courts work);

• Explain how offender attitudes and opinions change when they are exposed to drug
courts and how these changes help to explain the effectiveness of drug court programs;
and

• Examine whether drug courts generate cost savings for the criminal justice system and
other public institutions.

The MADCE Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework designed for the MADCE research allows one to better understand
the impact of drug courts by linking drug court practices to outcomes that might produce the
desired reduction in drug use and crime. Prior to the MADCE projects, frameworks for
evaluating drug courts had been proposed by Temple University (Goldkamp et al. 2001) and
RAND (Longshore et al. 2001).

The Temple University framework, shown in Figure 1-1.1, is particularly helpful in identifying
contextual and court management practices that need to be considered and areas in which drug
courts differ. However, it offers only a very limited theoretical perspective to understand the
mechanisms by which drug courts affect behavior change. The RAND framework, shown in
Figure 1-1.2, takes an important step towards a theoretically-grounded evaluation framework by
grouping drug court practices into categories that, with the development of a more
comprehensive list of indicators, can be used to measure court variations expected to affect
outcomes. However, the framework includes drug court intervention practices (e.g., use of
leverage), with participant characteristics (type and severity of drug use), and interim outcomes
(perceptions of predictability). We believed that these concepts needed to be ordered and linked
by hypotheses based on theories of behavior change to offender perceptions and behavior during
and following drug court.

The MADCE conceptual framework builds on these two models by hypothesizing causal
linkages to be tested in NIJ’s evaluation (see Figure 1-1.3). While many prior drug court
evaluations relied on recidivism as the sole measure of impact, despite the centrality of the goal
of reducing drug use, MADCE was planned to measure multiple outcomes following the period
of drug court completion as shown in the far right column, based on information self-reported by
subjects, and supplemented and validated by criminal records and drug testing.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 13

Final Version

Figure 1-1.1. Elements of the Temple University Conceptual Framework

Dimensions of Program
Structure and Process Indicators (Examples)
1. Target Problem • Specific drug-crime problem program addresses — e.g., AOD
related crime, homelessness and heroin addiction, property crime.
• Problem that led to creation of drug court.

2. Target Population • Type of client focused on by drug court — e.g., felony defendants,
probation or parole revokees, etc.

3. Court Processing Focus & • Stage of court processing at which drug court intervention is offered
Adaptations to defendants — diversion, post-conviction, probation/parole and
revocation?

4. Identification, Screening, and • Criteria/procedures used to locate and enroll clients.

Evaluation of Candidates – • Use of clinical assessments to evaluate substance abuse
Reaching the Target involvement of potential program clients.

5. Structure and Content of Treatment • Treatment programs associated with drug court.
• Range of options for treatment, substantive services provided, as
well as types of supporting services.
• Program phases, graduation requirements, means of funding
treatment services.
• Courtroom dynamics, as observed.

6. Responses to Performance — • How program rewards positive achievements in treatment versus

Participant Accountability poor performance or non-compliance.

7. Extent of System-Wide Support for • Political, financial, and bureaucratic support and/or participation by
Program criminal justice actors and non-justice system agencies (health,
treatment, social services).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 14

Final Version

Figure 1-1.2. Elements of the RAND Conceptual Framework

Dimensions of Program
Structure and Process Indicators (Examples)

1. Leverage • Percent of pre-plea vs. post-plea participants

• Perceived aversiveness of discharge

2. Population Severity • Severity of drug use

• Severity of criminal involvement
(current charge and prior charges)

3. Program Intensity • Required frequency of urine testing

• Required frequency of court appearances
• Required hours of treatment

4. Predictability • Consistency of rewards and sanctions

• Conformance of rewards/sanctions with protocol
• Time elapses between noncompliance and response
• Perceived predictability

• Collaborative decision-making
5. Rehabilitation Emphasis
• Attention to multiple needs
• Flexibility in procedure
• Re-entry
• Drug court dynamics (observed)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 15

Final Version

Figure 1-1.3. NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation Conceptual Framework

Target Population
Drug Court Context Severity Drug Court Practices Offender Perceptions In-Program Behavior Post-Program Outcomes

Community Setting Drug Use Use of Legal Pressure Perceived Legal Compliance with Reduced Drug Use
-Demographics -Addiction severity -Severity of consequences for failure Pressure Drug Intervention -Any, type, and frequency
-Urbanicity -Drugs of abuse -Severity and of self-reported use post-
-Likelihood of entry
likelihood of program
-Drug arrest rate -Drug use history Individual Court Experiences termination and -# and type of drug
-Poverty / economics alternative sentence test violations -Results of saliva test
-Drug Court participation
-% treatment days
Criminality -Drug testing requirements, Motivations Reduced Recidivism
attended
Drug Laws -Felony / practices
-Readiness to change -Treatment duration & -Any, type, and frequency
-Mandatory sentences misdemeanor charge -Sanctions rules, practices
stage retention of self-reported offending
-Drug law severity -Recidivism risk — -Supervision requirements/practices post-program
-Treatment
prior arrests /
-Prosecution involvement Understanding of graduation & -Any, type, and number of
convictions
Court Characteristics termination
-Opportunity to offend
-Interactions with judge and Rules arrests / convictions post
supervising officers program
-Court size (street days) -Received expected
-Court appearances sanctions & rewards
Compliance with -Decrease in post-
-Court resources
-Understood expected
Supervision intervention incarceration
Other Risk Factors Drug Court Practices
behavior -Court FTAs – % of
-Health problems
-Leverage scheduled Improved Functioning
-Program intensity -Reduction in health and
-Mental health problems -Case management
-Predictability Perceived Risk of mental health problems
-Employment problems FTAs – % of
-Rehabilitation focus Sanctions & Rewards scheduled
-Housing instability -Increase in likelihood and
-Timeliness of intervention - General deterrence days of employment
-Family conflict -Violations of
-Admission requirements -Certainty/severity of supervision
-Family support -Gains in economic
sanctions requirements
-Completion requirements self-sufficiency
-Close ties to drug users -Certainty & value of -Drug Court -Reductions in family
-Close ties to rewards graduation
lawbreakers Drug Treatment problems
-Treatment history Perceptions of
-Days of treatment by type Court Fairness Post-Program
Demographics -Procedural justice Use of Services
-Treatment requirements
-Age, gender, race -Distributive justice -Type and amount of drug
-Support services by type – offered
-Marital status, children and used -Personal involvement treatment/aftercare
-Education, income of judge & supervising -Type and amount of other
officer support services

Post-program outcomes are hypothesized to result from the behavior of offenders while under
supervision of the court and, in particular, their participation in drug treatment and compliance
with drug court supervision (shown in the second column from the right). We planned to
differentiate between drug test non-compliance (missed or tampered tests) and tests that were
positive, on the grounds that recovery may entail many slips with better outcomes expected for
those who comply.

The addition of measurement of offender response is an important clarification to existing

frameworks (third column from the right). Participant perceptions and responses to court
practices are hypothesized to be the process that leads to behavior change, but have not been
directly examined by prior evaluations. Drug court strategies combine coercion and persuasion
with the goal of encouraging treatment participation and reduction in substance use; drug
treatment is expected to move clients to abstinence by increasing internal motivations to become
drug free. We anticipated examining the effects of drug court operations on these perceptions.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 16

Final Version

To clarify the effects of court coercion and persuasion, we intended to test the hypothesis that
offenders who rate the consequences of program termination to be more severe and more likely
to occur will be more likely to enter and stay in drug treatment and comply with drug court
requirements. Similarly, those with higher ratings of sanction likelihood and severity are more
likely to comply with court requirements, as are those with higher ratings of the likelihood and
attractiveness of rewards. These hypotheses are supported by deterrence theory (Nagin 1998,
Nagin and Pogarsky 2001, Paternoster 1987) and social learning studies that indicate aversion to
negative reinforcement and punishment (Marlowe and Kirby 1999). In general, such studies have
found that rewards and positive reinforcement are more powerful influences on behavior and that
certainty of sanction is often more important than severity, given a minimum severity threshold.
We also planned to test the hypothesis that compliance is positively related to perceptions of
fairness (Folger 1977, Hirst and Harrell 1999, Thibaut and Walker 1975, Tyler 1994). UI’s evaluation
of Breaking the Cycle found the perceptions of procedural justice were higher among defendants
exposed to court-monitored pretrial drug testing and treatment (Harrell, Mitchell, et al. 2002).

The effects of drug treatment and court monitoring on motivation to change address progress
towards recovery, indicated by movements along a continuum of stages of change. Although
researchers differ on stage definitions, theoretically all describe the process from initial
awareness of the goal to behavior change. Examples include Prochaska’s “Transtheoretical
Model of Change;” DeLeon’s three stages from compliance, conformity to expectations and
norms, and commitment to change; and Miller’s Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment
Eagerness Scale (DeLeon 1989; Miller and Rollnick 1991; Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross
1992). Other concepts we planned to measure included perceived need for treatment, behavioral
intentions, and reductions in criminal thinking.

Drug court operations are hypothesized to affect offender perceptions, in-program behavior, and
post-program outcomes, directly and indirectly. The domains of drug court practices, shown in
the center column, include: drug treatment, legal pressure, monitoring/offender accountability
procedures, and supervision style. We anticipated selecting the drug courts that represented
considerable variation along the following dimensions:

• Drug Treatment. One of the most important, and most difficult to measure, variables in
drug court is the treatment. Although measurement in these areas is not well developed,
the framework recognizes the potential value in measuring not only the amount and
modality of treatment delivered to drug court participants, but also its quality,
comprehensiveness, and cultural appropriateness (see Johnson, Hubbard, and Latessa,
2000). At minimum, quality treatment uses procedures that are documented
(“manualized” for consistent replication), demonstrated to be successful, and meet
professional certification standards for staff training and content.

• Legal Pressure. Existing research indicates that legal pressure, defined by the severity of
the alternative sentence, is positively correlated with treatment retention (Condelli 1989,
Rempel and DeStefano 2001). However, findings on legal pressure are mixed and suggest
that perceptions of legal pressure mediate the relationship (Young 1997; Young and
Belenko 2002). Some studies report that perceived legal pressure is a significant predictor
only of early treatment entry and retention (Condelli 1989), while changes in stages of

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 17

Final Version

readiness to change affect later retention (Young 1997). Plea conditions may represent
another legal incentive affecting drug court outcomes. Indeed, Sung, Tabachnick, and
Feng (1999) found that the retention rate rose by ten percentage points after the Brooklyn
Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison (DTAP) program switched from a pre-plea to
post-plea model. We proposed to test the effects of the alternative sentence on
perceptions of the severity of receiving a jail or prison term for persistent noncompliance
and on treatment entry and retention.

• Monitoring/Accountability. The day-to-day use of drug tests, judicial review hearings,

and case management are hypothesized to be very important determinants of offender
perceptions and behavior, based on theory and findings from earlier studies (Harrell and
Kleiman 2001). UI’s evaluation of the DC Graduated Sanctions Program, which applied
sanctions for drug test failures very consistently and swiftly, found participants
significantly less likely than the comparison group to be arrested in the year after
program completion (Harrell 1998; Harrell, Cavanagh, and Roman 1999). We expected
to measure both program requirements and the level of implementation of program
strategies (e.g., the number of drug tests specified in rules versus the number
administered).

• Supervision Style. Many drug court judges, observers, and participants in our focus
groups point to the important effects of the judge’s courtroom style on offender behavior.
Direct conversation and eye contact between judges and participants are hypothesized
both to contribute to the belief that judges care about progress, and to affect treatment
participation. Indeed, judicial encouragement may be the primary incentive used by drug
courts, made tangible in recognition ceremonies and token gifts (Satel 1998). In
interviews conducted with participants at two drug courts, positive feedback from the
judge was ranked as among the most useful policy components. Yet, because the drug
court model simultaneously stresses the importance of sanctions, different courts and
judges tend to strike widely varying balances between positive and negative
reinforcement, or both. We planned to measure this domain and isolate distinct
supervision strategies that are effective or ineffective by using structured courtroom
observations and focus groups.8

The two columns on the left describe differences in drug courts and drug court participants
hypothesized to affect drug court outcomes. Of critical importance is the difference in the
problems confronting drug court participants. Differences in eligibility criteria and screening
procedures mean that the addiction severity and risk of recidivism are far higher in some courts
than in others. In addition, regional variation in drug use patterns may affect outcomes. For
example, more than half the participants in the Baltimore drug court enter as daily cocaine or
heroin users with significant criminal histories, while other drug courts focus on first-time
offenders or operate in areas where the primary drug of abuse is marijuana (e.g., Queens in New
York City). Court location also may affect the resources available to support recovery and the
legal consequences of drug law violations. Court management arrangements and the existence of
data systems to support collaboration are key features of court infrastructure that affect the
8
While the team did conduct courtroom observations, we ultimately did not facilitate focus groups (re-allocating
those resources to support a larger number of sites).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 18

Final Version

ability of courts to implement the required program elements (see Harrell et al. 2002). We
proposed to consider the role of these contextual factors in assessing drug court outcomes and
the delivery of drug court services.

Modifications to MADCE as Proposed

A few notable changes were made to the MADCE study subsequent to the submission of our
proposal, as identified below.

During the course of this research, we convened three external working groups with technical
and substantive experts; these were held in April 2004, February 2006, and May 2009. As noted
earlier, we originally proposed to include 14 drug courts and 5 or 6 comparison jurisdictions in
the study. However, discussions during the first working group about the analyses we planned to
accomplish led the statistical experts in the group to recommend that we consider expanding the
number of court and jurisdictional sites from 20 to 30 or more to support Hierarchical Linear
Modeling (HLM) analyses.

We acted on that suggestion by increasing the number of drug courts in the study. As described
in Chapter 3, we used data from our Phase I web-based survey of adult drug courts to select 23
drug courts located in seven geographic “clusters.”9 Additionally, six “comparison” jurisdictions
were selected.10 The comparison sites included several alternative modes for handling drug-
involved offenders, representing the diverse set of activities employed in jurisdictions that do not
implement drug courts. Notably, some comparison sites mandated offenders to community-based
treatment but without other components of the drug court model; other comparison sites involved
standard probation only. The comparison sites included several Treatment Alternatives for Safe
Communities (TASC) programs, a Breaking the Cycle program, and standard court-referred,
probation-monitored treatment. The locations of the drug court and comparison sites are shown
in Figure 1-1-4.

Additionally, once in the field, we discovered the flow of cases into participating courts was
somewhat lower than our pipeline analyses led us to expect. As a result, in an effort to keep field
data collection within time and budget projections, the sample of individual respondents was
lowered slightly from 1,400 drug court participants to 1,157, while comparison interviews
increased slightly from the 600 projected to 627. Overall, the sample size was projected to be
2,000 and actually became 1,784 (as detailed in Chapter 3).

9
Altogether, MADCE includes 29 sites in eight states. One southeastern cluster includes two states: North and
South Carolina.
10
North Carolina probation is one source from which we drew comparison participants. The state is divided into
two judicial districts and, therefore, we divided the comparison participants similarly, representing two comparison
sites.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 19

Final Version

Figure 1-1.4. Final Drug Court Clusters and Comparison Sites Included

References

Berman G. and J. Feinblatt. (2005). Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. New York: The
New Press.
Casey P. and D. Rottman. (2003). Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends. Williamsburg, VA:
National Center for State Courts. Online:
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/COMM_SpeProProbSolvCtsPub.pdf
Condelli W.S. (1989). External Pressure and Retention in a Therapeutic Community. The International
Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 10: 21-23.
DeLeon G. (1989). Psychopathology and Substance Abuse: What are We Learning From Research in
Therapeutic Communities. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 21: 177-188.
Farole D.J., N. Puffett, M. Rempel, and F. Byrne (2005). Applying the Problem-Solving Model Outside
of Problem-Solving Courts. Judicature, 89 (1): 40-42.
Folger R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on
experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 108-119.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 20

Final Version

General Accounting Office (GAO 1995). Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to Address Drug-
Related Crime. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. GAO/GGD-95-159BR.
General Accounting Office (GAO 2002). Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation
Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. General
Accounting Office. GAO-02-434.
Government Accountability Office. (GAO 2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism
Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accountability
Office. GAO-05-219.
Goldkamp J.S., M.D. White, and J.B. Robinson. (2001). Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug
Court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31: 27-72.
Harrell A. (1998). Drug Courts and the Role of Graduated Sanctions. Washington, DC: NIJ Research
Preview, Research in Progress Seminar Series.
Harrell A., S. Cavanagh, and J. Roman. (1999). Research in Brief: Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court
Drug Intervention Program. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
Harrell A. and M. Kleiman. (2001). Drug Testing in Criminal Justice Settings. In C. Leukefeld and F.
Tims, eds. Clinical and Policy Responses to Drug Offenders New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Harrell, A., O. Mitchell, J. Merrill, and D. Marlowe. (2002). Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle Final
Report. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Harrell A. and J. Roman. (2001). Reducing Drug Use and Crime Among Offenders: The Impact of
Graduated Sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 1, 207-232.
Hirst A. and A. Harrell. (1999). Perceptions of Procedural Justice by Felony Offenders in Drug
Treatment. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Johnson S., D. J. Hubbard, and E. Latessa. (2000). Drug Courts and Treatment: Lessons to be Learned
From the ‘What Works’ Literature. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4: 70-77.
Longshore D.L., S. Turner, S.L. Wenzel, A.R. Morral, A. Harrell, D. McBride, E. Deschenes, and M.Y.
Iguchi. (2001). Drug Courts: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1): 12.

Marlowe D. B. and K.C. Kirby. (1999). Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons From
Behavioral Research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2: 1-31.
Miller W. R. and S. Rollnick. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive
Behaviors. New York: Guilford.
Nagin D. S. (1998). Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century. Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, 23: 51-91.
Nagin D. S. and G. Pogarsky (2001). Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats
Into a Model of General Deterrence: Theory and Evidence. Criminology, 39: 865-892.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ 1997). Drug Court Evaluation II. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ 2002). National Drug Court Evaluation: Multi-Site Longitudinal Impact
Study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 21

Final Version

Nolan J.L. (2001). Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Office of Justice Programs and National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (OJP/NADCP 1997).
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Paternoster R. (1987). The Deterrent Effect of the Perceived Certainty and Severity of Punishment: A
Review of the Evidence and Issues. Justice Quarterly, 4: 173-218.

Prochaska J. O., C.C. DiClemente, and J.C. Norcross. (1992). In Search of How People Change:
Applications to Addictive Behaviors. American Psychologist, 47: 1102-1114.
Rempel M. and C.D. DeStefano (2001). Predictors of Engagement in Court-Mandated Treatment:
Findings at the Brooklyn Treatment Court, 1996-2000. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33(4): 87-
124.
Satel S. (1998). Observational Study of Courtroom Dynamics in Selected Drug Courts. National Drug
Court Institute Review, 1:43-72.
Sung H., C. Tabachnick, and L. Feng. (1999). Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Ninth Annual
Report. Brooklyn, NY: Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
Thibaut J. and L. Walker. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tonry M. (1990). Stated and Latent Functions of ISP. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 1, 174-191.
Tyler T. (1994). Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural
Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 850-863.
Young D. (1997). Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug Treatment Programs: The Role of Perceived
Legal Pressure. Report to the National Institute of Justice. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
Young D., and Belenko, S. (2002). Program Retention and Perceived Coercion in Three Models of
Mandatory Drug Treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 32: 297-328.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: Study Context and Objectives 22

Final Version

Chapter 2. Review of the Literature

John K. Roman, Shelli B. Rossman, and Michael Rempel

The Drug‐Crime Nexus

A substantial research literature links substance use and abuse to criminal behavior (Anglin and
Perrochet 1998; Ball, Shaffer, and Nurco 1983; Boyum and Kleiman 2002; Brownstein, Shiledar
Baxi, et al. 1992; Condon and Smith 2003; Dawkins 1997; DeLeon 1988a; 1988b; Harrison and
Gfroerer 1992; Inciardi 1992; Inciardi and Pottieger 1994; Inciardi, Martin, et al. 1996; Johnson,
Goldstein, et al. 1985; MacCoun and Reuter 2001; Miller and Gold 1994; Mocan and Tekin
2004). Drug use increases crime in several ways. Psychopharmacologic effects of substance use
can lead users to commit crimes while they are intoxicated, and intoxicated people are more
likely to become victims (Cottler, Compton, et al. 1992). Economic compulsive effects lead
users to commit crimes to gain resources to buy drugs (Goldstein 1985). Drug trafficking is often
associated with violence (Boyum and Kleiman 2002; Goldstein 1985; MacCoun, Kilmer, and
Reuter 2003).

The cycle of drug use and crime is difficult to break. Drug sellers are often drug users (Reuter,
MacCoun, and Murphy 1990), and incarcerating sellers may lead to replacement by new
suppliers who then may have an increased risk of becoming users (Freeman 1996, Blumstein
2000). Young drug users and suppliers are most likely to be violent (Blumstein and Cork 1996,
MacCoun et al. 2003), and criminal behavior increases as the frequency and intensity of use
increases (Anglin, Longshore, and Turner 1999; Anglin and Maugh 1992; Chaiken and Chaiken
1990; Stewart, Gossop, et al. 2000; Vito 1989). Criminal incidence is highest for substance
abusers while they are using drugs―four to six times more than when they are not abusing
narcotics (Ball, Rosen, et al. 1982; Gropper 1985), a pattern that is even more pronounced
among habitual offenders (Vito 1989).

Desistance from drug use, through drug treatment or deterrence, is associated with declines in
crime—particularly income-generating crimes (Anglin et al. 1999; Chaiken and Chaiken 1982;
Degenhardt, Conroy, et al. 2005; Inciardi 1987; Nurco, Kinlock, and Hanlon 1990; Speckert and
Anglin 1986). A growing literature suggests substance abuse treatment can be effective in
reducing demand for drugs and reducing rates of offending associated with drug consumption.
Economic studies have found that (1) treatment is more cost-effective than incarceration
(Caulkins and Reuter 1997; MacKenzie 2006; Lipsey and Cullen 2007), (2) intensive long-term
treatment is most effective (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2009), (3) direct interaction with a
judge is more effective for serious drug users (Marlowe, Festinger, et al. 2005a), and (4) violent
offenses cause the greatest economic damage to communities (Cohen and Miller 2003).

The number of drug users has remained relatively stable over time (Rhodes, Layne, et al. 2000)
suggesting a general aging of the cocaine and heroin-using population (Golub and Johnson
1997). Despite this, drug users face a significant risk of arrest and incarceration: a part-time drug
seller in Washington, DC, has a 22 percent risk of imprisonment in a given year, and spends

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 23

Final Version

about one-third of his/her criminal career incarcerated (Reuter et al. 1990, MacCoun and Reuter
2001). Kleiman (1992) estimates that heavy users of cocaine who are arrested annually consume
60 percent of the cocaine in the United States. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that
about half of both federal prisoners and jail inmates abuse or are dependent on drugs (Mumola
and Karberg 2006; Karberg and James 2005). Few, however, received treatment within the
criminal justice system (Harrell and Roman 2001; Marlowe, DeMatteo, and Festinger 2003).
Among incarcerated populations, only about 15 percent received drug treatment (Karberg and
James 2005).

The Theory of Drug Courts

While TASC and ISP (described in Chapter 1) each had linkages to the criminal justice system,
they did not fully exploit the coercive powers of courts to motivate compliance with treatment
protocols.11 Under the rubric of therapeutic jurisprudence, a more formal model of intensive
court-based supervision, referred to as drug treatment courts, emerged in the 1990s (Hora,
Schma, and Rosenthal 1999; Senjo and Leip 2001a; Slobogin 1995; Wexler and Winick 1991).
The therapeutic jurisprudence model posits that legal rules and procedures can be used to
improve psychosocial outcomes, an idea supported by a growing research consensus that coerced
treatment is as effective as voluntary treatment (Anglin, Brecht, and Maddahian 1990; Belenko
1999; Collins and Allison 1983; DeLeon 1988a, 1988b; Hubbard, Marsden, et al. 1989;
Lawental, McClellan, et al. 1996; Siddall and Conway 1988; Trone and Young 1996).

Therapeutic jurisprudence is not the only theoretical foundation for drug courts. Deterrence
theory posits that receipt or threat of a punishment for an infraction will reduce the likelihood
that the infraction will be repeated. General deterrence holds that by increasing the probability
that a particular infraction will be punished, infractions will be reduced. Specific deterrence
posits that an individual’s own experience with punishment will affect his/her future behavior.
For all facets of deterrence, the goal is to increase the expectation that an infraction will be
punished; those expectations can be changed either by directly punishing an individual, making
highly visible punishments of others, or simply by increasing individuals’ beliefs that
punishment will follow an infraction. Drug courts employ graduated sanctions—incrementally
more stringent responses to continuing infractions—as mechanisms to deter future offending.
Drug courts often combine deterrence-based approaches with positive rewards for good conduct
based on social learning theory, which posits that publicly rewarding pro-social behaviors can
reinforce those behaviors in group settings. There have been few direct studies of the
effectiveness of deterrence on client outcomes. Marlowe, Festinger, et al. (2005b) found
correlational evidence that drug court clients with higher “elevated” perceptions of deterrence
had better outcomes than those with lower levels of perceived deterrence. In an analysis of drug

11
An outcome evaluation of five TASC programs found some evidence of reduced recidivism and drug use, but the
results were mixed (Anglin et al. 1999). Conversely, ISP resulted in increased incarceration rates, although the
effect may have been confounded by increased oversight of participant behavior (Tonry 1990; Petersilia, Turner, and
Deschenes 1992; Turner, Petersilia, and Deschenes 1992). Other justice-treatment partnerships―such as those
mandated under Proposition 36 passed in California in 2001 and the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA)
program in Washington―serve large numbers of offenders in several states, and generally have been found to yield
better treatment and criminal justice outcomes (Aos, Phipps, and Barnoski 2005; Longshore, Urada, et al. 2004).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 24

Final Version

court mediators, Gottfredson, Kearley, et al. (2007) report that both procedural justice and
deterrence contribute to better drug court participant outcomes.

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice theory predicts that in their interactions with the criminal justice system,
individuals are as much—if not more—concerned about fair procedures and respectful treatment
by legal authorities as they are about the outcomes of those interactions. A substantial research
literature suggests that individuals’ judgments of procedural fairness shapes their perceptions of
the legitimacy of and satisfaction with legal authorities, which in turn influences their
compliance with the law and decisions made by those legal authorities. The theory asserts that
these procedural effects are independent of outcomes produced. Thus, individuals who perceive
that they have been treated fairly by the system can have better procedural outcomes (such as
compliance with court mandates), regardless of the outcome of their case (such as the length of
the sentence).

This influence of procedural justice was first introduced by Thibaut and Walker (1975) through
their studies of simulated criminal trials, in which they found that subjects perceived procedures
as being fair if they felt they had process control (i.e., adequate opportunity to present evidence
and arguments in support of their case). Folger (1977) refers to this as “fair process effect,” and
Lind and Tyler (1988) refer to this as “voice” effect in their small group experiments that show
enhanced perceptions of procedural fairness. Lind, Kanfer, and Earley (1990) further
demonstrated this voice effect, finding that the opportunity for a defendant to speak post-decision
was associated with the perception of fair judgments. Tyler’s (1990) study of the effects of
Chicago residents’ recent personal experiences with legal authorities found that respondents’
perceptions of procedural fairness were shaped by whether they had the opportunity to share
their side of the story, and their perception that they were treated both impartially and with
respect. Looking at felony offenders, Casper, Tyler, and Fisher (1988) similarly found that these
defendants’ perceptions of procedural fairness in interactions with the police and courts were
strongly linked to their perceptions of whether their case was handled in a procedurally fair
manner.

There is considerable research indicating that people’s perceptions of procedural fairness affect
their perceptions of the legitimacy of legal authorities, and their satisfaction regarding
interactions with those authorities (Tyler 2003). Studies of defendants charged with minor
offenses find increased satisfaction with, and perceived legitimacy of, authorities as a result of
perceived fairness (e.g., Lind 1982, Tyler 1984). In Casper et al.’s (1988) look at felony
offenders, defendants’ views of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system were linked to the
procedural justice of their case disposition process. Barnes (1999) evaluated the influence of
procedural justice through restorative justice conferences on arrested drunk driving offenders in
Australia. Participants regarded the conferences as being procedurally fairer than traditional
courts, and had more positive views with respect to the legal system’s legitimacy.

Studies that examine personal encounters with police consistently demonstrate that perceived
legitimacy of police is highly correlated with perceptions of procedural justice (e.g., Tyler 1990,
Tyler and Huo 2002). Moreover, Tyler (1990) found that these perceptions of legitimacy were

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 25

Final Version

not significantly related to positive outcomes. Johnson (2004) evaluated the importance of
procedural justice during routine traffic stops, as well as citizens’ impressions of the interaction
between police officers and citizens (often referred to as ‘verbal judo’) (Bradstreet 1993,
Thompson and Jenkins 1993). Respondents reported that the officer’s behavior (e.g., listening to
their excuse, showing empathy) was more important than the outcome of the stop itself. Tyler
(2001) surveyed citizens in Chicago, Oakland, and Los Angeles, and found that general opinions
regarding the police—and consequently the entire criminal justice system—were most
influenced by perceptions of how the police treated citizens and rarely based upon their crime-
solving effectiveness. Similarly, Smith, Tomaskovic-Devey, et al. (2003) found that a negative
encounter with an officer (based either on their own or a family member’s experience) was the
principal basis for distrust of police in both African-Americans and whites; further, for the
African-American respondents, disrespectful treatment by the police could undermine trust of all
government branches.

There is also a robust literature indicating that perceptions of legitimacy and procedural fairness
enhance compliance with the legal rules and authorities. Tyler (1990) found an association
between legitimacy and self-reported declines in minor offending (e.g., littering, drunk driving,
speeding, petty theft, parking violation, noise violations). Observational studies by Mastrofski,
Reisig, and McCluskey (2002) and Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina (1996) found that citizen
compliance to police officer requests is highest when requests were given respectfully and
perceived as having legitimacy, while a lack of legitimacy may actually promote crime rate
increases (see also La Free 1998). Sunshine and Tyler’s (2003) survey of residents evaluating the
New York City Police Department suggests that legitimacy shapes compliance, cooperation, and
empowerment independent of distributive fairness, police effectiveness, and likelihood of
sanction risk.

Perceptions of procedural fairness shape compliance with legal requirements and supervision
rules, even when such outcomes conflict with people’s self-interests. In their interactions with
police, the more people make positive judgments of procedural fairness and perceive they have
been treated respectfully by police, the more motivated they are to defer to the law and comply
with police requests for self-control (Tyler 2001, 2004; McCluskey 2003). Paternoster, Brame, et
al. (1997) found that batterers arrested for domestic violence were less likely to be re-arrested in
another domestic abuse incident if those individuals perceived they had been treated respectfully
by their arresting officer. In situations of third-party decision-making (e.g., small claims court,
arbitration, mediation), numerous studies find that when authorities act in ways that are
perceived as being fair, participants are more likely to voluntarily comply with decisions made
(Kitzman and Emery 1993; Lind, Kulik, et al. 1993; Lind, Greenberg, et al. 2000; MacCoun,
Lind, et al. 1998; Poythress 1994; Wissler 1995), even when those judgments may be
unfavorable to themselves (McEwen and Maiman 1984). Moreover, procedural justice appears to
influence long-term behavior. Pruitt and colleagues (1993) examined factors that led to
adherence to the terms of mediated agreements, finding that the procedural fairness of the initial
mediation was a principal factor for adherence at six months. In the case of drug courts,
Gottfredson et al.’s (2007) study of the mediating effects of drug courts on outcomes found that
participation in drug court increased the number of judicial hearings attended, which reduced the
variety of drugs used and the variety of crimes committed by increasing perceptions of
procedural justice.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 26

Final Version

Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory is based on the simple idea that actual or threatened sanctions should deter
crime. Three aspects of punishment—perceived certainty, severity, and celerity of the possible
sanctions—are hypothesized to affect a would-be offender’s decision-making process and to be
correlated with offending (Andenaes 1974; Gibbs 1975). The theory is typically regarded as
involving two linkages: (1) a perceptual link, where the potential offender forms perceptions
about the risks of committing the crime based on information regarding sanction policy and other
experiences, and (2) a behavioral link, where the potential offender’s sanction risk perceptions
influence his behavior (Paternoster 1987; Scheider 2001).

Most research in deterrence theory has focused on the second link, analyzing the relation
between sanction risk perception and behavior. As a review by Nagin (1998) describes, literature
through the late nineties using interrupted time-series, ecological, and perceptual studies
provides evidence that a deterrent effect does operate on some would-be offenders. Interrupted
time-series studies have examined the effect of drunk-driving laws, police crackdowns on drug
markets, disorderly behavior, and gun-control laws and ordinances (Kleiman 1986, 1988; Loftin
and McDowall 1984; Loftin, McDowall, et al. 1991; McDowall, Loftin, and Weirsema 1992;
Reuter, Haaga, et al. 1988; Sherman, Roschelle, et al. 1986). Generally, these interventions are
successful in producing an initial deterrent effect. However, that effect decays even while the
intervention is still in effect.12 Ecological studies have found a negative association between
crime rates and intensity of sanctions (Kagan 1989; Levitt 1996; Sampson and Cohen 1988), and
perceptual studies typically find lower self-reported criminality among those who perceive
higher sanction risks (e.g., Bachman, Paternoster, and Ward 1992; Grasmick and Bursick 1990;
Paternoster and Simpson 1977).

Scenario-based perceptual studies have explored situational differences, since the perception of
sanction threat may be affected by the context within which the potential crime occurs (e.g.,
witness or police presence). Respondents that perceive sanctions as more certain or severe
reported reduced probabilities that they would engage in tax evasion, drunk driving, theft, sexual
assault, and corporate crime (Bachman et al. 1992; Klepper and Nagin 1989a, 1989b; Nagin and
Paternoster 1993, 1994; Paternoster and Simpson 1997). All told, there appears to be consensus
that negative association between sanction perception and behavior is measuring deterrence.

Research on deterrence theory prior to this decade emphasized situational circumstances external
to the potential offender (such as expected certainty of sanction), However, there is growing
recognition that individual differences (including such factors as prior personal crime offending
experience, vicarious offending experience, criminal propensity, stake in conformity, peer
associations, etc.) may exert a conditioning effect on perceived sanction threats.

12
Sherman (1990) provides terminology to describe this phenomenon. “Initial deterrence decay,” is the reduction in
deterrence as “potential offenders learn through trial and error that they had overestimated the certainty of getting
caught at the beginning of the crackdown,” and “residual deterrence,” which is the continued deterrence that occurs
after the intervention has ended.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 27

Final Version

Personal and Vicarious Experiences Conditioning Sanction Risk Perception and

the Effects of Sanction Threats

Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the first link—how and what influences the
formation of sanction risk perceptions. Stafford and Warr’s (1993) reconceptualization of
deterrence provided one of the first models of perceptual formation. They observed that the
traditional approach of distinguishing specific deterrence and general deterrence had two
shortcomings. First, this line of inquiry assumed that the two kinds of deterrence affected two
different sets of potential offenders, active offenders (specific) and non-active offenders
(general). Stafford and Warr posit that a single individual may experience both types of
deterrence. According to their model, personal and vicarious (i.e., others’) punishment
experiences can deter offending. Thus, a potential offender may experience an increase in
perceived sanction certainty by being arrested and by vicariously experiencing an arrest.
Conversely, successful personal and vicarious experiences avoiding punishment may decrease
perceived sanction certainty.

Research on the central tenets of deterrence theory is somewhat mixed, but generally supports
the notion that sanction risk perceptions evolve and update as a result of ongoing experiences.
Paternoster, Saltzman, et al. (1985) found a significant relationship between reductions in
perceived certainty and increased involvement in petty theft and bad check writing; being
formally sanctioned was related to an increase in perceived certainty. Using data from a sample
of 1,000 convicted felons, Horney and Marshall (1992) found subjects with higher arrest ratios
(i.e., ratio of arrest to self-reported crime) also reported high risk perceptions. In addition,
Lochner (2007) used data from the National Youth Survey and the National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth, concluding that individuals engaging in crime who avoided arrest tended to reduce
their perceived risk of arrest, while those who were arrested tended to raise their perceived risk
of arrest and accordingly reduced their offending.

Pogarsky, Kim, and Paternoster (2005) also used the National Youth Survey to test a framework
for forming and updating sanction risk perception. They found mixed results: arrests had no
effect on sanction certainty perception for stealing and attacking (i.e., the converse of Stafford
and Warr’s deterrence theory), while prior offending experience produced decreased certainty
perceptions. Peer offending coincided with reduced perceived certainty for stealing, but not for
attacking. Prior offending experience appears to have enhanced the effects of offending
experiences on perceived risks, and moral inhibition reduced the effects of offending experiences
on sanction risk perception.

In contrast to the Stafford and Warr’s prediction, Pogarsky and Piquero (2003) found evidence
consistent with a “resetting” effect among low-risk subjects: those with prior punishment had a
lower perception of the certainty of punishment. They theorized that offenders may reset their
estimated certainty of being caught, believing they would have to be exceptionally unlucky to be
caught again, thus resulting in the observed positive punishment effect. Further analysis found
that the resetting was specific to those who were least experienced in offending, or the most
impulsive. Piquero and Paternoster (1998) also tested Stafford and Warr’s re-conceptualization
in a study involving drunk driving, finding results contrary to the model’s prediction. While
successfully avoiding punishment encouraged offending as predicted by Stafford and Warr,

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 28

Final Version

experiencing punishment encouraged offending. Additionally, they found that vicarious

punishment experiences encouraged projected drunk driving, while vicarious avoidance
discouraged it—the opposite of what would be predicted by Stafford and Warr (the authors
acknowledge that their inconclusive findings with respect to Stafford and Warr’s model may
have been a result of their data’s inability to reflect the theory’s key constructs). Further testing
the Stafford and Warr model, Piquero and Pogarsky (2002) corroborated several key predictions.
However, they also found further evidence for an “emboldening effect,” as punishment
experiences appeared to encourage future offending. The authors offered the “resetting effect”
and “self-serving bias”—where vicarious punishment experience could be perceived by the
potential offender as evidence of his/her own more skillful lawbreaking—as possible
explanations for this contrary finding.

Criminal Propensity Conditioning Sanction Risk Perception and the Effects of

Sanction Threats

Deterrence research regarding criminal propensity often operationalizes propensity as low self-
control, present orientation, or impulsivity. The results from studies of how criminal propensity
affects deterrence are mixed as to whether criminal propensity diminishes or enhances risk
perception and deterrent effects.

Nagin and Pogarsky’s (2003) study of drunk driving among a sample of college students found
that the influence of sanction severity diminished with increasing present orientation in an
individual. They offer the explanation that criminally prone individuals possess a “here-and-
now” orientation, and tend to discount future consequences. A similar study by Pogarsky (2002)
found that “incorrigible” offenders—individuals driven by biological and psychological urges
with low “executive cognitive function” such that they do not consider the consequences of their
conduct—were the most impulsive, and unresponsive to criminal sanctions for drunk driving.
Piquero and Tibbetts (1996) examined the relationship between self-control and legal and extra-
legal sanction threats, finding that for drunk driving and shoplifting, those with lower levels of
self-control exhibited smaller deterrent effects of shame, and greater positive effect of perceived
thrills on offending. In one of the few randomized experiments in the deterrence literature, Nagin
and Pogarsky (2003) examined cheating and the influence of factors such as self-serving bias and
impulsivity, the first study to investigate both situational and individual differences. The
prevalence of cheating lowered when the detection was more certain, but not when the
punishment was made more severe, consistent with the widely held notion that certainty rather
than severity is the more powerful deterrent. Moreover, they found that cheating was more likely
in participants with stronger present orientation, or who were prone towards self-serving bias.

While these studies suggest criminal propensity diminished deterrent effects, a number of studies
show the opposite relationship. Using data from the Dunedin Study, a longitudinal study of
individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, from birth to age 26, Wright, Caspi, et al. (2004) found
that sanction risk perception had a positive interaction with, and greatest impact on, those low in
self-control and high in self-perceived criminality. A study by Tittle and Botchkovar (2005)
examining criminal motivation, self-control, and deterrence using a sample of adults from Nizhni
Novgorod, Russia, reported similar findings. A study by Pogarsky (2006) examined how
variation in criminal propensity conditions deterrent effects in a sample of convicted offenders in

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 29

Final Version

New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program (ISP). These findings showed that offenders’
perceived certainty and severity regarding the risks and consequences of violating ISP was
negatively associated with violation of ISP, and that if anything, deterrent effects were stronger
for those with lower self-control.

Deterrence Literature Regarding Drug‐Involved Offenders

Paternoster and Piquero (1995) explored the implications of Stafford and Warr’s re-
conceptualization using a high school student sample from a large, southeastern U.S. city to
evaluate sanction risk perception and substance abuse. They found that self-reported substance
abuse was affected by the influence of personal and vicarious experiences on perceived certainty
of punishment; punishment and punishment avoidance predicted substance abuse by students;
and the perceived certainty of punishment risk was lowest for those with little to no personal and
vicarious punishment experience, and highest for those with substantial personal and vicarious
punishment experience.

In a study using nationally representative samples of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, Terry-
McElrath and colleagues (2009) examined possible relationships between local drug policy for
first-time offender juvenile marijuana possession offenses (as reported by local prosecutors) and
youth self-reported marijuana use, perceived risk, and disapproval. Communities where strong
deterrence-oriented policies dominated, such as placement in a juvenile facility or waiver to
criminal court, were associated with lower marijuana usage levels, higher perceived use risk, and
higher disapproval. In contrast, communities that made frequent use of community service were
associated with higher youth marijuana use levels, and lower risk and disapproval. Uses of fines
did not result in any meaningful associations. Moreover, diversion to drug treatment programs
was related to decreased perceived risk of occasional use, and showed a non-significant
relationship with increasing odds of past-30-day marijuana use. Terry-McElrath et al.’s findings
suggest a relationship exists between marijuana policy and youth marijuana use, perception of
risk and disapproval, however, they note that the relationship may be influenced by community-
level factors and may have substance-specific aspects.

Effectiveness of Drug Courts

A number of studies have found that drug court participation reduces recidivism rates (Finigan,
1998; Goldkamp andWeiland 1993; Gottfredson and Exum 2002; Harrell and Roman 2001;
Jameson and Peterson 1995; Peters and Murrin 2000; Wilson, Mitchell, and Mackenzie 2006);
although programs vary in the degree to which they are successfully implemented. Among the
evaluations included in the GAO (2005) review, adult drug court completion rates ranged from
27 to 66 percent. Using focus groups, an examination of three drug court programs in New York
found that most participants admitted to initially entering the program to avoid prison, but many
eventually, “became more concerned about completing treatment, staying clean, and improving
their lives” (Farole and Cissner 2005: 6). Many also entered the program without fully
comprehending the program requirements; even so, most felt the rules were fair. Drug testing
and the threat of jail were seen as motivating factors in complying with treatment and other
program components, whereas positive feedback from the judge and other rewards gave the

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 30

Final Version

participants a sense of achievement. However, there were various complaints about the treatment
programs, including the duration, content, schedules, and fees.

Nonetheless, with federal funding and favorable evaluations, the model has proliferated. As of
January 2009, there were 2,301 drug courts operating nationally (NADCP 2010), including adult
drug courts in most medium and large counties.

Impact on Retention in Treatment

In the broader substance abuse treatment research literature, retention is often defined as an
important indicator of success. Earlier research finds that actively participating in treatment for a
longer period of time, 90 days at the least and preferably up to one year, strongly predicts lower
post-treatment drug use and criminal re-offending (e.g., Anglin et al. 1990; DeLeon 1988;
Taxman 1998; Taxman, Kubu, and DeStefano 1999). Unfortunately, most substance-using
individuals who enter treatment do not succeed. Only an estimated 10 to 30 percent of substance
abusers nationwide either graduate or are still active one year after enrolling in treatment (Lewis
and Ross 1994). By comparison, adult drug courts have been estimated to produce a substantially
higher “one-year retention rate” of about 60 percent nationally (Belenko 1998) and 66 percent in
a study of 11 New York State drug courts (Rempel, Fox-Kralstein, et al. 2003). The improved
performance of treatment participants who are mandated through drug courts is generally
believed to be a result of the legal pressure entailed by a court mandate and specifically by the
threat of incarceration that drug court participants face in the event of failing. Indeed, several
studies have confirmed that greater legal coercion leads to improved short-term, as well as long-
term treatment outcomes (e.g., DeLeon 1988; Hiller, Knight, et al. 1998; Young and Belenko
2002).

Impact on Criminal Involvement

Official Measures of Criminal Involvement

The vast majority of adult drug court evaluations have found that drug courts are associated with
reduced recidivism. From the late 1990s through the mid-2000s, a series of narrative literature
reviews agreed that most of the more than 50 published studies show reductions in recidivism
(e.g., Belenko 1998, 1999, 2001; GAO 2005; Roman and DeStefano 2004).

More recently, two reviews have emerged that employed formal meta-analytic techniques,
enabling the production of quantitative generalizations. The first considered evaluations of 55
sites, including 49 adult and 6 juvenile drug courts (Wilson et al. 2006). In 48 of 55 sites, drug
court participants had lower re-arrest or re-conviction rates than their comparison groups. The
average odds ratio for the entire sample of sites was 1.66 (p < .05), and the sites averaged an
estimated 13 percentage point reduction in recidivism. Schaffer (2006) employed comparable
meta-analytic techniques with an overlapping, but slightly larger group of 61 adult and 21
juvenile drug court evaluations. This analysis reported an average recidivism reduction of 10
percentage points for adult drug courts and five points for juvenile drug courts. This analysis
added that drug court programs designed to last from 8 to 16 months were more effective in
reducing recidivism than those designed to last for either shorter or longer timeframes. This

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 31

Final Version

finding suggests that short doses of the drug court intervention are insufficient to bring about
lasting behavioral changes, whereas on the other end of the spectrum, extremely long programs
may reach a point of diminishing returns.

A third review conducted by the GAO (2005) omitted evaluations whose designs were seriously
compromised: for example, by comparing only successful participants (graduates) to the
comparison group or by making no effort to control for baseline differences between participants
and comparison offenders. Previous reviewers had all drawn attention to the low scientific
quality of much of the literature, and the Schaffer analysis detected a noticeably smaller effect
size for studies implemented with a higher quality methodology. However, the GAO results
continued to be positive. Drug courts significantly reduced the re-arrest rate in 10 of 13 sites, and
significantly reduced the re-conviction rate in 10 of 12 sites.

Of the individual studies that have been completed, the early 2000s randomized trial of the
Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (BCDTC) has attracted special attention, as the study
involved a well-implemented experimental design. The Baltimore program, itself, appeared to
exemplify all of the classic features of a drug court, including treatment, coupled with a formal
system of monitoring by both probation and a designated judge unlike several earlier randomized
trials which suffered implementation problems (e.g., Deschenes, Turner, and Greenwood 1995;
Harrell, Cavanagh, and Roman 1999). These factors led the results to have strong internal, as
well as external validity. Additionally, the BCDTC trial followed participants for three years.
Findings indicated that over one- (Gottfredson and Exum 2002), two- (Gottfredson, Najaka, and
Kearley 2003) and three-year (Gottfredson, Najaka, et al. 2006) post-randomization periods, the
drug court produced a significant reduction in re-arrests, although the re-arrest rates were
remarkably high across both the drug court and comparison samples (78 percent vs. 88 percent at
three years). While these studies used an experimental design and consistently found that drug
courts reduced recidivism, it is important to keep in mind that the results are all from only one
court and may not be generalizable.

However, multi-site studies have yielded similarly positive results. For example, a statewide
evaluation of six New York State drug courts reported an average recidivism reduction of 16
percentage points for a three-year tracking period after the initial arrest or a reduction of nine
percentage points when isolating a one-year post-program timeframe (Rempel et al. 2003). Other
statewide evaluations respectively detected recidivism reductions in eight of nine California sites
(Carey, Crumpton, et al. 2005), four of five Indiana sites (Wiest, Carey, et al. 2007), and five of
five Washington State sites (Aos, Phipps, et al. 2001).

Since few studies track offenders for more than two or three years, most authors caveat that
despite the encouraging results to date, more research on the intervention’s long-term effects is
needed (e.g., Belenko 2001; GAO 2005; Roman and DeStefano 2004). In this regard, a recent
study of the Portland drug court found that it produced a 30 percent reduction in re-arrests over 5
years, and significantly reduced drug-related re-arrests over 14 years (Finigan, Carey, and Cox
2007). Similarly, a recent study examined recidivism over at least ten-year follow-up period in
the Baltimore City drug court (Mackin, Lucas, et al. 2009). The authors found that while
significantly fewer program participants than the comparison group experienced at least 1 re-
arrest, beginning in year 6, the difference in annual recidivism rates was not significant in any of

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 32

Final Version

the 10 years. Additionally, the treatment group had fewer cumulative arrests in years 2 and 3, but
the comparison group had significantly fewer cumulative arrests in years 7 to 10. Therefore,
while some positive impacts appear to hold over time, the results are mixed and are based on
only two evaluations. To date, these are the only evaluations with a measurement period of more
than four years.

Self‐Reported Re‐Offending

Despite the large number of evaluations based on official measures of recidivism, virtually none
interview offenders to obtain information on the full extent of their criminal behavior, whether or
not it precipitated an arrest. Such data might be illuminating, given that a great many nonviolent
drug offenses go undetected as a function of police deployment strategies, offender evasion
tactics, or other factors.

In evaluating the Brooklyn Treatment Court, Harrell et al. (2001) found that in the 6 months
prior to a 1-year interview, drug court participants reported committing fewer total offenses and
were less likely to report committing any offense (13 percent vs. 48 percent) or any drug offense
(7 percent vs. 34 percent,). In addition, both the Baltimore experiment (Gottfredson, Kearley, et
al. 2005) and an evaluation of a Washington, DC, “sanctions” program that used select aspects of
the drug court model (Harrell et al. 1999) found that participants reported fewer total offenses;
although in Washington, the impact on drug offenses was not statistically significant.

Impact on Drug Use

Only five evaluations have examined drug use impacts directly, and their results are mixed. The
earliest of these evaluations looked at a drug court in Maricopa County, Arizona (Deschenes et
al. 1995). At one-year follow-up, the drug court and comparison samples did not differ in their
overall rates of positive drug tests. Although drug court participants were significantly less likely
than comparison offenders to test positive for heroin or cocaine, participants were significantly
more likely to test positive for marijuana.

Four subsequent studies point to more positive impacts. An evaluation of a Washington, DC,
program that was not a drug court per se, but had several practices in common, found that those
assigned to a system of graduated sanctions for noncompliance were more likely to test drug-free
and had a significantly lower percentage of positive drug tests during the program period than
those on a “standard” docket. However, there were no significant differences between these
groups for self-reported reduction in drug use during the year after sentencing (Harrell et al.
1999). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court found that participants had
significant lower rates of positive drug tests than the comparison group during a period when
participants were actively enrolled and when comparison offenders were supervised by probation
(Brewster 2001). An evaluation of the Brooklyn drug court found that at one-year follow up,
participants reported significantly lower rates of drug use overall, of cocaine or heroin use, and
of drinking to intoxication; and also reported a slightly, but not significantly, lower rate of
marijuana use (Harrell, Roman, and Sack 2001). Finally, the Baltimore experiment found that
after three years, participants scored significantly lower than the comparison group on a measure
of alcohol addiction severity. Participants also scored lower on a measure of drug addiction

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 33

Final Version

severity and reported fewer days of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin use within the previous year; but
none of these latter differences was significant (Gottfredson et al. 2005).

Limiting their utility, these findings not only come from only a handful of sites, but each study
encountered important design flaws, making problematic any attempt at generalization. For
instance, the Maricopa program appeared to deviate from several classic drug court practices (see
OJP/NADCP 1997), rendering the program somewhat unrepresentative of the field. Maricopa’s
drug court participants averaged fewer face-to-face contacts with probation officers and less
frequent drug tests than the comparison group, although the drug court model should, if well
implemented, entail an increase in such supervision. In addition, Maricopa’s participants
received an unusually weak legal incentive to perform well, with program graduates and failures
both sentenced to ongoing probation. Other research suggests that strong legal incentives to
succeed (e.g., case dismissal or meaningful sentence reduction for graduates vs. significant threat
of incarceration for failures) are important mechanisms for explaining drug court effectiveness
(Rempel and DeStefano 2001, Young and Belenko 2002).

The Washington, DC, program used random assignment to a sanctions, treatment, or traditional
docket and was not a classic drug court. The Chester, Brooklyn, and Baltimore studies suffered
from extremely low sample sizes, with the Brooklyn study also encountering substantial follow-
up attrition: only 39 percent of the Brooklyn drug court and 23 percent of comparison samples
were retained at follow up. In Baltimore, the follow-up sample included only 93 drug court and
64 comparison cases, meaning that the study had little statistical power to detect significant
effects; and indeed, nearly all of the raw data in the Baltimore results suggest less drug use in the
drug court sample, but are non-significant.

Impact on Psychosocial Outcomes

Only a few studies have directly examined whether drug courts produce other kinds of
psychosocial outcomes. Thus far, the results suggest that drug courts may be more effective at
reducing drug use and recidivism than at impacting broader change. The Baltimore experiment
found that there were no significant differences in rates of employment, physical and mental
health, and positive social relationships among treatment and comparison groups during a three-
year tracking period; however, a marginally significant difference (p=.067) was found for receipt
of public assistance (Gottfredson et al. 2005). Similarly, an evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment
Court found that while treatment court participants appeared to have fewer instances of
employment, interpersonal, psychiatric, and medical problems than the comparison group, the
findings were statistically non-significant (Harrell et al. 2001).

An evaluation of the Washington, DC, sanctions program (see above) found that treatment
program participants were less likely to have a motor vehicle accident or argument while using
drugs, but did not experience improvements in employment status, income, or participation in
educational/vocational programs than those assigned to the traditional docket (Harrell et al.
1999). Finally, a study of a family drug treatment court found improvements in employment
status and life functioning (measured by the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale)
between program entry and six months of treatment (Bryan and Havens 2008). However, this
study has numerous methodological limitations: only 33 program participants responded at both

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 34

Final Version

baseline and follow-up interviews, there was substantial attrition, and a comparison group was
not used. The available literature is clearly inadequate to yield reliable generalizations, but these
results begin to suggest that with respect to these other outcomes, drug courts may not be able to
duplicate the same level of effectiveness that they appear to have achieved in reducing
recidivism.

For Whom Drug Courts Work

Extremely few studies have assessed whether specific categories of offenders benefit more than
others from the drug court intervention―even though many have emphasized the importance of
such information for policymaking (e.g., Cissner and Rempel 2005; Marlowe, De Matteo, and
Festinger 2003). A study of the Los Angeles drug court found that while it did not lower
recidivism among “low risk” defendants, it did significantly reduce the re-arrest rates for
“medium” and “high risk” defendants. Risk in this study was defined as a function of prior
criminal record and community ties (Fielding, Tye, et al. 2002). A series of randomized trials
found that the specific drug court practice of biweekly judicial status hearings led to increased
retention rates for high-, but not low- risk defendants. In these studies, risk was defined as
previous failed treatment or anti-social personality disorder (Marlowe, Festinger, and Lee
2004).Thus, the field has not arrived at a standard method for measuring “risk,” nor has the field
replicated any particular finding regarding for whom adult drug courts are more or less effective.

Isolating the Impact of Specific Drug Court Components

The research discussed above has addressed whether drug courts work at reducing recidivism
and substance use, while improving other social outcomes. However, very limited information
exists regarding how and why drug courts produce their apparently positive results (e.g., see the
critique in GAO 2005; Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001; Marlowe 2004). Some recent
research has explored the “black box” of drug courts, and these contributions are discussed
below.

Appearances before Drug Court Judge

In an early attempt to examine how drug courts work, Goldkamp et al. (2001) examined data on
court components and re-arrest from drug courts in Las Vegas and Portland. An analysis of data
from the Las Vegas program showed that, among drug court participants, the number of drug
court appearances was negatively related to any re-arrest and non-drug re-arrest during program
participation. However, among drug court participants in Portland, the number of court
appearances was not associated with a reduction in the probability of re-arrest. Listwan and
colleagues (2003) examined the impact of the number of status hearings on arrest and
incarceration of participants of the Hamilton County Drug Court program. They found that status
review hearings were associated with a decreased likelihood of arrest for a drug-related offense,
but were not associated with arrest or any offense, incarceration, or incarceration for a drug
offense.

In a series of studies in Wilmington, DE, misdemeanor drug court defendants were randomly
assigned to attend judicial status hearings on a bi-weekly basis or to attend these hearings as

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 35

Final Version

needed (in response to poor performance in treatment). Overall, little support was found for the
relationship between judicial status hearings and drug use or recidivism. Marlowe et al. (2003)
found that offenders assigned to bi-weekly judicial status hearings did not have more favorable
urinalysis (UA) or self-reported substance use and recidivism outcomes during the program than
those assigned to attend hearings only as needed.

However, using the same sample, Festinger, Marlowe, et al. (2002) found that individuals with
antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) had more weeks of favorable in-program UA results
when assigned to the bi-weekly condition than those assigned to the as-needed condition, and the
opposite was true for non-ASPD offenders. Similarly, those with a history of prior substance
abuse treatment were abstinent from drug use for a greater number of weeks when they were
assigned to the bi-weekly condition.

Using the same sample described above, drug use and criminal behavior at 6- and 12-months
post-admission were studied (Marlowe et al. 2005b). Similar to the in-program outcomes, no
differences in self-reported drug use, criminal behavior, or drug test results were found between
the group assigned to bi-weekly judicial status hearings and the group assigned to attend hearings
as needed.

In a replication of this research in two additional sites with both misdemeanor and felony drug
court defendants, no differences between bi-weekly and as-needed hearings were found for
participants’ UA results or self-reported substance use and criminal behavior during the first 14
weeks of the program (Marlowe et al. 2004). However, misdemeanor participants assigned to the
bi-weekly hearing program who had received drug treatment in the past had more favorable UA
results (p=.055) than similar individuals participating in hearings as needed. Felony defendants
with anti-social personality disorder reported less alcohol intoxication during the first three
months of drug court when they were assigned to the bi-weekly hearings as opposed to the as-
needed condition, and vice versa. Due to small sample sizes, these findings should be interpreted
with caution and considered preliminary (12 misdemeanor defendants, 6 bi-weekly and 6 as-
needed; 55 felony defendants, 23 bi-weekly and 33 as-needed).

Treatment

Goldkamp et al. (2001) examined both time in treatment, as well as the number of treatment
contacts on any re-arrest, drug re-arrest, and non-drug re-arrest in both Las Vegas and Portland
drug courts. In Las Vegas, they found the number of treatment contacts was associated with a
lower probability of re-arrest for any offense and a non-drug offense, while the length of time in
treatment lowered the probability of a drug re-arrest. However, these findings were not replicated
in Portland, where neither measure of treatment was associated with the re-arrest measures.
Anspach and Ferguson (2003) also found variation in the impact of treatment by site. They
assessed the impact of treatment (percentage of treatment sessions attended) on both in-program
and post-program arrest in four jurisdictions (Bakersfield, CA; Creek County, OK; Jackson
County, MO; and St. Mary Parish, LA). In Bakersfield, they found that attending a greater
proportion of treatment sessions decreased the incidence of arrest during the program. In St.
Mary’s Parish, treatment was found to have a direct negative impact on arrest within 12 months

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 36

Final Version

of discharge; while in both Bakersfield and Creek County, the impact of treatment was entirely
indirect, through its positive impact on program completion.

In a study of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court, which serves a high-risk drug-addicted
population, offenders were randomly assigned to the drug court or “treatment as usual.” Of those
assigned to the court, only half received treatment (defined as participation in a certified program
for at least 10 days) and others did not. Gottfredson and colleagues (2003) found that drug court
participants who were treated were less likely to be re-arrested, had fewer new arrests than both
untreated drug court defendants and non-drug court control group defendants, and had fewer new
arrests in a two-year follow-up period.

Three years after the random assignment, Gottfredson et al. (2007) interviewed 157 of the 235
defendants about their experiences during this time period. They calculated the number of days
the participants had been in drug treatment during the entire three-year follow-up period based
on self-reports of the beginning and end dates of each treatment episode. They used structural
equation modeling to examine the impact of various court components on crime variety, drug
variety, and frequency of multiple-drug use. Although they found that time in treatment was
associated with a reduction in the frequency of multiple-drug use, participation in drug court did
not mediate this effect. Additionally, they found no association between treatment days and
crime variety or drug variety.

In a study of the Multnomah County Drug Court, Finigan et al. (2007) found that the greater
number of days in substance abuse treatment is associated with significantly lower recidivism.
Senjo and Leip, examining a drug court in Florida, found that the number of treatments is
associated with an increase in the percentage of passed drug tests (2001a), but does not improve
program completion (2001b). In Delaware, Saum, Scarpitti, and Robbins (2001) similarly found
that treatment length was not related to graduation from drug court; however, the type of
treatment might impact success. Offenders who were treated in a therapeutic community had
marginally significant (p=.06) better success in drug court than those attending other types of
treatment programs.

In many of the preceding studies that found a positive effect of treatment, it remains unclear
whether treatment was truly responsible for the reported positive outcomes or whether treatment
dosage stood as a proxy measure for compliance―that is, those who complied longer with the
drug court presumably received more treatment and, as a related outcome, had a lower re-arrest
rate.

While each study above looked at an individual’s treatment receipt, Harrell et al. (2001)
compared defendants randomly assigned to one of three court dockets (sanctions, treatment, and
standard). Although assignment to docket was random, the defendant had an option to decline
the treatment and sanctions programs. This allowed Harrell et al. (1999) to make both
experimental “intent-to-treat” comparisons and quasi-experimental comparisons of the actual
participants. Defendants who were eligible for the treatment program and those who participated
were more likely to have drug-free urinalysis results in the month prior to sentencing than those
on the standard docket and also had a lower percentage of positive tests; however, these
differences were not found for self-reported use. While the program eligibles and participants did

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 37

Final Version

not differ from those assigned to the standard docket on having any arrests, the number of
arrests, or the number of arrests per days on the street, they did have fewer drug arrests in the
year after sentencing. Additionally, eligibles and participants reported similar rates of any re-
offense as did those on the standard docket, but the participants reported fewer offenses overall
and for certain crime types.

Sanctions

In their study of drug courts in Portland and Las Vegas, Goldkamp et al. (2001) found that
sanctions, especially jail, may be associated with greater probability of arrest. In Las Vegas,
measures of any sanctions and jail sanctions were both associated with increases in the
probability of any re-arrest, drug re-arrest, and non-drug re-arrest. The results were similar in
Portland, where jail sanctions were associated with an increase in any re-arrest and drug re-
arrest. In a study of ten years of Portland’s drug court, Finigan et al. (2007) also found that
sanctioning drug court participants is associated with higher re-arrest rates. Such findings may
not mean, per se, that sanctions were the cause of deleterious outcomes; more likely is that those
who were sanctioned represented a noncompliant pool, inherently at higher risk for additional
noncompliance in the form of future re-arrest.

In a study of the Hamilton County Drug Court program, sanctions (including fines, drivers’
license suspension, and probation) were not actually found to be associated with arrest, drug
arrest, incarceration, or a drug incarceration (Listwan et al. 2003). In their randomized trial that
compared a graduated sanctions docket to a standard docket, Harrell et al. (1999) found that
offenders on the sanctions docket were less likely to test positive for drugs in the month before
sentencing and also had a lower percentage of positive drug tests than standard docket offenders.
However, they did not find any differences for self-reported drug use during the year after
sentencing. Those who were eligible for the sanction program reported fewer offenses, and the
actual participants were less likely to be arrested and reported committing fewer offenses in the
year after sentencing than those on the standard docket. However, participants were not less
likely to report committing any offense that year.

Other Judicial Characteristics

In their examination of a ten-year period of Multnomah County’s drug court, Finigan et al.
(2007) were able to examine whether judges differ in their success in reducing recidivism and
also whether they improve with experience. Indeed, they found that all judges exhibited fewer re-
arrests for the drug court participants than comparison cases; however, the reductions range from
4 to 42 percent, and the differences were not always significant. Additionally, they found that
judges have better outcomes on their second rotation on the drug court bench compared with
their first drug court experience.

In a test of therapeutic jurisprudence theory using Broward County drug court participants, Senjo
and Leip (2001a) found that supportive judicial comments were positively associated with passed
drug tests, while adversarial comments were positively associated with failed drug tests. A
higher proportion of supportive comments were also found to increase the likelihood of
completing drug court program (Senjo and Leip, 2001b).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 38

Final Version

Economic Studies

We identified nine prior cost-benefit analyses of drug courts: four were conducted by NPC
Research (Carey and Waller 2008; Finigan 1998; Finigan et al. 2007; Mackin et al. 2009); two
were conducted by the Urban Institute (Harrell et al. 1999; Harrell, Mitchell, et al. 2003), and the
remaining three were each conducted independently (WSIPP 2003; Loman 2004; Zarkin,
Dunlap, Belenko, and Dynia 2005). The nine analyses evidence substantial variation in methods
and data employed. The majority have used only administrative data (Washington State Institute
for Public Policy 2003; Carey and Waller 2008; Finigan 1998; Finigan et al. 2007; Loman 2004;
Mackin et al. 2009; Zarkin et al. 2005). Only Harrell et al. (1999) and Harrell et al. (2003)
employed self-reported data. The length of follow-up also varied widely. The shortest study only
considered the effects of drug court over the nine months following enrollment (Harrell et al.
2003), while the longest looked at outcomes up to ten years later (Finigan 2007; Mackin et al.
2009).

A number of these only considered crime and continued involvement with the criminal justice
system as potential benefits (Aos et al. 2003, Finigan et al. 2007, Harrell et al. 1999, Harrell et al.
2003), while several do not consider reduced crime as a benefit of the program and instead
present only costs and benefits accrued to state agencies (Carey and Waller 2008, Mackin et al.
2009, Zarkin et al. 2005)13. Only two considered other potential benefits, such as employment
and welfare usage (Finigan 1998, Loman, 2004). Overall, the estimates are not directly
comparable because of inconsistencies in considered costs and benefits.

Methods employed also vary widely. Only one study used a control group based on random
assignment to identify program impacts (Harrell et al. 1999). All four NPC analyses use
individuals who did not participate in drug court as the comparison group. The studies vary to
the extent they account for observable differences in group attributes, and the papers argue that
unobservable differences, such as differences in motivation, do not need to be accounted for.
Zarkin et al. (2005) compare drug court participants with drug-involved offenders who were
sentenced to prison instead of a diversionary program. Loman (2004) compares drug court
graduates to probation completers to restrict the sample to only those motivated to succeed in a
criminal justice supervision program. Harrell et al. (1998) analyze two different “types” of drug
courts—a treatment intensive court and a sanctions intensive court—and compare these to
outcomes among a population treated as usual. WSIPP (2003) employs rigorous quasi-
experimental designs by drawing two different comparison groups: drug-involved offenders
arrested before the drug court began and drug-involved offenders arrested in neighboring
counties, without drug courts. Employing both samples and multiple methodologies to adjust for
group differences, WSIPP (2003) conducted six separate analyses and meta-analyzed them to
produce a single impact estimate.

Regardless of the comparison group, many of the studies employed matching techniques to
balance the treatment and comparison samples. These matches, however, were often based only
on age, race, gender, number of prior arrests, and current offense (Carey and Waller 2008,

13
Mackin et al. (2009) also did not consider drug treatment as a cost. Thus, the cost and benefit of drug court that
research suggests are the largest—drug treatment and averted crime, respectively—were both excluded.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 39

Final Version

Finigan 1998, Mackin et al. 2009). While some others account for juvenile record (WSIPP
2003), only two were able to account for history of drug abuse and motivation to seek treatment
(Loman 2004, Zarkin et al. 2005). The other studies did not use matching techniques either
because they employed pre-post comparison methods (Harrell et al. 2003), random assignment
(Harrell et al. 1999), or simply did not balance the samples (Finigan et al. 2007).

The substantial variation in research design carries through to the findings. Of the nine studies,
eight estimate net benefits per participant.14 For the roughly two years following program
enrollment, these estimates range from $2,944 per participant (Mackin et al. 2009) to $88,554
per participant (Zarkin et al. 2005). Most of the variation is explained by methodological
considerations. For instance, the high estimates of Zarkin et al. (2005) are largely driven by
differences in prison use. Given that the comparison group was drug offenders sentenced to
prison, this finding is not surprising.

Other findings, however, seem anomalous and are difficult to explain. For instance, Finigan et al.
(2007) found that drug court participants used over $1,000 less in drug treatment than the
comparison group. Closer inspection suggests that this result is largely driven by the fact that the
treatment group was not given residential treatment, while the comparison group was, and that
the hourly price of group therapy for the treatment group was a third of what it was for the
comparison group. The suggestion that jurisdictions stand to save money on drug treatment by
implementing a drug court seems counterintuitive and inconsistent with the drug court model.
Collectively, the analyses do not present a clear picture of the net benefits of drug court. While
most studies suggest that putting an individual through drug court is more costly than the status
quo, several estimate that it is the less expensive option (Carey and Waller 2008, Finigan et al.
2007).

There are some commonalities among studies, however. All studies that considered it found that
the costs of criminal victimization were substantially reduced by drug court participation, and
most found this to be one of the largest benefits (Finigan 1997, Harrell et al. 1999, Loman 2004).
Similarly, all studies found reductions, albeit sometimes small (Mackin et al. 2009) in
incarcerations, and all studies (except Harrell et al. 1999) found reductions in costs of arrests.
Court costs were almost universally higher (except in Mackin et al. 2009). Though little is
conclusively known about the various costs associated with drug court processing or outcomes,
on aggregate, the evidence suggests that the benefits outweigh the costs, and all studies estimate
that drug court participation produces positive net benefits to society.

Conclusions

Taken together, the body of literature on the effectiveness of drug courts consistently finds that
drug courts are effective at reducing criminal behavior. However, limitations in many of the
studies’ designs and methods suggest that caution is warranted when interpreting these results.
Analytic improvements, such as employing matched comparison groups and following
participants throughout extended follow-up periods, have improved the quality of recent studies;
nonetheless, the overall quality remains low. In addition, further research on the effectiveness of

14
Harrell et al. (2003) report only benefit-cost ratios.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 40

Final Version

drug courts in impacting outcomes other than recidivism, particularly substance abuse and
psychosocial outcomes, would advance our understanding of the full impact that drug courts
have on the lives of participants. Finally, research in the area of what works for whom, is a major
priority, in order to understand the mechanisms through which drug courts appear to facilitate
outcomes and to identify specific subgroups that can benefit the most from the key drug court
components.

References

Andenaes J. (1974). Punishment and Deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Anglin M.D., M.L. Brecht, and E. Maddahian. (1990). Pre-Treatment Characteristics and Treatment
Performance of Legally Coerced Versus Voluntary Methadone Maintenance Admissions.
Criminology, 27: 537-57.

Anglin M.D. and T.H.I. Maugh. (1992). Ensuring Success in Interventions with Drug Using Offenders.
Annals, AAPSS, 521: 66-90.

Anglin M.D. and B. Perrochet. (1998). Drug Use and Crime: A Historical Review of Research Conducted
by the UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center.

Anglin M.D., D. Longshore, and S. Turner. (1999). Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime: An
Evaluation of Five Programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 2: 168-195.

Anspach D. F. and A.S. Ferguson. (2003). Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context
of Adult Drug Courts. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

Aos S., P. Phipps, and R. Barnoski. (2005). Washington’s Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: An
Evaluation of Benefits and Costs. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Document
No. 05-01-1901.
Aos S., P. Phipps, R. Barnoski, and R. Lieb. (2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to
Reduce Crime Version 4.0. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Bachman R., Paternoster, R. and Ward, S. (1992). The Rationality of Sexual Offending: Testing a
Deterrence/Rational Choice Conception of Sexual Assault. Law and Society Review, 26: 343-372.

Ball J.C., L. Rosen, L., J. Flueck, and D. Nurco. (1982). Lifetime Criminality of Heroin Addicts in the
United States. Journal of Drug Issues, 3: 225-239.
Ball J.C., Shaffer, J.W., and D.N. Nurco. (1983). Day to Day Criminality of Heroin Addicts in Baltimore:
A Study in the Continuity of Offense Rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 12: 119-142.

Barnes G.C. (1999). Procedural Justice in Two Contexts: Testing the Fairness of Diversionary
Conferences for Intoxicated Drivers. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland.

Belenko S. (1998). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. National Drug Court Institute Review, I
(1): 1-42.

Belenko S. (1999). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 Update. National Drug Court
Institute Review, II (2): 1-58.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 41

Final Version

Belenko S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update. New York, NY: The
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Blumstein A. (2000). The Replacement of Drug Offenders to Diminish the Effects of Incarceration.
Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.

Blumstein A. and D. Cork. (1996). Linking Gun Availability to Youth Gun Violence. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 59: 5-24.

Boyum D. A. and M.A. Kleiman. (2002). Substance-Abuse Policy From a Crime Control Perspective. In
J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.). Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control. Oakland, CA: Institute
for Contemporary Studies, 331-382.

Bradstreet R. (1993). Reducing Citizen Complaints. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 9(2):33-
36.

Brewster M. P. (2001). An Evaluation of the Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program. Journal of Drug
Issues, 31: 177-206.

Brownstein H.H., H. Shiledar Baxi, P.J. Goldstein, and P.J. Ryan. (1992). The Relationship of Drugs,
Drug Trafficking, and Drug Traffickers to Homicide. Journal of Crime and Justice, 15: 25-44.

Bryan, V. and J. Havens. (2008). Key Linkages Between Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Treatment:
Social Functioning Improvements and Client Satisfaction in a Family Drug Treatment Court. Family
Court Review, 46: 151-162.

Carey S. M., D. Crumpton, M.W. Finigan, M. W., and M.S. Waller. (2005). California Drug Courts: A
Methodology for Determining Costs and Benefits PHASE II: Testing the Methodology: Final
Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Carey S.M. and M. Waller. (2008). Phase III: DC-CSET Statewide Launch, Superior Court of
Sacramento County, Sacramento Drug Court Site Specific Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Casper J.D., T. Tyler, and B. Fisher. (1988). Procedural Justice in Felony Cases. Law and Society
Review, 22:483-507.

Caulkins J.P. and P. Reuter. (1997). Setting Goals for Drug Policy: Harm Reduction or Use Reduction?
Addiction, 92: 1143-1150.

Chaiken J. M. and M.R. Chaiken, (1982). Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.

Chaiken J.M. and M.R. Chaiken. (1990). Drugs and Predatory Crime. Crime and Justice, 13: 203-39.

Cissner A. and M. Rempel. (2005). The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond “Do They Work.”
New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Cohen M.A. and T.R. Miller. (2003), 'Willingness to Award’ Nonmonetary Damages and the Implied
Value of Life from Jury Awards. International Review of Law and Economics, 23: 165-81.

Collins J.J. and Allison M. (1983). Legal coercion and retention in drug abuse treatment. Hosp
Community Psychiatry, 34(12):1145-9.

Condon J. and N. Smith. (2003). Prevalence of Drug Use: Key Findings from the 2002/2003 British
Crime Survey, United Kingdom Home Office.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 42

Final Version

Cottler L.B., W.M. Compton, D. Mager, E. Spitznagel, and A. Janca. (1992). Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder Among Substance Users from the General Population. American Journal of Psychiatry,
149: 664-670.

Dawkins M.P. (1997). Drug Use and Violent Crime Among Adolescents. Adolescence, 32: 395-405.

Degenhardt L., E. Conroy, S. Gilmour, and L. Collins. (2005). The Effect of a Reduction in Heroin
Supply in Australia upon Drug Distribution and Acquisitive Crime. The British Journal of
Criminology, 45: 2-24.

De Leon G. (1988a). Legal Pressure in Therapeutic Communities. Journal of Drug Issues, 18: 625-640.

DeLeon G. (1988b). Legal Pressure in Therapeutic Communities. In C. G. Leukfield and F. M. Tims

(Eds.), Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice (NIDA Research
Monograph 86, DHHS Publication No. ADM 88-1578, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 160-177.

Deschenes E.P., S. Turner, and P.W. Greenwood. (1995). Drug Court or Probation?: An Experimental
Evaluation of Maricopa County’s Drug Court. The Justice System Journal, 18, 55.

Farole D.J. and A.B. Cissner. (2005). Seeing Eye to Eye? Participant and Staff Perspectives on Drug
Courts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Festinger D.S., D.B. Marlowe, P.A. Lee, K. C. Kirby, G. Bovasso, and A.T. McLellan. (2002). Status
Hearings in Drug Court: When More is Less and Less is More. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68.

Fielding J.E., G. Tye, P. Ogawa, I.J. Imam, and A.M. Long. (2002). Los Angeles County Drug Court
Programs: Initial Results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23: 217-224.

Finigan M. (1998). An Outcome Program Evaluation of the Multnomah County S.T.O.P. Drug Diversion
Program. West Linn, OR: Northwest Professional Consortium.

Finigan M.W., S.M. Carey, and A. Cox. (2007). Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of
Operation: Recidivism and Costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Folger R. (1977). Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of ‘Voice’ and Improvement on
Experienced Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:108-119.

Freeman R.B. (1996). Why Do So Many Young American Men Commit Crimes and What Might We Do
About It? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10: 25-42.

Government Accountability Office (GAO 2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism
Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office.

Gibbs J.P. (1975). Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co.

Goldkamp J.S. and D. Weiland. (1993). Assessing the Impact of Dade County’s Felony Drug Court.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 43

Final Version

Goldkamp J. S., M. D. White, and R.B. Robinson. (2001). Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the
Drug Court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1).

Goldstein P. (1985). The Drug/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework. Journal of Drug
Issues, 14: 493-506.

Golub A. and B.D. Johnson. (1997). Crack’s Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 165707.

Gottfredson D.C. and M.L. Exum. (2002). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: One-Year Results
From a Randomized Study of Effectiveness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3).

Gottfredson D.C., S.S. Najaka, and B. Kearley. (2003). Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Courts:
Evidence From a Randomized Trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2).

Gottfredson D.C., B.W. Kearley, S.S. Najaka, and C.M. Rocha. (2007). How Drug Treatment Courts
Work: An Analysis of Mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1): 3-35.

Gottfredson D.C., S.S. Najaka, B.W. Kearley, and C.M. Rocha. (2006). Long-Term Effects of
Participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results From an Experimental Study.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2: 67-98.

Gottfredson D.C., B.W. Kearley, S.S. Najaka, and C.M. Rocha. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug
Treatment Court: Three-Year Self-Report Outcome Study. Evaluation Review, 29(1).

Grasmick H.G. and R.J. Bursick. (1990). Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending
the Deterrence Model. Law and Society Review, 24: 837-861.

Gropper B.A. (1985). Probing the Links Between Drugs and Crime. National Institute of Justice Research
in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Harrell A.V., S. Cavanagh and J.K. Roman. (1999). Findings From the Evaluation of the DC Superior
Court Drug Intervention Program. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.

Harrell A., O. Mitchell, J. Merrill, and D. Marlowe. (2003). Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Harrell A.V., J.K. Roman, and E. Sack. (2001). Drug Court Services for Female Offenders, 1996-1999:
Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Harrell A.V. and J.K. Roman. (2001). Reducing Drug Use and Crime Among Offenders: The Impact of
Graduated Sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1): 207-232.

Harrison L. and J. Gfroerer. (1992). The Intersections of Drug Use and Criminal Behavior: Results from
the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Crime and Delinquency, 38: 422-443.

Hiller M., L. Knight, K. Broome, and D. Simpson. (1998). Legal Pressure and Treatment Retention in a
National Sample of Long-Term Residential Programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25: 463-481.

Hora P.F., W.G. Schma, and J. Rosenthal. (1999). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment
Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and
Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 2: 439-527.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 44

Final Version

Horney J. and I.H. Marshall. (1992). Risk Perceptions Among Serious Offenders: The Role of Crime and
Punishment. Criminology, 30: 575-592.

Hubbard R.L., M.E. Marsden, J.V. Rachal, H.J. Harwood, E.R. Cavanagh, and H.M. Ginzburg. (1989).
Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.

Inciardi J. A. (1987). Heroin Use and Street Crime. In C. D. Chambers, A. Inciardi, D. M. Petersen, H. A.
Siegel, & O. Z. White (Eds.), Chemical Dependencies: Patterns, Costs, and Consequences. Athens:
Ohio University Press.

Inciardi J.A. (1992). The War on Drugs II: The Continuing Epic of Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Crime, AIDS,
and the Public Policy. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Inciardi J.A. and A.E. Pottieger. (1994). Crack Cocaine Use and Street Crime. Journal of Drug Issues, 24.

Inciardi J.A., S.S. Martin, C.A. Butzin, R.M. Hooper, and L.D. Harrison. (1996). An Effective Model of
Prison-Based Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 2: 261-278.

Jameson, R. and N.A. Peterson. (1995). Evaluation of the First Year of Operation of the Jackson County
Drug Court. Kansas City: Ewing Kauffman Foundation.

Johnson B.D., P.J. Goldstein, E. Preble, J. Schmeidler, D.S. Lipton, B. Spunt, and T. Miller. (1985).
Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by Heroin Users. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

Johnson R.R. (2004). Citizen Expectations of Police Traffic Stop Behavior. Policing, 27(4):487-497.

Kagan R.A. (1989). On the Visibility of Income Tax Law Violations. In Taxpayer Compliance, Volume
2. J.A. Roth and J. Scholz (eds.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Karberg J. and J. James. (2005). Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

Kitzmann K.M. and R.E. Emery. (1993). Procedural Justice and Parents’ Satisfaction in a Field Study of
Child Custody Dispute Resolution. Law and Human Behavior, 17: 553-567.

Kleiman M. (1986). Bringing Back Street-Level Heroin Enforcement. Papers in Progress Series.
Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in
Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

Kleiman M. (1988). Crackdowns: The Effects of Intensive Enforcement on Retail Heroin Dealing. In M.
Chaiken (ed.). Street-Level Drug Enforcement: Examining the Issues. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Kleiman, M.A. (1992). Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results. New York: Basic Books.

Klepper S. and Nagin, D. (1989a). Tax Compliance and Perceptions of the Risks of Detection and
Criminal Prosecution. Law and Society Review, 23: 209-40.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 45

Final Version

Klepper S. and Nagin, D. (1989b). The Deterrent Effect of Perceived Certainty and Severity of
Punishment Revisited. Criminology, 27: 721-746.

La Free G. (1998). Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime and the Decline of Social Institutions in America.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lawental E., A.T. McClellan, G.R. Grissom, P. Brill, and C. O’Brien. (1996). Coerced Treatment for
Substance Abuse Problems Detected Through Workplace Urine Surveillance: Is It Effective? Journal
of Substance Abuse, 8, 1: 115-128.

Levitt S. (1996). The Effect of Prison Population Size on Crime Rates: Evidence from Prison
Overcrowding Litigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111: 319-352.

Lewis B. F. and R. Ross. (1994). Retention in Therapeutic Communities: Challenges for the Nineties. In
Therapeutic Community: Advances in Research and Application, eds. F. M. Tims, G. DeLeon, and
N. Jainchill. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse.

Lind E.A. (1982). The Psychology of Courtroom Procedure, in N.L. Kerr and R.M. Bray, eds., The
Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.

Lind E.A., J. Greenberg, K.S. Scott, and T.D. Welchans. (2000). The Winding Road from Employee to
Complainant. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 557-590.

Lind E.A., R. Kanfer, and P.C. Earley. (1990). Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and
Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59:
952-959.

Lind E.A., C.T. Kulik, M. Ambrose, and M. de Vera Park. (1993). Individual and Corporate Dispute
Resolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 224-251.

Lind E.A. and T. Tyler. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum
Publishing.

Lipsey M.W. and F.T. Cullen. (2007). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of
Systematic Reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3: 297-320.

Listwan S.J., J.L. Sundt, A.M. Holsinger, and E.J. Latessa. (2003). The Effect of Drug Court
Programming on Recidivism: The Cincinnati Experience. Crime and Delinquency, 49(3).

Lochner L. (2007). Individual Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System. The American Economic
Review, 97(1): 444-460.

Loftin C. and D. McDowall. (1984). Deterrent Effects of the Florida Felony Firearm Law. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 75: 250-259.

Loftin C., B. McDowall, B. Wiersma, and J. Cottey. (1991). Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns
on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia. New England Journal of Medicine, 325:
1615-21.

Loman L.A. (2004). A Cost Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court. St. Louis,
MO: Institute of Applied Research.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 46

Final Version

Longshore D., D. Urada, E. Evans, Y. Hser, M. Prendergast, A. Hawken, T. Bunch, T., and S. Ettner.
(2004). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2003 Report. Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs California Health and Human Services Agency.

MacCoun R.J., B. Kilmer, and P. Reuter. (2003). Research on Drug-Crime Linkages: The Next
Generation. In: Toward a Drugs and Crime Research Agenda for the 21st century. National Institute
of Justice Special Report.

MacCoun R.J., E.A. Lind, D.R. Hensler, D.L. Bryant, and P.A. Ebener. (1988). Alternative Adjudication:
An Evaluation of the New Jersey Automobile Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

MacCoun R.J. and P. Reuter, P. (2001) . Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and
Places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mackenzie D.L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and
Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mackin J. R., Lucas, L. M., Lambarth, C. H., Waller, M. S., Weller, J. M., Aborn, J. A., Linhares, R.,
Allen, T. L., Carey, S. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2009). Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug
Treatment Court 10-Year Outcome and Cost Evaluation. A report to the Maryland Judiciary, Office
of Problem-Solving Courts. NPC Research: Portland, OR.

Marlowe D. B. (2004, September 29). Drug Court Efficacy vs. Effectiveness. Posted on Join Together
Online (JTO), at www.jointogether.org

Marlowe D. B., DeMatteo, D. S., & Festinger, D. S. (2003). A Sober Assessment of Drug Courts. Federal
Sentencing Reporter, 16: 153-157.

Marlowe D. B., D.S. Festinger, K.L. Dugosh, and P.A. Lee. (2005a). Are Judicial Status Hearings a "Key
Component" of Drug Court? Six and Twelve Month Outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79.

Marlowe D.B., D.S. Festinger, C. Foltz, P.A. Lee, and N.S. Patapis. (2005b). Perceived Deterrence and
Outcomes in Drug Court. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(2): 183-198.

Marlowe D.B., D.S. Festinger, and P.A. Lee. (2004). The Judge is a Key Component of Drug Court. Drug
Court Review, IV(2).

Marlowe D.B., D.S. DeMatteo, and D.S. Festinger. (2003). A Sober Assessment of Drug Courts. Federal
Sentencing Reporter, 16, 1; 113–28.

Mastrofski S.D., M.D. Reisig, and J.D. McCluskey. (2002). Police Disrespect Toward the Public: an
Encounter-Based Analysis. Criminology, 40(3): 519-556.

Mastrofski S.D., J.B. Snipes, and A.E. Supina. (1996). Compliance on Demand: The Public’s Response to
Specific Police Requests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3): 269-305.

McCluskey J.D. (2003). Police Requests for Compliance: Coercive and Procedurally Just Tactics. New
York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

McDowall D., C. Loftin, and B. Wiersma. (1992). A Comparative Study of the Preventative Effects of
Mandatory Sentencing Laws for Gun Crimes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83: 378-
394.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 47

Final Version

McEwen C. and R.J. Maiman. (1984). Mediation in Small Claims Court. Law and Society Review, 18:
11-49.

Miller N.S. and M.S. Gold. (1994). Criminal Activity and Crack Addiction. The International Journal of
Addictions, 29: 1069-1078.

Mocan H.N. and E. Tekin. (2004). Guns, Drugs and Juvenile Crime: Evidence From a Panel of Siblings
and Twins. IZA Discussion Paper No. 932.

Mumola C., and J. Karberg. (2006). Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Nagin D. (1998). Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century. Crime and
Justice, 23: 1-42.

Nagin D. and R. Paternoster. (1993). Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of
Crime. Law and Society Review, 27: 467-496.

Nagin D. and R. Paternoster. (1994). Personal Capital and Social Control: The Deterrence Implications of
Individual Differences in Criminal Offending. Criminology, 32: 581-606.

Nagin D. and G. Pogarsky. (2003). An Experimental Investigation of Deterrence: Cheating, Self-Serving

Bias, and Impulsivity. Criminology, 41(1): 167-193.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (NADCP 2010). Available:

http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts/history. Accessed 2/02/10.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2009. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment (2nd Addition).
Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Nolan, J.L. (2001). Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Nurco D.N., T.W. Kinlock, and T.E. Hanlon. (1990). The Drugs Crime Connection. In, J. A. Inciardi
(Ed.), Handbook of Drug Control in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 71-90.

Paternoster R. (1987). The Deterrent Effect of the Perceived Certainty and Severity of Punishment: A
Review of Evidence and Issues. Justice Quarterly, 4: 173-217.

Paternoster R., R. Brame, R. Bachman, and L.W. Sherman. (1997). Do Fair Procedures Matter? The
Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault. Law and Society Review, 31(1): 163-204.

Paternoster R. and A. Piquero. (1995). Reconceptualizing Deterrence: An Empirical Test of Personal and
Vicarious Experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32: 251-286.

Paternoster R. and S. Simpson. (1997). Sanction Threats and Appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational
Choice Theory of Corporate Crime. Law and Society Review, 30: 549-584.

Paternoster R., L.E. Saltzman, G.P. Waldo, and T.G. Chiricos. (1985). Assessment of Risk and
Behavioral Experience: An Exploratory Study of Change. Criminology, 23: 417-433.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 48

Final Version

Petersilia J., S. Turner, and E.P. Deschenes. (1992). The Costs and Effects of Intensive Supervision for
Drug Offenders. Federal Probation, 35, 4: 12-7.

Peters R.H. and M.R. Murrin. (2000). Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing
Criminal Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 1, 72-96.
Piquero A. and R. Paternoster. (1998). An Application of Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of
Deterrence to Drinking and Driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35: 3-39.

Piquero A. and G. Pogarsky. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence:
Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Impulsivity, and Offending Behavior. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 39: 153-186.

Piquero A. and S.G. Tibbetts. (1996). Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Low Self Control and
Situational Factors in Offenders’ Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational
Offending. Justice Quarterly, 13(3): 481-510.

Pogarsky G. (2002). Identifying “Deterrable” Offenders: Implications for Research on Deterrence. Justice
Quarterly, 19(3): 431-452.

Pogarsky G. (2006). Deterrence and Individual Differences Among Convicted Offenders. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 23: 59-74.

Pogarsky G., K. Kim, and R. Paternoster. (2005). Perceptual Change in the National Youth Survey:
Lessons for Deterrence Theory and Offender Decision-Making. Justice Quarterly, 22(1): 1-29.

Pogarsky G., A.R. Piquero, and R. Paternoster. (2004). Modeling Change in Perceptions about Sanction
Threats: The Neglected Linkage in Deterrence Theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4):
343-369.

Poythress N.G. (1994). Procedural Preferences, Perceptions of Fairness, and Compliance with Outcomes.
Law and Human Behavior, 18: 361-376.

Pruitt D., R.S. Peirce, N.B. McGillicuddy, G.L. Welton, and L.M. Castrianno. (1993). Long-Term
Success in Mediation. Law and Human Behavior, 17: 313-330.

Rempel M. and C.D. DeStefano. (2001). Predictors of Engagement in Court-Mandated Treatment:

Findings at the Brooklyn Treatment Court, 1996-2000. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33(4): 87-
124.
Rempel M., D. Fox-Kralstein, A. Cissner, R. Cohen, M. Labriola, D. Farole, A. Bader, and M. Magnani.
(2003). The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants, and Impacts
Report submitted to the New York State Unified Court System and the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Assistance, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Reuter P., J. Haaga, P. Murphy, and A. Praskac. (1988). Drug Use and Drug Programs in the Washington
Metropolitan Area. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Reuter P., R. MacCoun, and P. Murphy. (1990). Money from Crime. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rhodes W., M. Layne, P. Johnston, and L. Hozik. (2000). What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs:
1988-1998. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 49

Final Version

Roman J. and C. DeStefano. (2004). Drug Court Effects and the Quality of Existing Evidence. In Juvenile
Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse, eds. J. Butts and J. Roman, Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.

Sampson R.J. and J. Cohen. (1988). Deterrent Effects of Police on Crime: A Replication and Theoretical
Extension. Law and Society Review, 22: 163-189.

Saum C.A., F.R. Scarpitti, and C.A. Robbins. (2001). Violent Offenders in Drug Court. Journal of Drug
Issues, 31(1): 107-128.

Schaffer D.K. (2006). Reconsidering Drug Court Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Review. A Dissertation
Submitted to the Division of Research and Advance Studies of the University of Cincinnati (June).

Scheider M. (2001). Deterrence and the Base Rate Fallacy: An Examination of Perceived Certainty.
Justice Quarterly, 18: 63-86.

Senjo S.R. and L.A. Leip. (2001a). Testing Therapeutic Jurisprudence Theory: An Empirical Assessment
of the Drug Court Process. Western Criminology Review, 3(1).

Senjo S. R. and L.A. Leip. (2001b). Testing and Developing Theory in Drug Court: A Four-Part Logit
Model to Predict Program Completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(1): 66-87.

Sherman L.W. (1990). Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence. In M. Tonry and N. Morris
(eds.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman L.W., A. Roschelle, P.R. Gartin, D. Linnell, and C. Coleman, C. (1986). Cracking Down and
Backing Off: Residual Deterrence. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. College
Park: University of Maryland, Center for Crime Control.

Siddall J.W. and G.L. Conway. (1988). Interactional Variables Associated with Retention and Success in
Residential Drug Treatment. International Journal of the Addictions, 23, 12: 1241-1254.

Slobogin C. (1995). Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Five Dilemmas to Ponder. Psychology, Public Policy and
Law, 1: 193-196.

Smith W.R., D. Tomaskovic-Devey, M.T. Zingraff, H.M. Mason, P.Y. Warren, C.P. Wright, H.
McMurray, and C.R. Felnon. (2003). The North Carolina Highway Traffic Study: Final Report.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Speckert G.R. and M.D. Anglin. (1986). Narcotics and Crime: A Causal Modeling Approach. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 2: 3-28.

Stafford M. and M. Warr. (1993). A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30: 123-135.

Stewart D., M. Gossop, J. Marsden, and A. Rolfe. (2000). Drug Misuse and Acquisitive Crime Among
Clients Recruited to the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 10: 10-20.

Sunshine J. and T. Tyler. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public
Support for Policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3): 513-548.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 50

Final Version

Taxman F. (1998). Reducing Recidivism Through A Seamless System of Care: Components of Effective
Treatment, Supervision, and Transitional Services in the Community. Greenbelt, MD:
Washington/Baltimore HIDTA Project.

Taxman F., B. Kubu, and C. DeStefano. (1999). Treatment as Crime Control: Impact of Substance Abuse
Treatment on the Individual Offending Rates of Hard-Core Substance Abusing Offenders. Greenbelt,
MD: Washington/Baltimore HIDTA Project.

Terry-McElrath Y.M., D.C. McBride, J.F. Chriqui, P.M. O’Malley, C.J. VanderWaal, F.J. Chaloupka,
and L.D. Johnston. (2009). Evidence for Connections Between Prosecutor-Reported Marijuana Case
Dispositions and Community Youth Marijuana-Related Attitudes and Behaviors. Crime &
Delinquency, 55(4): 600-626.

Thibaut J. and L. Walker. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thompson G.J. and J.B. Jenkins. (1993). Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion. New York: William
Morrow and Co.

Tittle C.R. and E.V. Botchkovar. (2005). Self-Control, Criminal Motivation and Deterrence: An
Investigation Using Russian Respondents. Criminology, 43(2): 307-353.

Tonry M. (1990). Stated and Latent Functions of ISP. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 1: 174-191.

Trone J. and D. Young. (1996). Bridging Drug Treatment and Criminal Justice. Vera Institute Program
Brief. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Turner S., J. Petersilia, and E.P. Deschenes. (1992). Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole
(ISP) for Drug Offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 38, 4: 539-556.

Tyler T. (1984). The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendant’s Evaluation of Their Courtroom
Experience. Law and Society, 18: 51-74.

Tyler T. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler T. (2001). Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: What do Majority and Minority Group
Members Want From the Law and Legal Institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19(2): 215-
235.

Tyler T. (2003). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law. Crime and Justice, 30:
283-357.

Tyler T. (2004). Enhancing Police Legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 593: 84-99.

Tyler T. and Y.J. Huo. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and
Courts. New York: Russell-Sage Foundation.

Vito G. F. (1989). The Kentucky Substance Abuse Program: A Private Program to Treat Probationers and
Parolees. Federal Probation, 65-72.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 51

Final Version

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (WSIPP 2003). Washington State’s Drug Courts for
Adult Offenders: Outcome Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Olympia, WA: The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Wexler D.B. and B.J. Winick. (1991). Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health
Law Policy Analysis and Research. University of Miami Law Review, 979.

Wiest K.L., S.M. Carey, S.J. Martin, M.S. Waller, A.A. Cox, and R. Linhares. (April 2007). Indiana Drug
Courts: A Summary of Evaluation Findings in Five Adult Programs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Wilson D.V., O. Mitchell, and D.L. Mackenzie. (2006). A Systematic Review of Drug Court Effects on
Recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2: 459-487.

Wissler R.L. (1995). Mediation and Adjudication in Small Claims Court. Law and Society Review, 29:
323-358.

Wright B.R., A. Caspi, T.E. Moffitt, and R. Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the Perceived Risk of
Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(2): 180-213.

Young D. and S. Belenko, S. (2002). Program Retention and Perceived Coercion in Three Models of
Mandatory Drug Treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 297-328.

Zarkin G.A., L.J. Dunlap, S. Belenko, P.A. Dynia. (2005). A Benefit Cost Analysis of the Kings County
District Attorney’s Office Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program. Justice Research
and Policy, 7(1): 1-25.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 2. Review of the Literature 52

Final Version

Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection and Analysis

Strategy
Janine M. Zweig, Christine H. Lindquist, Janeen Buck Willison, Michael Rempel,
and P. Mitchell Downey

NIJ’s MADCE study entailed several components, including a survey of Adult Drug Courts, a
rigorous site selection process for the evaluation, and the collection of process, outcome, impact,
and cost data across the evaluation sites. This chapter describes the methods and analytic
approaches employed in conducting the MADCE.

MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey

The first task of NIJ’s MADCE was to conduct a nationwide survey of Adult Drug Courts. This
task served two purposes. First, analysis of this survey provides the field with information on
adult drug court characteristics and operations throughout the United States, and identifies
similarities and differences in how the programs work. Second, findings from this survey were
used to guide our selection of the 23 drug courts included in the multi-site impact evaluation,
where the sample was chosen purposively to achieve variation in programs that reflect the
differences existing in drug courts and the populations they serve across the country.

Between February and June 2004, we conducted a web-based survey of drug courts that
primarily served adults and were in operation for at least one year at that time. We identified a
sample of 593 active adult drug courts across the United States meeting these criteria. A total of
380 drug courts completed our survey, resulting in a 64 percent response rate.15, 16

The Urban Institute, with input from CCI and RTI, created a web-based, user-friendly survey for
drug court program officials to complete. Using information from previously conducted drug
court surveys,17 as well as the theoretically-grounded conceptual framework developed for this
evaluation, a survey instrument was designed to cover a wide variety of program characteristics
and operations. To ensure that we incorporated inter-court variation in our sample for the full
evaluation, we included information in the web-based survey that would be part of our sampling

15
Courts were contacted numerous times and through numerous avenues to request participation in the study.
Letters, postcard reminders, and e-mails were sent from the National Institute of Justice, the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals, and from Urban Institute research staff. Research staff also made additional telephone
contact with courts to encourage participation.
16
A total of 635 drug courts were identified as meeting study criteria at the time of the data collection. From this
list, 42 courts were dropped from the sample because we determined that they either had ceased to operate or had
not been in operation for at least one year, yielding a final sample of 593 active adult drug courts.
17
American University/Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project 1999 Program Update Survey;
Cooper 2001; National TASC 1999; New York State Unified Court System Statewide Drug Court Research Project
Appendix A: Drug Court Survey and Appendix B: Drug Court Survey Update (July 29, 2002); Teen Court
Evaluation Project: Teen Court Questionnaire. The Urban Institute; Appendix 1 of DCPO Drug Court Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Management Information Systems report―Drug Court Needs Assessment of Evaluation and
Management Information Systems.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 53
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

criteria for the impact evaluation. Thus, we addressed court-related constructs reflected in the
evaluation’s conceptual framework in the web-based survey questions. Specifically, we asked
courts about the comprehensiveness of the drug treatment being offered to program participants,
about day-to-day monitoring and accountability of participants (such as drug tests, judicial
review hearings, and case management), and about courtroom procedures, including the extent to
which they provide both sanctions and rewards, and how these processes work operationally.
These data provided the information we needed to understand court operations when selecting
our sample of drug courts to consider for the study.

The resulting survey included five major sections, as well as subsections covering more specific
topics within each area. The five sections were (1) General Information (including population
served, points of entry into the program, and case flow), (2) Program Structure (including
program characteristics, eligibility criteria, and substance abuse assessment), (3) Program
Operations (including management information systems, entry into the drug court program,
program staffing, case management, and program contacts), (4) Treatment and Drug Testing
(including substance abuse treatment services and drug testing), and (5) Courtroom Practices
(including courtroom practices, infractions and sanctions, achievements, and graduation). The
web-based data entry form was set up so that respondents could complete and save individual
sections, and return to the survey at a later date, if necessary, to complete any remaining sections.
Full findings from the survey are provided in Volume 2.

Site Selection

The MADCE is designed to compare drug court participants to offenders with similar drug use
and criminal history profiles in comparison jurisdictions. As described in further detail in this
section, the comparison jurisdictions either do not offer drug courts or have a greater number of
drug-involved offenders than can be enrolled in drug court or who do not meet the criteria for the
local drug court, but may meet the criteria of drug courts in other areas of the country. NIJ’s
evaluation framework was designed to maximize the number of court- and individual-level
observations, while minimizing the costs associated with survey data collection. To do so, the
evaluation team (along with a panel of expert advisors and representatives from the National
Institute of Justice) identified key court-level components for which we wanted substantial
heterogeneity across courts, while at the same time including geographically-clustered courts. An
extensive site selection process was undertaken to identify drug court and comparison sites that
met basic evaluability criteria18 and that collectively reflected substantial variation in court-level
characteristics identified as critical to the definition of drug court operations.

18
Basic evaluability criteria included courts and jurisdictions keeping basic information about clients in
management information systems, a regular flow of new clients, and a willingness to participate in the evaluation.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 54
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Key Drug Court Components for Site Selection

As noted above, the first step in the process was to conduct the web-based survey of drug courts
that primarily served adults and were in operation for at least one year at that time. Simultaneous
to that survey, we conducted the second step in the site selection process. In April 2004, the
evaluation team convened a working group meeting of substantive and technical experts—
including other researchers from UI, CCI, and RTI, academicians, policymakers, and
representatives from NIJ—to assist us in developing court selection criteria. The group came to
consensus that three drug court components should be the focus of the site selection procedures:

• Provision of substance abuse treatment.

• Leverage the court has in monitoring clients.
• Predictability of sanctioning policies of the courts.

We agreed that the final drug court sample should include sites that vary on two of these three
drug court components. However, given that substance abuse treatment is the heart of the drug
court model, the group decided that if a program did not provide such treatment to clients, it
should be eliminated from consideration as a drug court site. In the web-based survey, we asked
courts which types of treatments were available at the time of data collection. Courts had to
identify at least one type of treatment to remain in the candidate pool of sites.

For leverage, we wanted to capture the supervision and monitoring for which the drug court was
responsible. If drug courts were responsible for monitoring clients, it was assumed clients were
more closely supervised than in other scenarios where other entities (e.g., probation or the drug
treatment agency) provide that function. In those scenarios, monitoring is essentially outside of
the rubric of the drug court program. Thus, we divided the sample of courts into two categories:
those where drug court staff specific to the program provided case management to clients and
those where primary case management responsibilities were outside the program’s personnel.

Another core component of the drug court model is the predictability of sanctions when
necessary; key to the influence courts have over clients is their knowledge that a sanction is
coming. Consequently, the measure of sanctions we used to examine this aspect of site selection
criteria is whether or not the drug court program reported having a written schedule of sanctions
defining which sanctions accompany given infractions.

In combination, these three features yield many theoretically possible site configurations.
However, for drug court sites, only four possible program configurations existed given the study
criterion that providing some substance abuse treatment was necessary for qualification as a drug
court (see Table 1-3.1).

The first cell of the table includes courts with primary case management in the court, as well as a
written schedule of sanctions, representing a high leverage/high predictability of sanctions court.
The second and third cells of the table are courts that are high on one component and low on
another in that each includes primary case management in the court or a written schedule of
sanctions, but not both. Finally, the fourth cell would be low on both components as these are

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 55
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

courts that have neither case management in the court, nor a written schedule of sanctions. The
expert advisors recommended that four to six drug courts should be selected to represent each
cell.

Table 1-3.1. Drug Court Site Configurations

Case Managed by Court?

Written Schedule
of Sanctions?

Yes No
Yes High leverage/High Low leverage/High
predictability of sanctions predictability of sanctions
No High leverage/Low Low leverage/Low
predictability of sanctions predictability of sanctions

Table 1-3.2 shows the total number of drug courts in the drug court web survey sample for each
of the four possible program configurations.19 Table 1-3.2 suggests that drug courts are
somewhat evenly distributed across the four configurations. The largest cohort—about one-third
of courts—is low on both leverage and predictability, with neither a written schedule of
sanctions, nor a drug court-based case manager.

Table 1-3.2. Total Number of Drug Courts by Leverage and Sanction Scores

Case Managed by Court?

Written Schedule
of Sanctions?

Yes No

Yes 84 (24.6%) 70 (20.5%)

No 80 (23.4%) 108 (31.6%)

Source: Urban Institute MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey

Note: N=342

For the comparison sites, drug court-administered case management was not applicable.
However, these sites could vary on the predictability of sanctioning policies and on the extent to
which offenders had access to substance abuse treatment. Therefore, four possible configurations
for comparison sites are characterized by high and low levels of predictability of sanctions and
treatment (see Table 1-3.3). Expert advisors recommended that one or two sites be selected to
represent each cell of the comparison site configurations.

19
Only 342 were included in this analysis because 9 drug courts failed to answer one or both the leverage and
sanctions questions and were excluded, 21 courts were excluded because the served a population primarily
composed of marijuana users, and 2 courts were excluded because they primarily served a population returning from
jail or prison.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 56
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.3. Comparison Site Configurations

Incorporates Substance Abuse Treatment?

Written Schedule

Yes No
of Sanctions?

Yes High predictability of High predictability of

sanctions/ sanctions/
High treatment Low treatment
No Low predictability of Low predictability of
sanctions/ sanctions/
High treatment Low treatment

The discussion at the external advisors meeting laid the groundwork for the site selection
process. However, it was decided that the crude measures of predictability of sanctions and
leverage discussed at that time did not fully inform us about a court’s operations along these key
components. Additionally, we wanted more information from each potential site about treatment
practices. Thus, the evaluation team devised expanded definitions of the three key components of
interest—treatment, leverage, and predictability of sanctions—to be explored more fully during
the site recruitment process (described in detail below).

Identifying and Recruiting the Drug Court and Comparison Sites

Using a combination of HotSpot mapping and subjective criteria about how geographically close
courts were, 16 potential geographic clusters of drug courts were identified for consideration.20
From here, we prioritized which clusters to pursue for inclusion in the study by doing the
following: (1) examined each cluster closely for proximity of drug courts, client case flow in
drug courts to ensure steady study enrollment, and potential for identifying nearby comparison
jurisdictions; (2) identified drug court clusters that reflected geographic diversity across the
United States, to the best of our ability; and (3) eliminated drug court clusters in California
because of state proposition 36 that required all jurisdictions provide substance abuse treatment
to drug-involved offenders as an alternative to incarceration, thus, effectively making these
jurisdictions different than any others in the country.

The seven drug court clusters first targeted included a cluster of drug courts in upstate New
York, the mid-Atlantic, North Carolina (with one South Carolina drug court), Washington state,
Florida, Oklahoma, and the Midwest, primarily Illinois and Indiana. Although the Oklahoma
courts were seriously considered in the first round of discussions, this group of courts was
eliminated before the next steps in the site selection process due to too few courts and too few
clients.

Evaluation team members contacted drug courts within the remaining six clusters to explore drug
court practices regarding treatment, sanctioning, and leverage; to begin identifying willingness to
participate and possible comparison sites; and to assess evaluability. We asked drug court
coordinators a series of questions about their court operations during the calls in order to expand
our understanding of their responses to questions in the web-based survey about the key court

20
The need to identify geographically proximate sites was driven by study resource constraints. We wanted to
relatively close sites to limit travel expenses.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 57
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

components of interest. This process helped us move beyond the crude measures previously
identified to represent predictability of sanctions and leverage, as well as more fully understand
treatment practices. For each key component, we asked if courts implemented a series of
operational strategies. Then, based on the answers to these inquiries, we were able to give each
court a score for each key component. The elements of the scoring procedure were as follows:

• Treatment (6 points total)

o The treatment provided by the drug court is structured—that is, a treatment
program manual is followed (2 points).
o A clinical assessment is conducted for treatment needs (1 point).
o Individualized treatment plans are developed for each client (1 point).
o Individualized treatment plans are used to make referrals (1 point).
o Individualized treatment plans are updated periodically (1 point).
• Leverage (8 points total)
o Case management is conducted by someone who is an actual employee of the
drug court (2 points).
o Current drug court participants regularly participate in court hearings (2 points).
o The court has explicit consequences for dropping out or failing out (2 points).
o The client is told about the explicit consequences (1 point).
o The explicit consequences are in a contract for the client to sign (1 point).
• Predictability of Sanctions (6 points total)
o The court maintains an official schedule of sanctions (2 points).
o Clients are provided with the official schedule of sanctions (2 points).
o The official schedule of sanction is always or almost always followed (2 points).
In addition to scoring sites on key drug court components of interest, in each cluster, we
attempted to identify potential comparison sites, which included jurisdictions that did not have a
drug court, and within these jurisdictions, mechanisms for identifying drug-involved offenders. If
a jurisdiction did not assess for or record an offender’s drug use, we could not be sure that we
were indeed including offenders who had substance use issues comparable to those who made it
into drug courts. Thus, we investigated whether nearby jurisdictions were able to identify drug-
involved offenders in their system. For example, we considered sites with assessment protocols
at pretrial that flagged offenders for treatment referral, sending them to either court-based
treatment services or community-based treatment programs. We also examined the possibility of
identifying similar offenders in probation systems (i.e., individuals who were referred to
treatment).

After initial phone conversations and negotiations, the team members visited each potential court
and comparison site to finalize the design and logistical considerations related to participation.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 58
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

These visits included meeting with all relevant site personnel, compiling all written policies and
materials used for the drug courts, and reviewing court management information systems.

Like many evaluation studies, we met several stumbling blocks and real-world challenges
preventing us from including particular courts and comparison sites, such as:
• In the mid-Atlantic cluster, we faced several challenges to including all courts identified.
One simply refused to participate, and one court lost its judge—and therefore its active
drug court—because he was called into active duty in the military.
• Two courts in Florida refused to participate. One did so because we offered cash
incentives for completing surveys and they had a philosophical disagreement with that.
However, for methodological, ethical, and logistical reasons, we needed to offer
incentives to all participants in the study regardless of the jurisdiction in which they
lived.
• We were unsuccessful in garnering support from the court in Indiana that we contacted,
and ended up downsizing the Midwest cluster to just be in Illinois.
• One county in Washington State had agreed to conduct a random assignment sub-study
as part of the overall evaluation. However, once the study actually began enrolling
participants, the site decided against this and instead enrolled drug court participants
based on prosecutor and judge preferences. Fortunately, although no longer willing to
conduct random assignment, the site was still willing for us to retain a comparison
sample there and to select non-drug court, drug-involved offenders from within the
jurisdiction who were similar to study participants in offense history.
Despite complications such as these, when data collection started in March 2005, the design
included 28 drug courts and seven comparison sites in six geographic clusters (see Table 1-3.4).
We started with three drug courts in Illinois, eight courts in NY, two courts in Pennsylvania, two
in Florida, six in Washington, and seven in the Carolinas.

After data collection started, we ran into further complications, which led to some sites dropping
out of the sample. Again, this is typical of large-scale evaluations. The specific sites lost were:
• One jurisdiction identified as a comparison site agreed and even participated in a site
visit, but then never again answered calls to the site, despite multiple efforts to
communicate with them.
• DeKalb County in Illinois dropped out of the study because the drug court lost its judge,
and therefore, its court.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 59
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.4. List of MADCE Drug Court and Comparison Sites when Data Collection
Began in March 2005

MADCE Drug Court Programs

Rehabilitation Alternative Program (R.A.P.) – IL

Kane County Rehabilitation Court – IL
De Kalb County – IL
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court – NY
Lackawanna City Drug Court –NY
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court –NY
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment Court – NY
Syracuse Community Treatment Court – NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court – NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court, felony division – NY
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court – NY
Chester County Drug Court Program – PA
Philadelphia Treatment Court – PA
Osceola County Drug Court – FL
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program – FL
Seattle Drug Court – WA
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court – WA
Pierce County Felony Drug Court – WA
CHART Court – WA
Thurston County Drug Court – WA
King County Drug Court – WA
York County Drug Treatment Court – SC
Person/Caswell – NC
Forsyth County Adult Drug Court – NC
E. Raymond Alexander Drug Treatment Court – NC
S.T.E.P. Drug Treatment Court- NC
S.T.E.P. Superior Drug Treatment Court – NC
S.T.E.P. District Drug Treatment Court – NC
MADCE Comparison Sites

Pierce County – Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative and Breaking The Cycle – WA
IL TASC – IL
Probationers court ordered to drug treatment in Judicial Division 3 (10 counties)– NC
Probationers court ordered to drug treatment in Judicial Division 4 (1 counties) – NC
Human Services Associates TASC – FL
Stewart-Marchman-ACT Behavioral Health Care – FL
Montgomery Co TASC – PA

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 60
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

• State funding for the North Carolina drug court programs was in jeopardy of being cut
and, as a result, the courts had to scale back in size (some stopped enrolling new clients)
and treatment intensity. The North Carolina drug courts withdrew from the study in July
2005. The comparison sites in North Carolina were retained, and the eligible counties
were expanded to include the five counties that operated drug courts that were no longer
enrolling new clients. In addition, the one drug court in South Carolina that was part of
the original cluster was retained.
Because we lost the North Carolina cluster of courts, we sought to add another cluster of
courts located in the south. In July and August 2005, we connected with and garnered
agreement from the drug courts located in southeastern Louisiana, primarily in New
Orleans. After hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005, we were unable to go forward
with these courts. We then connected with two courts in Georgia and were able to start an
entirely new cluster of courts there. Study enrollment started October 2005 in Fulton
County, and February 2006 in Hall County.
Thus, the final sample for the impact study includes 23 drug courts and six comparison
jurisdictions located in seven geographic “clusters” (see Table 1-3.5). The participating sites
included two courts in Illinois, eight courts in NY, two courts in Pennsylvania, two in Florida,
six in Washington, one in South Carolina, and two in Georgia. More information about the final
drug court and comparison sites is provided below.

Table 1-3.5. Final List of MADCE Drug Court and Comparison Sites Included in Study

MADCE Drug Court Programs

Rehabilitation Alternative Program (R.A.P.) – IL

Kane County Rehabilitation Court – IL
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court – NY
Lackawanna City Drug Court –NY
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court –NY
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment Court – NY
Syracuse Community Treatment Court – NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court – NY
Finger Lakes Drug Court, felony division – NY
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court – NY
Chester County Drug Court Program – PA
Philadelphia Treatment Court – PA
Osceola County Drug Court – FL
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program – FL
(continued)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 61
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3-5. Final List of MADCE Drug Court and Comparison Sites Included in Study
(Cont’d)

MADCE Drug Court Programs

York County Drug Treatment Court – SC

Seattle Drug Court – WA
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court – WA
Pierce County Felony Drug Court – WA
CHART Court – WA
Thurston County Drug Court – WA
King County Drug Court – WA
Fulton County – GA
Hall County Drug Court – GA
MADCE Comparison Sites

Pierce County – Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative and Breaking The Cycle – WA
IL TASC – IL
Probationers court ordered to drug treatment in Judicial Division 3 (13 counties)– NC
Probationers court ordered to drug treatment in Judicial Division 4 (3 counties) – NC
Human Services Associates TASC – FL
Stewart-Marchman-ACT Behavioral Health Care – FL

Description of Final Drug Court Sites and Variability along Key Drug Court
Components
Based on the conversations we had with sites during site recruitment phone calls, we were able
to score the sites included in the study along the components of greatest interest—treatment,
leverage, and predictability of sanctions, as described above. The 23 drug courts in our final
sample all provided substance abuse treatment to clients. Using our expanded definition of
treatment—that clinical assessment is used to assess treatment needs, that treatment is structured,
and that individual treatment plans are created, used for referral, and updated periodically—15
courts were scored as fully implementing these treatment practices (a score of six points). Six
courts scored as either a 4 or 5 (meaning they employed most of the treatment practices, but not
all), two courts scored as either a 3 or less, and no courts received a score of zero. Thus, all but
two courts implemented practices we believed characterized evidence-based treatment.

Using our expanded definition of leverage—that case management was provided by drug court
staff directly, clients participated in regular court hearings, and the court had explicit
consequences that were told to clients and were in contracts signed by the clients—11 courts
were scored as a 7 or 8, meaning they did all or nearly all these practices. Six courts were scored
as a 5 or 6, and six courts scored as a 4 or less. Based on these ratings, all but six of the 23 courts
did at least half or more of the practices that we believed characterized leverage. As with the
treatment scoring, no courts received a score of zero for leverage.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 62
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Finally, using our expanded definition of predictability of sanctions—the court maintains an

official schedule of sanctions, clients are provided with the schedule of sanctions, and the
schedule is always or almost always followed—nine courts scored as a 6, meaning they
implemented all of these practices and their sanctioning practices were highly transparent to
clients. Three courts scored as a 4 or 5, and one court scored a 3. Notably, ten courts scored a
zero on predictability of sanctioning, meaning the sanctioning policies in these courts were ad
hoc and clients could not be certain that particular behaviors would lead to particular sanctions,
nor could they be certain that multiple infractions would lead to more or less severe sanctions.

Table 1-3.6 looks across two of the three key components of interest—leverage and
predictability of sanctions, given that some level of treatment is a constant in each site—to see
how many of the courts in our final sample fall into cells identified in Table 1-3.1. Thus, our
sample of drug courts sites includes 11 courts (47.8 percent) classified as high leverage and high
predictability of sanctions. Five courts (21.7 percent) were classified as low leverage and low
predictability of sanctions. The remaining 7 courts (30.4 percent) were high on one component
and low on another.

Table 1-3.6. Final Drug Court Sites by Leverage and Predictability of Sanction Scores

Leverage
Predictability of Sanctions

High Low
(Scores 5–8) (Scores 1–4)

High
11 (47.8%) 1 (4.3%)
(Scores 4–6)

Low
6 (26.1%) 5 (21.7%)
(Scores 0–3)

Source: Site recruitment phone calls.

Note: N=23; Georgia site information (N=2) is based on process
evaluation data from site visits because they were not part of the
initial sample of sites during the site recruitment stage.

To convey additional programming features in each court, Table 1-3.7 includes a brief
description of each of the 23 drug courts in the final sample. Notably, all the courts provided
treatment and case management services, and all required judicial status hearings and drug
testing.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 63
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.7. Brief Description of Drug Court Sites

Site Brief Description

A • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 110
B • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 105
C • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 171
D • clients entered drug court both pre plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 99
E • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by probation
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 180
F • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 220
G • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 57
H • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 150
I • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 61
J • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 70
K • clients entered drug court both pre plea and post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 294
L • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 29
(continued)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 64
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.7. Brief Description of Drug Court Sites (Cont’d)

Site Brief Description

M • clients entered drug court post plea

• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 51
N • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was unavailable
O • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by probation
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was unavailable
P • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was unavailable
Q • clients entered drug court post plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 36
R • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 500 (combined with King County
caseload number)
S • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by probation
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 78
T • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by treatment provider
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 500
U • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by treatment provider
• used written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was unavailable
V • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by treatment provider
• no written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 60
W • clients entered drug court pre plea
• case management services provided by drug court staff
• used a written schedule of sanctions
• number of active cases during site visit was 500 (combined with Seattle caseload
number)
Sources: MADCE process evaluation site visit data and Urban Institute MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 65
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Description of Final Comparison Sites and Variability along Key

Components

The final set of comparison sites represented the diverse set of activities employed in
jurisdictions throughout the country that do not implement drug courts, including several modes
of alternative treatment for drug-involved offenders. Also, some portion of our comparison
sample came from counties that did indeed have drug courts, but either had more drug-involved
offenders than could be enrolled in drug court or had drug-involved offenders who did not meet
the criteria for the jurisdiction’s drug court, but met criteria for drug courts in other areas of the
country.21 Comparison sites included:
• North Carolina Probation in Judicial Divisions 3 and 4: We identified individuals eligible
for our comparison sample in North Carolina through the probation information
management system. Eligibility criteria included probationers who entered supervision
within the previous four weeks and who were (1) under supervision in counties that did
not operate a drug court, or in drug courts that stopped enrolling new clients after the
funding cuts in July 2005; (2) referred to substance abuse treatment (any type of
treatment except DWI treatment only) by the sentencing judge at the time of their initial
sentencing; and (3) at least 18 years old. The referring judge was the entity who specified
the type of treatment offenders were to attend. Although probation officers obviously
sanction their clients when needed, they did not necessarily follow a written schedule and
were allowed discretion when making sanctioning decisions.
• The Pierce County comparison group was a pretrial group that came from the same
county as the Pierce County drug court participants. We originally planned to do random
assignment in this site, but then concerns raised by the drug court team members
prevented us from doing so. Thus, we chose the comparison sample from a pool of
offenders who did not meet the eligibility criteria for drug court in Pierce County, but
who would have been accepted in other drug courts in our sample. We used current
charge and criminal history summaries for those arraigned in Pierce County court for
drug crimes to create three groups of offenders: (1) those who were eligible for drug
court in Pierce county; (2) those who were not eligible for Pierce County drug court, but
were eligible for other drug courts across the country and, therefore, eligible for our
comparison group; and (3) those who met neither criteria and were eliminated from
consideration. Charges that were eligible for our comparison group that were not eligible
for Pierce County drug court included past domestic violence charges, current escape
charges, and current prostitution charges.
• Most of the comparison sample in Pierce County was part of a special pretrial supervision
caseload called Breaking the Cycle (BTC). In general, BTC cases were short because
most defendants pled their cases moving them past the pretrial stage. However, while on
this supervision caseload, defendants met with case managers, had random drug tests, had
access to substance abuse treatment, and were subject to sanctions upon noncompliance.

21
Selecting comparison group members that did not meet the eligibility criteria for a particular drug court, but who
could have met criteria in other drug courts in the country was considered to be acceptable because the MADCE
study design entailed pooling the comparison group members across the comparison sites (rather than a one-to-one
drug court vs. comparison site design).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 66
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Although BTC violation hearings often resulted in a sanction of jail time, staff reported
there was no formal sanction policy.
• Human Services Associates (HSA) TASC: Individuals identified for our comparison in
this site came from two Florida counties. HSA provided substance abuse assessments to
offenders referred by a judge or probation officer in these counties. The cases were
already screened by the State’s Attorney’s Office and deemed unsuitable for a drug court
program due to prior offense or the nature of their current offense. (Note that the drug
courts in these two counties were not in our sample of drug courts and were quite small
operations.) Once assessed, HSA referred clients to appropriate treatment providers.
Recruitment eligibility criteria into the comparison sample included clients who (1) did
not have a current violent offense, and (2) were declared ineligible for drug court for
some other reason than the current offense, such as a mental health issue. Such
individuals would have been allowed into drug court programs in other sites in our
sample.
• Stewart-Marchman-ACT Behavioral Health Care: Stewart-Marchman serves the criminal
justice populations of two Florida counties: Volusia (95 percent of clients) and Putnam (5
percent of clients). Comparison group cases were drawn from the Center’s Anti-Drug
Initiative (ADI) program. Although the ADI program has four tracks, only offenders
referred to ADI Levels I and II were determined to be most comparable to drug court
participants22 (both in Volusia County and in drug courts in other sites around the
country) in terms of drug use and criminal justice histories. ADI Level I is a diversion
program for individuals with first and second time misdemeanor or felony drug
possession offenses, who are referred from the State’s Attorney’s Office; the intervention
spans six weeks and consists of intake, four group outpatient sessions, a discharge
session, and random urinalysis. Clients who successfully complete the ADI Level I
program have their charges dropped, while those who do not are referred back to the
State’s Attorney’s Office for further disposition. The ADI Level II program is a court-
ordered outpatient program for individuals with one or more felony drug possession
charges (usually second- and third-time offenders), which lasts about six months; the
intervention consists of group and individual sessions and random urinalysis. The State’s
Attorney’s Office determines the eligibility criteria; drug dealers are not eligible. A
subset of ADI Level II clients are clients who failed to successfully complete the ADI
Level I program.
• Illinois TASC: The comparison sample members from Illinois were clients of IL TASC.
Referrals to TASC came from any number of county criminal courts in Cook County
when judges believed that a substance abuse problem existed.23 TASC eligibility included
(1) all charge types were eligible except for violent charges; (2) defendants must not have
more than one prior violent conviction, although one such conviction is acceptable; and
(3) defendants must be probation eligible since most defendants were sentenced to
probation. The last criterion made the manufacture and delivery of drugs an ineligible
charge for TASC, however, the defendant could still have been eligible if that charge was
22
The comparison group sample does not include individuals who were offered the drug court and opted out or
individuals who failed drug court.
23
As such, some portion of this comparison group sample may have been offered the Cook County drug court
program and declined participation.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 67
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

reduced. Eligibility for our comparison was any client in the TASC program. TASC
referred defendants to several community-based treatment modalities. TASC provided
treatment progress updates to probation and the referring judge, but probationers were not
subject to a written schedule of sanctions from which they would have been able to
anticipate sanctions based on particular infractions.
In sum, all the comparison sites had some referral and access to treatment providers because of
identified substance use issues. However, just because offenders were referred to treatment does
not mean that such treatment was actually accessed. Also, although three of the sites had
sanctioning responsibilities (both NC probation and the clients who came from Breaking the
Cycle in Pierce County), none of these had written schedules of sanctions that allowed someone
who violated the conditions of their supervision to anticipate the timing and nature of the
sanctions. This is also true for the Illinois TASC clients who were also on probation and would
be subject to sanctions, although not predictable. Thus, although the project’s external advisory
team recommended variation across the four cells in Table 1-3.8, the reality of the settings in
which substance-using offenders find themselves as alternatives to drug court is such that all
provide some referral and access to treatment and none are providing sanctioning in predictable,
formal ways as drug court programs typically do.

Table 1-3.8. Comparison Group Configurations

Incorporates Substance Abuse Treatment?

Written Schedule

Yes No
of Sanctions?

Yes 0 0

No 6 (100%) O

Offender Interviews

Instrument Design
One of the key data sources for the MADCE was interview data gathered among drug court
participants and comparison offenders. The use of self-reported data from the perspective of the
individuals who participate in the drug courts (and comparison conditions) enables a wide
variety of outcomes other than criminal recidivism to be examined, such as self-reported criminal
behavior, substance use, employment, mental health, and family functioning. In addition, by
interviewing participants at key time periods in their program participation, detailed and timely
information can be obtained on participants’ attitudes and perceptions of the program, court and
supervision experiences, and treatment received over the entire time period that participants are
followed.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 68
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

The interview time points selected by the evaluation team were baseline, 6 months post-baseline,
and 18 months post-baseline. This interview schedule was considered the best use of limited
study resources, based on the following rationale:
• Baseline interviews would reflect the respondents’ experiences and behaviors as close to
the point at which they began their drug court participation/comparison conditions as
possible (ideally, before they began treatment or regular status hearings).
• Six-month follow-up interviews would enable respondents to report on their experiences
throughout the initial—and most intensive—phase of drug court participation.
• Eighteen-month follow-up interviews would take place at a time when respondents in the
majority of the participating drug courts had concluded their drug court program
participation.
The content of the instruments, which is summarized in Table 1-3.9, was similar across the three
interviews. The instruments were extremely comprehensive, covering a diverse set of outcomes
(criminal behavior, compliance with supervision, substance use, mental health, employment,
income, and family functioning), background characteristics, “in program” experiences
(supervision intensity, court experiences, substance abuse treatment, support services), and
attitudes and perceptions. An “item catalog” listing all items asked at each interview wave is
included in Appendix A. Regarding the baseline measures, two points are noteworthy. First, the
survey was administered within six weeks of the date when individuals entered either the drug
court or the comparison condition, and in that sense may not be considered a “true” baseline.
Also, for a small number of measures―relating to any abuse and any physical abuse over the
past year―the questions were actually administered retrospectively during the six-month survey,
but are treated as reporting background (i.e., baseline) characteristics with regard to
trauma/abuse history.

The selection of constructs to include in the instrument was informed by consultation with the
advisory group members who provided guidance on the evaluation design. Individual items and
scales were selected based on a detailed review of existing items and scales successfully used
with criminal justice-involved populations. Priority was given to items/scales with strong
psychometric qualities. Several standardized scales were adapted for use, including: The
Addiction Severity Index (Gavin, Ross, and Skinner 1989); Texas Christian University (TCU)
Treatment Motivation Scales (problem recognition, desire for help, treatment readiness, external
pressure (Knight, Holcom, and Simpson 1994); The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment
Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES, including problem recognition, ambivalence, and taking steps
(Miller and Tonigan 1996); CES-D short form depression scale (Andresen, Malmgren, et al.
1994); and Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) and Narcissism scales derived from the
structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV-TR (with the official diagnostic criteria framed in
the format of structured interview questions) (American Psychiatric Association 2000).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 69
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.9. Domains and Constructs Covered in Interview

Domains Associated Constructs

Demographics • Age
• Race/ethnicity
• Gender
• Educational attainment
• Marital/relationship status
• Parental status
Incarceration status/street • Current incarceration status
time • Time incarcerated during reference period (number of days each month;
incarceration due to new crime or technical violation)
• Time in hospital/emergency room during reference period (number of days
each month)
• Time in residential mental health treatment (number of days each month)
Criminal history, current • Lifetime arrests (age of first arrest, number of arrest, convictions for specific
offense, and drug court crime types)
program entry • Incarceration history (juvenile detention, jail/prison)
• Date of arrest that led to current criminal justice system involvement, specific
charge(s)
• Disposition of that arrest (conviction/pending)
• Offered drug court
• Drug court participation status (ever participated, currently participating, date
of entry, referral procedure, perception of alternative sentence)
• Reason for dropping out of drug court, sentence received
Substance use history and • Lifetime/reference period
addiction severity • Use of alcohol, prescription drugs, methadone, marijuana,
hallucinogens/designer drugs, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (age at first use,
ever used on regular basis, any use during reference period)
• Under influence at time of arrest
• Needle use
• Stage of change
• Addiction Severity Index
• Primary drug used
Treatment motivation • Treatment motivation—problem recognition
• Treatment motivation—desire for help
• Treatment motivation—treatment readiness
• Treatment motivation—external pressure
• Treatment eagerness—problem recognition
• Treatment eagerness—ambivalence
• Treatment eagerness—taking steps
(continued)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 70
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.9. Domains and Constructs Covered in Interview (Cont’d)

Domains Associated Constructs

Supervision status; • Under supervision during reference period

supervision intensity; drug • Duration of supervision
tests received
• Type of supervision officer (probation/parole officer, pretrial supervision, drug
court case manager)
• Frequency of required contact
• Contact (phone, face-to-face)
• Breathalyzers, drug tests received (# of times each month during reference
period, # of positives)
• Supervision conditions
Perceptions (perceptions of • Perceptions of sentence for failing drug court (immediacy, desirability of this
risk, rewards, and option)
consequences; deterrence, • Deterrence, likelihood, and severity of sanctions for rule violations
likelihood, and severity of
• Perceived fairness of sanctions received
sanctions; perceptions of
fairness) • Perceived procedural justice
• Perceived distributive justice
• Perceived helpfulness of drug court operations (hearing speeches, watching
graduations)
• Perceived deterrence
• Attitudes toward supervision officer
• Attitudes toward judge
Violations; sanctions • Compliance with each reported supervision conditions (for each condition,
received; rewards received whether respondent failed to comply, specific months of noncompliance, # of
times each month; whether supervision officer detected noncompliance)
• Sanctions received (whether each of 13 sanctions was received during
reference period; number of times; person who administered sanctions; whether
respondent expected the supervision officer to find out about the violations;
whether respondent expected a sanction to be administered; respondents’
perceptions of the severity of the sanction)
• Rewards received (whether each of 10 rewards was received during reference
period; number of times; behaviors resulting in the reward; perceptions of how
helpful the reward was; whether respondent expected the reward; how pleased
the respondent was with the reward
Court hearings and contact • Court appearances during reference period (any hearings, purpose of hearings)
• Contact with judge
• Contact with prosecutor
• Contact with defense attorney
(continued)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 71
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.9. Domains and Constructs Covered in Interview (Cont’d)

Domains Associated Constructs

Criminal behavior and • Engaging in specific types of crimes (for each crime category, any engagement
victimization during reference period, specific months of engagement, number of times, # of
arrests): violent crimes, other crimes against people, weapon carrying, drug
possession, drug sales, other drug crimes, driven under influence, property
crimes, prostitution/public order/vagrancy crimes
• Victimization
Substance abuse treatment • Receipt of several types of substance abuse treatment (any receipt during
reference period, specific months received, # of days/sessions per month:
emergency room treatment for drug or alcohol treatment, hospital stay for
detoxification, residential drug or alcohol treatment program, medicinal
interventions (methadone maintenance, Naltrexone, Buprenorphine), outpatient
group counseling, outpatient individual counseling, self-help groups,
alternative approaches (acupuncture, meditation, biofeedback)
Support services • Receipt of and perceived need for entitlement service: financial assistance,
public financial assistance, public healthcare assistance, legal assistance
• Receipt of and perceived need for obligation services: assistance modifying
child support debt, assistance getting child support payments, assistance
regaining custody of children
• Receipt of and perceived need for other services: employment services,
obtaining documents for employment, money management, other life skills,
anger management, educational services, transportation, housing, batterer
intervention program, family involvement in respondents’ substance abuse
treatment
Family relationships • Family history of criminal behavior and drug use
• Family conflict
• Family emotional support
• Family instrumental support
• Primary care responsibilities for children (primary care responsibilities, contact
with children, financial support for children, child support paid/owed)
Physical and mental health • Presence of chronic medical problems
• Perceptions of mental health
• Anti-social personality disorder
• Narcissism
• Depression
Employment, income, and • Employment (current employment status, # of weeks worked, reason for not
housing working, employment type, hours/week worked)
• Housing (type of housing)
• Income (sources of income, amount from each source)
• Health care insurance/coverage

During instrument development, close attention was paid to selecting the most appropriate
reference period for each set of items. The reference periods for some items necessarily varied
across the three interviews, with the baseline focusing on the past 6 months, and the 6- and 18-

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 72
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

month interviews focusing on the time period since the previous interview. For some questions,
such as attitudinal measures or standardized mental health scales, more recent time periods (such
as past 7 days, past 30 days, or currently) were used. In addition, questions about lifetime
experiences (e.g., criminal history, details about current offense, substance use history) and some
constructs that are relatively static (e.g., anti-social personality disorder, narcissism) were only
asked at the baseline interview.

For key behaviors of interest, the instrument was designed such that the items would be
“calendared,” which means that if the respondent reported engaging in the behavior during the
reference period (overall), s/he received follow-up questions that asked about the specific months
in which the behavior occurred (and other relevant follow-up questions about each month’s
behavior). The calendaring approach facilitates recall and the identification of monthly trends in
key behaviors, and also allows the co-occurrence of two or more behaviors to be examined (to
determine whether they occurred during the same months). The behaviors that were calendared
in the MADCE offender interview include:
• Use of alcohol and seven types of drugs (months used, frequency of use during those
months).
• Needle use (months used).
• Breathalyzers and drug tests received (months in which tests were administered, number
of times tests administered during the month, and number of positives during the month).
• Seven types of substance abuse treatment (months in which treatment was received,
number of days received each month).
• Nine types of criminal behavior (months committed, times per month, times arrested for
that crime per month).
• Violations of each of 13 possible supervision conditions reported by the respondent
(months committed, number of times per month, how often supervision officer knew
about violations each month).
The draft instrument and accompanying materials, including consent forms and lead letters, were
pilot tested in two stages with a total of 11 respondents. Pilot study participants were adults who
were participating in a drug court program in two counties in North Carolina (N=7) or on
probation in Philadelphia (N=4). The pilot interviews were conducted by survey specialists and
observed by a senior team member who was heavily involved in instrument development. The
pilot testing process was used to time the duration of the interviews and to identify problematic
questions in the instrument (e.g., wording that was confusing, questions that required
clarification). At the conclusion of each pilot interview, a debriefing session between the
respondent and interviewer was conducted, in which the respondent was asked a series of
questions eliciting his/her opinion about the consent forms (including what s/he understood the
purpose of the study to be), survey questions (whether there were any that s/he did not
understand, whether any were upsetting, whether s/he had any difficulty remembering what
happened during the time periods about which s/he was asked and how, specifically, s/he went
about answering certain questions, etc.), and proposed incentive structure. Feedback from the
pilot study was incorporated, which resulted in the elimination of several questions and the
simplification of the wording of several questions and response options.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 73
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Computer specifications were then developed for the final instruments, and programmed for
computer administration (via in-person interviews conducted with RTI field interviewers) in
English.24 Computer administration allowed for the extensive use of skip patterns, particularly
the use of gate questions that determined whether a set of follow-up questions were to be asked
for respondents who answered a particular way. This also enabled the use of customized fill
language that reflected a respondent’s status (e.g., as a drug court participant). Because computer
administration was prohibited in some correctional facilities, pencil and paper interview (PAPI)
versions of the instruments also were developed.

The final instruments, accompanying materials (consent forms, recruitment letters, brochures,
etc.), and protocols for administration were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at UI
and RTI.

Administration of Offender Interviews

Enrollment into MADCE (i.e., recruitment for the baseline interviews) took place on a rolling
basis during a 16-month time period (March 2005 through June 2006). This duration was
required in order to achieve the sample size targets for NIJ’s evaluation, given several factors
such as (1) the program enrollment experienced by the participating sites at the time of the
evaluation (which was lower than anticipated), (2) the “consent for release of information”
process required in most sites (which included site staff administering a consent form that
granted permission for the court/agency to release contact information to RTI and resulted in
some individuals being enrolled in the programs, but not available for the evaluation),25 and (3)
retention rates for the follow-up interviews (which were higher than anticipated and therefore
resulted in a smaller number of baseline interviews being necessary to achieve the desired final
sample size available for analysis).

During the baseline enrollment period, staff from UI, RTI, and CCI acted as “court liaisons” to
facilitate the outcome evaluation in the sites to which they were assigned. These staff members
coordinated the process by which contact information for newly-enrolled program participants
was transmitted (in a timely and secure manner) to RTI. The specific procedures varied slightly
across sites, and were documented in memoranda of understanding (MOUs) developed for each
site. All data security procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at UI and
RTI.

After the cases were received by RTI, they were assigned to RTI-subcontracted field
interviewers who had been extensively trained in human subjects’ regulations and administering
consents, gaining respondent cooperation, locating difficult-to-find respondents, interviewing in
correctional settings, and identifying and responding to distressed respondents. The field

24
This decision resulted in the exclusion of a small number of non-English speaking individuals who were otherwise
eligible for the study.
25
Despite requests that local site staff document attrition at this stage (by documenting whether each newly enrolled
program participant signed or declined the consent for release of information form), documentation was not reliable.
Therefore, we cannot determine the actual loss of potential sample (nor any bias that may have resulted from this
loss) resulting from the consent for release of information procedures.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 74
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

interviewers were supervised by two field supervisors, who were responsible for monitoring field
interviewer performance and efficiency, in addition to assisting with facility access and locating
sample members.

A computerized case management system was used to assign cases to field interviewers and to
track the status of fielded cases. With each assigned case, an end date—the date by which the
interview must be either completed or coded as ineligible—was listed in the case management
system. A six-week cut off was established, in order to ensure that the respondents were
interviewed as close to the beginning of their drug court participation (or comparison condition)
as possible, while allowing a reasonable amount of time to locate, successfully recruit, and
interview the respondents (given that not all cases were not immediately transmitted by the
participating sites to the court liaisons).

For the baseline interviews, the majority of respondents were interviewed in the community,
although some were incarcerated or in a residential treatment facility at the time of their baseline
interview and were, therefore, interviewed in these settings. For interviews conducted in
correctional facilities or residential treatment facilities, the court liaisons and field supervisors
were responsible for negotiating access (and documenting the agreed-upon interview conditions)
for the interviewers. For the 6- and 18-month follow-up interviews, increasing numbers of
respondents were interviewed in correctional facilities and residential treatment facilities.
All interviews—both community- and facility-based—were conducted in private settings, where
no one could overhear the interview. For interviews in correctional facilities, the court liaisons or
field supervisors responsible for negotiating access also determined whether a suitable location
for the interviews was available. In a small number of facilities, interviews could not be
conducted because a private interview space was not available. For community-based interviews,
interviews were typically conducted in the respondent’s home, although other locations
(particularly private rooms in libraries) were used. Due to human subjects’ protection concerns,
interviewers were prohibited from interviewing non-incarcerated respondents in any criminal
justice buildings or settings affiliated with the drug court (including the court house, treatment
facility, probation office, or drug court program office).

The majority of interviews were conducted via computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI).
Pencil and paper interviews were conducted with a small number of respondents who were
incarcerated in facilities that prohibited laptop computers (including New York State correctional
facilities and a few maximum security facilities in other states). Administration of all interviews
entailed the following steps. The interviewer went over a brochure about the study with the
respondent and answered any questions that s/he had. Individuals who indicated that they were
willing to participate were read (and signed) the consent form. Throughout the interviews,
interviewers read the questions and recorded the respondents’ answers. In order to orient
respondents to the various time periods used in the interviews, the field interviewers used
reference calendars, which were filled in (at the beginning of each interview) with important
events in the respondents’ lives. The interview contained frequent references to consult the
reference calendar in answering the questions. Showcards listing response options also were used
throughout the interviews. The CAPI interviews lasted approximately 1.5 hours, and the PAPI
lasted approximately 2 hours. The final section of the interview focused on obtaining information
that would help the interviewer locate the respondent for the next interview. In this section,

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 75
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

respondents were asked to provide information about their future housing plans and contact
information for at least three individuals who would know where to find them. After the
interview questions were completed, respondents were administered a separate consent form for
the release of criminal justice data.

At the conclusion of the interviews, non-incarcerated respondents were provided with cash
payments. For incarcerated respondents, money orders were deposited in individuals’ accounts if
the facility permitted it (this was negotiated in advance by the court liaison or field supervisor
responsible for arranging access and conveyed to the respondent in the consent process). The
incentive schedule entailed the following: $35 for the baseline interview, $40 for the 6-month
follow-up interview, and $50 for the 18-month follow-up interview. In addition, as discussed in
more detail below, respondents who called ahead (upon receiving a lead letter) to schedule their
interviews received a $5 bonus for that interview, and respondents who provided an oral fluids
sample for a drug test at the 18-month interview received an additional $15. Respondents who
completed all three interviews received a $25 bonus at their 18-month interview (if they were not
incarcerated, or in a correctional facility that permitted payment).

Throughout the data collection period, field interviewer production and data collection costs
were closely monitored. The field interviewers met weekly with their field supervisor to discuss
progress, share recruitment and locating strategies, and review study procedures for interviewing
in difficult situations (including correctional settings). Prior to the 18-month interview, the field
interviewers completed additional training on oral fluids sample collection. Also, additional
telephone trainings were held on specific topics throughout the study.

Several quality control procedures were implemented to ensure that the administration of the
interviews was conducted in accordance with approved study procedures. The paper case
materials submitted for cases (e.g., consent forms, reference calendars, locating procedures) were
periodically inspected by the field supervisor or a member of RTI’s in-house data collection
team. In addition, time stamp data available for all CAPI interviews was reviewed to identify any
systematic deviations from the normal range of the duration of the interviews across field
interviewers. Finally, interview verification was conducted on a random 10 percent of all
community-based interviews (at each interview wave). Verification was conducted by the field
supervisors via telephone re-contact. The verification protocol was designed to detect interview
falsification or deviations from study protocols (e.g., informed consent procedures, payment
procedures). Respondents were asked a series of questions about their interview experiences. For
facility-based interviews, case-specific verification could not be conducted due to logistical
constraints. However, the field supervisors periodically checked in with the facility contacts to
make sure that the field interviewers were adhering to study protocols.

Recruitment and Retention of Respondents

Recruitment procedures for all waves of interviews entailed the following steps. First, potential
respondents who were not currently incarcerated were mailed a lead letter describing the study
and indicating that an interviewer would be contacting them to determine their interest. The letter
also included a toll free number that the respondent could call to set up an interview time, and
stated that respondents could receive an additional $5 for calling the number. After the lead
letters were sent out, non-incarcerated respondents were contacted (either in person or over the
MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection
and Analysis Strategy 76
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

telephone) by the field interviewer assigned to the case, and upon successful contact, the
interview was scheduled. For incarcerated respondents, a lead letter was not sent. The interview
was scheduled between the field supervisor and facility contact (after access and logistics were
successfully negotiated). During the appointment, the field interviewer went over the study with
the inmates in person, using a brochure that described the study.

Contact was maintained with respondents between interview waves. This process entailed
interviewers attempting phone contact with each respondent approximately three months prior to
the 6- and 18-month follow-up interviews in order to determine if the contact information on file
would be out of date once it was time to schedule the next interview. If the respondent could not
be located for this mid-wave contact, the interviewer began in-depth field tracing.

Field interviewers used a variety of resources to locate the potential respondents. Any existing
contact information (which, for the baseline interview, was limited to the contact information
provided by the site contact and, for the follow-up interviews, included all of the locator
information obtained by the field interviewer in the previous wave) was provided to the field
interviewer. Other particularly effective locating mechanisms included publicly available inmate
searches (to determine if the respondent was incarcerated) and court records, as well as attending
drug court meetings, graduations, or other events.

Study protocols entailed all respondents who completed a baseline interview being recruited for
both the 6- and 18-month interviews, with the same interviewer assigned to a respondent,
wherever possible. Detailed information on the disposition of all fielded cases at each site for
each interview wave is shown in Tables 1-3.10 through 1-3.12. As shown in Table 1-3.10, the
overall response rate for the baseline interview was 72.29 percent, with higher response rates for
drug court participants (81.70 percent) than comparison group members (64.67 percent) and
substantial variability observed across the sites. Most of the non-response was due to difficulty
locating respondents, rather than refusals.26 Only 6 percent of the treatment group and 11 percent
of the comparison group cases recruited for participation refused to participate.

The vast majority of the baseline sample was retained in subsequent interviews, with less
pronounced differences in attrition rates by group than was observed for baseline. The response
rates for the 6-month follow-up were 89.20 percent for the drug court group and 81.55 percent
for the comparison group (for an overall retention rate of 85.08 percent). For the 18-month
interview, the response rate was 83.34 percent overall, with only slightly higher retention for the
drug court group than the comparison group (85.75 percent vs. 83.02 percent). Not surprisingly,
the little attrition that was observed at both 6 and 18 months was due to difficulty locating
respondents. For example, of the 249 cases that were not successfully interviewed at 6 months
(or coded as ineligible), 149 were coded by the field interviewers as not locatable despite
repeated attempts.

26
Of the 684 baseline cases that were not successfully interviewed (or classified as ineligible), 192 were refusals,
440 were classified as “unable to contact” (with two-thirds of these cases due to inability to locate the respondent),
and 52 were classified as “other non-interview” (which includes respondents who were institutionalized in facilities
that would not permit access, respondents who did not speak English, respondents who were physically incapable of
doing the interview, etc.).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 77
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Oral Fluid Tests

Oral swab drug tests were conducted in conjunction with the 18-month interviews, for non-
incarcerated respondents. As mentioned above, the field interviewers completed separate training
for the collection, packaging, and mailing of the oral swabs to a drug testing laboratory.27 The
chosen test was a six-panel oral fluid screen for amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine,
methamphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine.

The oral fluid sample was obtained at the conclusion of the interview, after a separate consent
form for the provision of the oral fluids sample was administered. Ninety-five percent of eligible
(i.e., non-incarcerated) respondents consented to the oral fluids drug test, with minimal
differences in consent rates between drug court (94.5 percent) and comparison group members
(95.5 percent).

Site Visits
Two rounds of site visits were conducted to the participating sites. Each site visit was conducted
by a two-person team containing staff from UI, RTI, and CCI. Interview and observation guides
were developed for the site visits. The teams spent approximately two days at each site, with site
visits scheduled to coincide with court monitoring hearings (and team staffings). During the site
visits, in-person interviews were conducted with as many key stakeholders affiliated with the
drug court as possible, including program coordinators, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
treatment liaisons, research staff, probation officers, and law enforcement officers. The teams
used semi-structured interviews to obtain each stakeholder’s perspective on a variety of topics.
Based on the information obtained during the site visits, narrative descriptions were developed
for each site.

The first round of site visits was conducted at the conclusion of the site selection process and
primarily focused on confirming the viability of the site for inclusion in the impact evaluation
and negotiating logistical details pertaining to data collection for the offender interviews. During
the initial site visits, program organization and operations were documented (via semi-structured
interviews and the collection of existing materials), including program structure and key staff;
enrollment and case flow; availability of administrative data; the intake process; phases and
requirements for court hearings, treatment attendance, case management, drug testing, and
supervision; and sanctions and rewards. In addition, details such as local research approvals, the
need for interviews in languages other than English, and the transfer of contact information for
newly enrolled clients were arranged.

27
Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc. was contracted for the drug testing. Kroll provided intercept collection oral fluid
device, biohazard bag, packaging materials for shipping, and chain or custody forms, as well as test and
confirmatory test results.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 78
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.10. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Baseline Interviews

Response Total Number Completed Other Non-

Rate* of Cases Fielded Interviews Ineligible Refusals Interviews
Drug Court Sites
Site 01 82.70% 104 86 0 3 15
Site 02 68.40% 19 13 0 0 6
Site 04 80% 40 32 0 3 5
Site 05 91.30% 23 21 0 0 2
Site 06 91.30% 47 42 1 0 4
Site 07 84.60% 39 33 0 2 4
Site 08 73.41% 175 127 2 9 37
Site 09 100% 24 24 0 0 0
Site 10 97.70% 43 42 0 0 1
Site 11 88.20% 17 15 0 0 2
Site 12 62.50% 96 60 0 17 19
Site 13 84.60% 65 55 0 4 6
Site 16 69.80% 152 104 3 17 28
Site 18 70.40% 72 50 1 1 20
Site 24 95% 21 19 1 0 1
Site 25 71.20% 139 99 0 11 29
Site 26 82.50% 58 47 1 2 8
Site 27 60.12% 168 101 0 11 56
Site 28 79.07% 44 34 1 2 7
Site 29 92.50% 41 37 1 1 2
Site 30 80% 25 20 0 2 3
Site 41 73.80% 107 79 0 3 25
Site 42 100% 17 17 0 0 0
Total for drug court 81.70% 1,536** 1,157 11 88 280
Comparison Sites
Site 31 81.30% 210 170 1 2 37
Site 32*** 70.80% 347 245 1 49 52
Site 34 54.10% 222 119 2 14 87
Site 35 62.50% 16 10 0 2 4
Site 36 54.60% 153 83 1 37 32
Total for comparison 64.67% 948 627 5 104 212
Total across all sites 72.29% 2,484** 1,784± 16 192 492
*Response rates are calculated as the number of completed interviews, divided by the total number of cases fielded, excluding
cases coded as “ineligible” (e.g., deceased respondents and respondents under the age of 18).
**An additional 28 drug court cases were fielded for baseline interviews from North Carolina drug courts prior to the courts’
dropping out of the study. These cases are not included in the table.
***For analysis purposes, site 32 is broken down into two sites (representing two distinct judicial districts); however, the
disposition of the cases was not tracked separately.
± Due to a coding discrepancy, only 1,781 completed baseline interviews were available for analyses.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 79
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.11. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Six-Month Follow-up
Interviews

Response Total Number Completed Other Non-

Rate* of Cases Fielded Interviews Ineligible Refusals Interviews±
Drug Court Sites
Site 01 75.58% 87 65 1 0 21
Site 02 61.54% 13 8 0 0 5
Site 04 96.88% 32 31 0 0 1
Site 05 95.24% 21 20 0 0 1
Site 06 95.24% 42 40 0 0 2
Site 07 93.94% 33 31 0 0 2
Site 08 81.25% 128 104 0 2 21
Site 09 95.83% 24 23 0 0 1
Site 10 100% 42 42 0 0 0
Site 11 100% 15 15 0 0 0
Site 12 73.33% 60 44 0 3 13
Site 13 87.27% 56 48 1 2 5
Site 16 81.73% 104 85 0 4 15
Site 18 86% 50 43 0 1 7
Site 24 100% 19 19 0 0 0
Site 25 90.91% 99 90 0 1 8
Site 26 93.62% 47 44 0 0 3
Site 27 92.08% 102 93 1 0 8
Site 28 89.19% 37 33 0 0 4
Site 29 89.19% 37 33 0 0 4
Site 30 95% 20 19 0 0 1
Site 41 83.54% 79 66 0 0 13
Site 42 94.12% 17 16 0 1 0
Total for drug court 89.19% 1,164** 1,012 3 14 135

Comparison Sites
Site 31 76.92% 170 130 1 0 39
Site 32*** 93.47% 245 229 0 6 10
Site 34 80% 123 96 3 0 24
Site 35 80% 10 8 0 0 2
Site 36 77.38% 84 65 0 12 7
Total for comparison 81.55% 632 528 4 18 82
Total across all sites 86.08% 1,796** 1,540 7 32 217
*Response rates are calculated as the number of completed interviews, divided by the total number of cases fielded (which, for
the 6 month follow-up, included all cases for which a baseline interview was completed), excluding cases coded as “ineligible.”
Ineligible cases include deceased respondents and respondents under the age of 18.
****An additional 24 North Carolina drug court cases were fielded (for 6 month follow-up interviews) prior to the courts’
dropping out of the study. These cases are not included in the table.
***For analysis purposes, site 32 is broken down into two sites (representing two distinct judicial districts); however, the
disposition of the cases was not tracked separately.
± Two partial interviews are included in the non-interview classification.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 80
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-3.12. Study Enrollment and Response Rates, by Site: Eighteen-Month Follow-up
Interviews

Response Total Number of Completed Other Non-

Rate* Cases Fielded Interviews Ineligible Refusals Interviews
Drug Court Sites
Site 01 80% 86 68 1 0 17
Site 02 76.92% 13 10 0 0 3
Site 04 83.87% 32 26 1 2 3
Site 05 95.24% 21 20 0 0 1
Site 06 95.24% 42 40 0 0 2
Site 07 96.97% 33 32 0 0 1
Site 08 72.22% 128 91 2 5 30
Site 09 95.83% 24 23 0 0 1
Site 10 92.86% 42 39 0 1 2
Site 11 93.33% 15 14 0 0 1
Site 12 66.67% 60 40 0 10 10
Site 13 81.82% 55 45 0 2 8
Site 16 75% 104 78 0 9 17
Site 18 80% 50 40 0 1 9
Site 24 100% 19 19 0 0 0
Site 25 87.76% 99 86 1 0 12
Site 26 91.49% 47 43 0 0 4
Site 27 84.85% 101 84 2 2 13
Site 28 94.59% 37 35 0 0 2
Site 29 78.38% 37 29 0 0 8
Site 30 85% 20 17 0 0 3
Site 41 81.82% 79 63 2 0 14
Site 42 82.35% 17 14 0 3 0
Total for drug court 85.75% 1,161 956 9 35 161

Comparison Sites
Site 31 85.21% 170 144 1 0 25
Site 32*** 90.16% 245 220 1 6 18
Site 34 77.12% 121 91 3 0 27
Site 35 90% 10 9 0 0 1
Site 36 72.62% 84 61 0 5 18
Total for comparison 83.02% 630 525 5 11 89
Total across all sites 83.34% 1,791 1,481 14 46 250
*Response rates are calculated as the number of completed interviews, divided by the total number of cases fielded (which, for
the 18-month follow-up, included all cases for which a baseline interview was completed), excluding cases coded as “ineligible.”
Ineligible cases include deceased respondents and respondents under the age of 18.
***For analysis purposes, site 32 is broken down into two sites (representing two distinct judicial districts); however, the
disposition of the cases was not tracked separately.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 81
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

The second round of site visits was conducted for the purpose of obtaining program-level data on
program operations that could be used as site-level variables in the impact analyses and assist in
the interpretation of evaluation findings. Therefore, the timing of the second round of site visits
was selected to reflect program operations during the time point at which baseline enrollment
was well under way (spring 2006). During the second round of site visits, both interview guides
and structured observation guides (for court monitoring hearings and drug court team staffings)
were followed. The interview guides were designed to elicit detailed information regarding case
management and supervision (frequency of client contact, referrals provided, decision-making
process, court hearings, sanctions and rewards), treatment (treatment resources, types of
treatment available, perceptions of treatment quality), program operations (program mission;
referral, eligibility, and screening; program structure; graduation criteria; after care; records
keeping), decision-making, and collaboration (partners, collaborative procedures, linkages,
funding). In addition, information on the training, experience, and level of involvement (i.e., task
allocation) of each stakeholder was obtained. Specific topics were customized based on the role
of the stakeholder being interviewed, and some topics were not applicable to comparison sites.
The structured observation guides were designed to document the proceedings at the team
staffings (if applicable) and the actual court monitoring hearings. These observation guides
documented overall procedures of the staffings/court hearings (stakeholders in attendance, level
of participation, decision-making process, courtroom dynamics, information sharing, demeanor
of judge), as well as the disposition of each individual case discussed/heard (type of appearance,
compliance status, court response, judicial interaction).

Administrative Data

NIJ’s MADCE also collected respondents’ official records from the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and from germane state-level
criminal justice agencies. Collection of administrative data focused on three categories of
variables: arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. These data supported both propensity score
analysis and measurement of individual-level recidivism outcomes, and informed cost estimates
for the cost-benefit analysis. NCIC provided comprehensive arrest data including prior arrests
and re-arrests, as well as information about convictions and incarcerations. State-level criminal
history records offered detailed information about respondents’ involvement within the criminal
justice system, including prior and subsequent incarcerations. Measures of prior criminal
involvement (i.e., age at first arrest, number of priors, etc.) central to the propensity score
analysis and recidivism (any arrest post-entry into the sample) were generated primarily from
NCIC data. In contrast, the evaluation relied on state-level criminal justice records for data on
subsequent convictions, periods of supervision, and incarcerations; these data supported the
impact and cost-benefit analyses. When combined, these two sources of administrative data
allowed the evaluation team to construct comprehensive profiles of official criminal justice
involvement for respondents in the sample.

Permission to collect official criminal justice records data was obtained as part of the MADCE
study’s consent-to-contact procedures (described in previous sections of this chapter). Official
records data were collected for only those study participants who provided written consent. Of
the 1,781 individuals recruited for the sample, approximately 11 percent (N=203) declined to

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 82
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

provide researchers with access to their official criminal justice records.28 For the 1,578
respondents who consented to this portion of the data collection, criminal history records were
requested roughly 30 months after the last case entered the sample to allow for a minimum 24-
month follow-up period for all subjects in the sample and to ensure any new criminal justice
contacts had been logged into agency databases.

Administrative Data Negotiations

The acquisition of administrative data proved to be a lengthy and resource-intensive process that
spanned the last three years of NIJ’s MADCE.29 This process involved:

(1) developing a common list of core data elements to collect from pertinent federal and
state-level criminal justice agencies;

(2) identifying those agencies responsible for collecting and reporting criminal history data
in each state and establishing a point of contact within each agency;

(3) verifying the content, availability, structure, and format of the criminal justice data
collected, including the availability of sealed records, and the capacity of each agency to
extract and provide the data in a timely manner, as well as in a format conducive to
analysis and consistent with confidentiality protocols;

(4) crafting a list of personal identifiers for data-providing agencies to match study
respondents to their criminal justice records and thus, facilitate data extraction;

(5) conducting quality control checks on respondents’ personal identifiers to ensure accurate
and complete information was provided to data-providing agencies;

(6) developing a range of Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved secure data transfer
procedures to accommodate the varying technologies and policies of multiple data-
providing agencies;30

28
Study participants could grant full or partial access to their administrative records by placing a check mark next to
specific data sources listed on the consent protocol – typically, the state department of correction, law enforcement,
and NCIC. Exercising the most conservative approach, data were only collected for those study participants who
granted FULL access to their criminal history data (in short, partials were treated as declinations).
29
Initial inquiries about the availability of data and access to these data for research purposes commenced across all
eight states in February 2007. Data negotiations proceeded at a different pace in each state. Although data
negotiations and the agency review process generally spanned three to six months, in some instances, research
requests had to be renewed or re-approved due to staff turnover within the agency. As a result, the process in some
states took more than 18 months.
30
The study’s data transfer protocols contained provisions for the secure transfer of data files between the research
team and data-providing agency. Specifically, the study’ IRB required that respondents’ Social Security Numbers
(SSN) be sent separately from other personal identifiers; in compliance, the study sent data-providing agencies two
data files on which to match and extract records: one contained the respondents’ SSN and an anonymous research
ID; the other contained the anonymous research ID and all other respondent personal identifiers (name, date of birth,
sex, race, state identification number or department of corrections ID) except SSN. Both data files were PGP-
encrypted, saved to separate compact discs (CDs) and sent to data-providing agencies via secure courier. Data-
providing agencies followed similar procedures to prepare and transfer data files to the study. Personal identifiers
(except SSN) could be retained in data files if the data-providing agency had encryption capabilities, or was

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 83
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

(7) navigating agency-specific data request review processes to obtain approval to access
data;

(8) negotiating and executing data-sharing agreements, sometimes more than once; and

(9) executing the data request.

Procedures for processing these data were equally complex, as we later discuss.

Data negotiations began in February 2007. The MADCE research team developed three
protocols to guide initial data-related inquiries and assist in subsequent negotiations:

1. A list of core administrative data elements31 needed to support both the impact and cost-
benefit analyses. (See Appendix B for the list of core data elements.). The evaluation
team provided this list to staff in data-providing agencies to review against their data
systems to quickly identify which data their systems could supply (and, more
importantly, those data that were not routinely collected, if at all).

2. A basic set of key questions about the content, structure, and availability of criminal
history records data, including the availability of sealed data and the logistics of data
acquisition. This protocol guided initial discussions with agency staff and helped to
ensure that individual research staff collected comparable information across differing
data-providing agencies. Information gathered from these calls helped highlight
potentially meaningful gaps and variation across agencies regarding the types of data
available (i.e., details relevant to planning and crafting the impact analysis).

3. A standard packet of supporting materials about the evaluation. Designed to inform data-
agency contacts about the study and its protocols, the packet included a brief overview of
the study design and its objectives; an abbreviated, but detailed narrative of the human
subjects protections and data security plan; a copy of the study’s current IRB-approval
notice; the list of core data elements; and a copy of the study’s IRB –approved data
transfer procedures. UI also submitted this packet to several state agency review boards
as part of the data request approval process.

Once these protocols were finalized, the evaluation team worked to identify the relevant data-
providing criminal justice agencies (i.e., departments of correction, state law enforcement
agencies, and administrative office of the courts) in each of the eight states and to establish key
points of contact. This list also included those agencies that serve as the Statistical Analysis
Centers (SACs) for the states in the sample; SACs frequently function as the central repository
for criminal justice data and analysis for their respective states (as such, working with the SACs

amenable to using PGP encryption software provided by the study. If agency-policy prohibited the use of
encryption technology, then data-providing agencies were instructed to redact the data files, retain only the
anonymous research ID and password-protect the data files prior to transfer. The study both supplied data-providing
agencies with materials to ship the data files via secure courier and absorbed all shipping costs.
31
This list of core data elements included arrest, disposition, supervision and custody data. It was reviewed and
vetted by the evaluation’s external advisors before proceeding with any formal data requests.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 84
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

to acquire records data can streamline the data acquisition process and improve the chances of
obtaining complete and comprehensive records data on all stages of processing).

An initial round of telephone calls to key state-level criminal justice agencies to discuss available
data and request documentation (codebooks), and to learn more about each agency’s respective
data acquisition process, commenced in February 2007 and concluded in August 2007. During
this period, the evaluation team also reached out to staff in the Criminal Justice Information
Service Division of NCIC to learn more about the content, format, and availability of data
routinely submitted by state law enforcement agencies to the Interstate Identification Index
database (i.e., Triple I database) maintained by the Center and from which criminal history
records data would be extracted for respondents in the MADCE sample.

These initial inquiries informed two critical decisions about how data acquisition would proceed:
(1) as feasible, the evaluation team would first explore the viability of obtaining individual-level
records data through the states’ central repositories for criminal justice data (i.e., state SACs),
and only proceed with multiple state-level data requests, as needed; (2) the evaluation would
collect criminal history records (i.e., arrests, disposition, supervision, and prison stays) from both
NCIC and state agencies to ensure the study could build a comprehensive profile of formal
criminal justice involvement for each respondent in the sample.32 Whether NCIC data, alone,
could support the study’s impact analysis had been an early consideration.

Acquisition and Processing of State Criminal Justice Agency Data

The tactic of accessing state-level criminal history records through a central data repository
proved to be both a feasible and fruitful approach that streamlined the data acquisition process in
five (i.e., FL, IL, NY, PA, SC) of the study’s eight states. Agencies serving as the SACs33 in
these states accessed, compiled, and supplied the study with arrest, sentencing, disposition, and
custody records; further, these agencies typically had the programming capacity to accurately
match sample respondents from thousands of system records, verify those matches, and generate
a comprehensive flat file ready for analysis, thus freeing the evaluation team from those tasks.
As might be anticipated, data negotiations, including the research review and approval process,
typically proceeded more quickly and efficiently in these five states than in those where
researchers could not work through the SACs and had to negotiate agreements with multiple
state-level criminal justice agencies. In the remaining three states, for example, the evaluation
team negotiated data-sharing agreements with more than five state-agencies to collect the desired
arrest, disposition, and incarceration data. In one state, despite having successfully negotiated
data-sharing agreements, criminal history data and incarceration records had to be collected

32
Initial discussions with NCIC and state-agency analysts made it clear the study’s analytic strategy would require
both sources of data. NCIC data would capture arrests and possibly dispositions occurring outside the study’s eight
states, while state criminal justice records would provide details about disposition, sentencing, and incarcerations not
routinely logged in NCIC’s Triple I database.
33
These agencies included the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority (ILCJIA), New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics (SCORS).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 85
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

manually from agency websites (i.e., the state’s department of corrections and bureau of
investigation).34

Evaluation staff reviewed state data files shortly after receipt to determine the number of matches
(i.e., cases in the sample for which records were received), the accuracy of those matches, and
the content of the records. For each submission, the variables provided and the percent of data
missing for each variable were catalogued in a single matrix spreadsheet to facilitate comparison
across data sources. This allowed researchers to identify key variables and determine the extent
to which data on those variables were provided and to verify our interpretation of the data with
agency contacts; in some instances, additional data requests were made to obtain items
inadvertently omitted in the original data extract. Incarceration “in and out” dates were of
primary interest to the evaluation, and sentencing information that would complete or correct
respondents’ self-reported survey data about subsequent custody periods. Identifying the
admission and release dates of the “instant” incarceration (i.e., the incarceration event that led to
participation in drug court, and for comparisons, the event that led to inclusion in the study) to
calculate prison length of stay; identifying the most serious offense associated with the instant
incarceration; identifying prison admissions subsequent to the instant incarceration release date;
and identifying the most serious offense associated with or reason (e.g., technical violation, new
offense) for re-incarceration were also of interest. Some states only provided in-dates, but not
“out dates” for periods of incarceration. Others collected and reported sentence dates and
sentence length; these elements, of course, are imprecise and introduce some level of error in
calculation of “street time” and increase the risk of under-estimating recidivism rates.

State criminal history records varied in content and availability (amount missing), and quality.
Policy constraints and technology limitations typically accounted for this variation. With respect
to the former, some states in the sample (e.g., PA) only released arrest records ending in
conviction; only one state allowed researchers access to sealed records,35 while others provided a
count of the number of respondents in the sample with sealed records (as juveniles and as adults)
so the evaluation team could estimate the potential for under-estimates of official criminal justice
involvement pre- and post-drug court involvement. In the one state for which the evaluation team
had to manually extract data from state agency websites, arrest and offense data were limited to
convicted felons and offense result in incarceration.

NCIC Criminal History Records

Two waves of NCIC criminal history records were requested from the FBI. The team submitted
its first request for data in March 2008, roughly 22 months after the last case entered the sample,
and used these data files to: inventory the data, familiarize analysts with the file structure and
content, prepare and test protocols (programs) to convert the data into an analyzable format, and
determine the match rate for the sample (i.e., the percentage of individuals located by the FBI
and for whom records were provided). The FBI prepared the second and final wave of NCIC
34
Data available through the state’s bureau of investigation website was limited to convicted felons and did not
provide any record of felony arrests that did not result in conviction or misdemeanor arrests and convictions. In turn,
the search function for the state’s department of correction’s website produced inconsistent results.
35
The study obtained sealed records for respondents in selected drug courts through a specific, secure protocol
available through the Division of Criminal Justice Services; this protocol returns only de-identified data and
involves significant file preparation on the requestor’s end prior to submission.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 86
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

data in October 2008, roughly 30 months after sample recruitment ended; this allowed for a
standard minimum 24-month follow-up period for all subjects in the sample and ample time for
any new criminal justice contacts during that timeframe to have been logged in NCIC’s Triple I
database. Rap sheet data, including arrest, conviction, and, in some instances, custody stays were
returned in two formats depending on the state that was reporting: electronic files in PDF format
and paper rap sheets. The project received NCIC records in both formats. Extensive preparation
was required to extract and convert the data into a format that would support analysis, as
discussed below.

UI researchers provided NCIC with a fairly extensive set of personal identifiers (first and last
name, middle initial, Social Security Number, date of birth, gender, race, and, when feasible, the
state identification number) to use to extract criminal histories (rap sheets). NCIC provide rap
sheets for any match generated using these identifiers. This process generated literally thousands
of “hits” for each submission and resulted in PDF files with more than 8,000 pages of rap sheets
and multiple boxes of paper records. Given the volume of records provided by NCIC, a first step
was to sort through the data, identify, and verify which records belonged to individuals in the
MADCE sample, and remove all superfluous individuals and their records. Analysts first
developed match criteria and a protocol for sorting the data; this protocol calculated a match
statistic indicating the level of certainty of the match.

Before any sorting and matching could be performed, the PDF and paper files had to be scanned
and read into a parser in order to convert these files into an electronic format that could be
manipulated for analysis. Using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software package
(Readiris 11) selected by the MADCE research team in consultation with Urban Institute
Information Technology staff, all hard copy NCIC records were electronically scanned rendering
image .tif files. The OCR software was then run on the image .tif files to produce readable text
.pdf files. Readable text files were then run through the data parser, a program which read and
extracted data from these records and converted the extracted data sets into SPSS files. Parsing
was an iterative process that required extensive monitoring to ensure all data were properly
converted and all records captured.

In the first wave of NCIC data, records were matched to roughly 78 percent of the sample
(N=1,237). Although the match rate improved with the second NCIC data submission, the
evaluation team requested the FBI conduct one additional search in May 2009 to find records for
116 missing cases. Ultimately, NCIC criminal history records were matched to roughly 89
percent (N=1,401) of the MADCE sample for whom data were requested.36

Data cleaning and offense coding were performed once all “true” matches were detected. The
parsing process extracted data into four different file structures:

• Person.csv: contains data about official name and key identifying information.

36
Note: only 1,578 of the 1,781 cases in the sample consented to have their records data collected, so technically the
89 percent match rate is calculated on the denominator of 1,578. Also, any additional records received as a result of
the third request were subject to the 24-month cut off for analysis.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 87
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

• Altid.csv: contains data about alternative names, dates of birth, and Social Security
Numbers; data in this file were used to match the FBI data with the study’s master-list of
drug-court participants for those individuals not matched initially.

• Arrest.csv: contains data about indices of arrest including offense type and arrest date.

• Courtrec.csv: contains data about the prosecution of the arrest, where applicable.

NCIC offense data were coded and collapsed into person, property, society, and drug crimes
following the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Coding deviates slightly
from the NIBRS standard in that we identified Traffic Violations and Non-Offenses, while the
standard folds Traffic into "Other" and does not report the latter. The study also departed from
the NIBRS scheme in creating a separate category for drug offenses; NIBRS generally lists drug
offenses under "Society Offenses." After creating code for the main categories (Person, Society,
Property, Drug, Traffic, Other, and Non-Offenses), sub-categories were created also following
the NIBRS scheme (with the exceptions noted above). To support the cost-benefit analysis, the
sub-categories were further coded into more precise offense type categories (which NIBRS also
addresses). A copy of the NIBRS offense structure is provided in Appendix C.

Cost‐Benefit Data
Costs of program participation can be conceptualized as the product of two different
components: the quantity of resources used and the price of those resources. Similarly, the
benefits can be considered as the product of the quantity of a particular behavior (such as crime)
and the price of that behavior (e.g., the costs of victimization). This approach is helpful when
discussing data used in the analysis. This section provides a brief overview of how data were
used in the MADCE cost-benefit analyses. For more details, see Appendix D to this Volume.

The quantity of resources used was almost exclusively drawn from the latter two waves of the
offender interviews (i.e., 6- and 18-month follow ups). These included a wide range of resources
used, ranging from program inputs (such as hearings and meetings with case managers) to
program outcomes (such as use of government support and public services). Occasionally, the
baseline interview was used to guide assumptions (such as assumptions about when employment
was obtained). Other assumptions were guided by responses to the nationwide MADCE Adult
Drug Court Survey (e.g., the types of drug tests used by each court). Some information from site
visits to the courts also was used, primarily to inform estimates of administrative costs of
program participation (such as the frequency and length of regularly scheduled staff meetings
and which staff members were in attendance). Finally, some information about court personnel
who attended hearings was supplied by a telephone interview of participating sites conducted for
another study (Bhati, Roman, and Chalfin 2008).

The only other source from which quantities were estimated was administrative records, which
were used to estimate (1) the number of arrests, (2) the number of crimes committed (from the
number of arrests), and (3) the length and frequency of incarcerations. Appendix D details how
these data sources were used to estimate the quantities of resources used and behaviors. Self-
report data was used for most quantities for a number of reasons. First, given the number of sites

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 88
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

in participation, hailing from 19 jurisdictions in seven states, it would have been cost prohibitive
to collect administrative records on court hearings; public assistance; drug, medical, and mental
health treatment; housing program use; and official employment information, in addition to
incarcerations and arrests. Second, given the wide range of questions asked during individual
interviews, it is unlikely that administrative data would have enabled consideration of such a
diverse range of impacts.

Prices were gathered from a number of sources. Where available, information on salaries,
treatment costs, and drug testing costs were gathered directly from the sites through the
aforementioned telephone interview (Bhati et al. 2008). Often, however, the sites were unable to
estimate some or all of this information. The remaining prices were collected from a wide range
of extant research and official reports. For instance, many salaries were collected from the
Occupational Employment Statistics database maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
incarceration costs were collected from financial reports from the sites’ Departments of
Corrections, and many drug treatment costs were collected from other studies of drug treatment.
In general, almost all prices were obtained from published research papers and reports. All price
sources are publicly available. Appendix D identifies these data sources and how they were used
in much greater detail.

Analytic Strategy
NIJ’s MADCE describes the participant population; the program experience; resulting impacts
on drug use, criminal behavior, and other associated problems; and related economic analyses.
This section provides an overview of the analytic plan, which divides into a process study of how
the 23 drug court sites operated, an impact study of the effects of the drug court on important
outcomes of interest, and cost-benefit analyses.

Process Study: Examining the Drug Court Experience

For the process study, we limited the sample to the 23 drug court sites and the 1,156 drug court
offenders. Analyses were primarily descriptive, reporting the average distribution of policies,
participant characteristics, program experiences, and offender attitudes in our sample. We also
conducted select multivariate analyses, typically when seeking to understand which categories of
offenders were especially likely to receive a particular drug court service (e.g., residential
treatment) or to develop particular perceptions about their experience (e.g., high ratings of
procedural fairness). Our substantive focal areas were as follows:

• Drug Court Population: reporting the average nature, severity, and duration of participant
problems at baseline, including drug use, criminality, socioeconomic dislocations, co-
occurring mental illness, and ties to peers or family members with drug or crime
involvement.
• Community-Based Treatment: reporting the average treatment dosage by modality
(residential, outpatient, self-help groups, etc.); and using standard logistic regression
methods, modeling which baseline characteristics predict assignment to more intensive
modalities (i.e., how drug courts go about matching participant needs to services).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 89
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

• Judicial Oversight: reporting the average frequency of judicial status hearings, case
manager contacts, and drug tests, and documenting the use of interim sanctions and
incentives, utilizing a combination of offender survey data and structured site visit
results, which led each site to be coded across a series of policy domains.
• Offender Perceptions: analyzing changes in key perceptions across survey waves,
including procedural justice (fairness of the judge, case manager, and court) and
deterrence (detection of noncompliance, certainty of sanctions, and severity of penalties
for program failure); and using standard regression methods, modeling which offender
baseline characteristics create predispositions to have some and not other perceptions.

Impact Study: Testing the Outcomes and Impact of Drug Courts

NIJ’s evaluation was well positioned to yield unbiased estimates regarding the impact of adult
drug courts on drug use, crime, and other outcomes. We did not employ a systematic random
sample of drug courts and comparison sites, and some regions of the country were under-
represented. Nonetheless, the study remains the broadest multi-site effort to date, uniquely
enhanced by the availability of three separate waves of offender survey data.

Threats to Study Validity

We still encountered three major threats to validity: selection bias, attrition bias, and site-level
clustering. In short, selection bias would arise if the drug court and comparison samples are not
comparable in their baseline characteristics. Attrition bias would arise if a significant percentage
of offenders are not interviewed at follow-up, and if retained and attrited offenders have different
characteristics. Site-level clustering would arise if offender outcomes from the same sites tend to
cluster together, which would violate the assumptions of standard statistical methods that each
observation (i.e., offender) produces outcomes that are equally independent of all others. As
thoroughly detailed in Volume 4, Chapter 2 (on impact methodology), we addressed selection
and attrition with super weighting, and addressed site-level clustering with hierarchical
modeling.

Super Weighting

We proceeded as follows. First, we compared the characteristics of drug court and comparison
offenders and found significant differences at baseline on many more characteristics than
not⎯posing a real threat of selection bias. We were less concerned about attrition, since survey
retention rates at both follow-up periods were high (see above). Nonetheless, we then compared
the characteristics of retained and attrited offenders at each follow-up period and found several
significant differences. We also found that offenders from some state clusters were
systematically more likely to be retained than were offenders from other clusters (whether due to
differential community characteristics or differential effectiveness of the interviewing teams).

To address these differences, we implemented standard propensity score modeling procedures

(see Volume 4 of this report; Luellen, Shadish, and Clark 2005; Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983,
1984; Rubin 1973). We first developed a propensity model, using an array of baseline
characteristics to predict each offender’s statistical probability of falling into the drug court as

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 90
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

opposed to the comparison sample. We then developed an analogous retention model, using
baseline characteristics and state cluster variables to predict each offender’s probability of
retention at follow up. We separately implemented these models for each follow-up period: e.g.,
retained at 6 months, retained at 18 months, retained at both periods, and retained for the oral
fluids test. We then differentially weighted cases based on the product of their propensity and
retention scores at each period (see formulas in Volume 4). As an intuitive principle,
underrepresented categories of offenders received higher weights and overrepresented categories
received lower weights. The effect was to balance the samples, correcting simultaneously for
any selection and attrition bias. We tested the performance of our super weights and determined
that they were indeed successful in virtually eliminating baseline differences between drug court
and comparison offenders; and between retained and attrited offenders at each period.

Hierarchical Modeling

As in all multi-site evaluations, each observation (i.e., offender) was nested within a particular
site. After examining our data, we confirmed that offenders from different sites systematically
varied on key drug use, criminal behavior, and other psychosocial outcomes. In other words, the
nesting effect had real consequences for the distribution of our outcomes of interest. We thus
employed hierarchical modeling techniques for all impact analyses and select process analyses
(as clarified within specific process chapters). For this purpose, we used HLM 6.04 software (see
Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Hierarchical modeling techniques adjusted for the site-specific
variances in outcomes and corrected the assumed degrees of freedom based on the much smaller
number of sites (29) than of offenders (1,781). That is, our statistical power would not be based
strictly on the 1,781 individual offenders, but also on our considerably fewer sites. For analytic
purposes, we further defined drug court status as fundamentally a characteristic of sites (at
“Level 2”), rather than of individuals (at “Level 1”). Such a decision reduced our statistical
power to detect an effect of drug court participation on our outcomes of interest; but it provided a
more conservative and defensible strategy, improving the reliability of our findings.

Analytic Plan

We briefly restate the core research questions for NIJ’s impact evaluation and summarize the
plan for addressing each one (see Volume 4, Chapter 2 for an expanded discussion).

Do Drug Courts Reduce Drug Use, Crime, and Multiple Other Problems
Associated With Drug Abuse, In Comparison With Similar Offenders Not
Exposed To Drug Courts?

When comparing outcomes between drug court and comparison offenders, we ran all final
models in HLM using weighted data. Since our weighting strategy successfully addressed all
apparent selection bias, we considered it unnecessary to add any additional control variables.
Accordingly, our models simply included drug court status as a single Level 2 predictor
variable—without any other predictors. For each outcome measure, we selected the most
appropriate regression specification, of those that are available in HLM: ordinary least squares
for normally distributed outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous measures, and Poisson
regression for count distributions that are right-skewed. To provide easily interpretable “bottom-

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 91
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

line” results, we transformed our regression coefficients for the intercept and for drug court
status to produce simple mean outcomes for drug court and comparison offenders, respectively.
In other words, in lieu of presenting regression coefficients, we produced readily interpretable
percentages or averages⎯percent using drugs, percent engaged in criminal activity, average days
incarcerated, etc. It is, however, important to keep in mind that all such seemingly simple
outcomes are never based on the raw data, but are adjusted, as previously described. While we
analyzed a large number of individual measures at both the 6- and 18-month follow-up points,
and up to 24 months for official recidivism, outcomes were organized into the following key
domains:
• Drug Use: for example, whether the offender used drugs, days of drug use per month, and
results of the oral fluids drug test.
• Criminal Activity: for example, incidence and prevalence of official re-arrest and of self-
reported criminal behavior (up to 18 months for self-report and 24 months for official
recidivism).
• Incarceration: for example, number of days incarcerated (up to 18 months post-baseline).
• Socioeconomic Status: for example, employment status, school status, and annual
income.
• Mental Health: for example, classified as “depressed” (based on multi-item instrument)
and self-reported assessment of mental health (excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor).
• Family Support and Conflict: for example, drawing on multi-item indices, the extent of
family conflict, family emotional support, and family instrumental support.
• Homelessness: for example, whether the offender was homeless since the previous survey
point.

Our final plan for computing impacts was not the only one that might have been attempted.
Accordingly, using an array of alternative models, we conducted a series of sensitivity analyses
on select outcome measures from each domain. These were raw/unadjusted outcomes; weighted,
but without hierarchical modeling; same as our primary approach, but with select individual-
level covariates added as control variables; and same as our primary approach, but with select
community-level covariates added as control variables (e.g., census demographics, jurisdiction-
wide arrest rates, etc.). These analyses generally confirmed a need for weighting and hierarchical
modeling, but indicated that additional refinements⎯that is, adding further control variables
even after weighting the data⎯rarely affected the substantive findings or significance levels (and
did not in a single instance lead a finding to shift from significant to non-significant, or vice
versa).

What Are the Individual and Program Factors That Make Drug Courts More or
Less Effective in Achieving Their Desired Outcomes?

We limited such analyses to those outcomes where our simple impact analysis (above) detected a
demonstrable and consistently positive effect size. In practice, both because these areas yielded
the clearest positive results and were of the greatest analytic interest in the first place, we focused
on drug use and criminal behavior outcomes.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 92
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

In modeling the effects of individual-level factors (answering: for whom do drug courts work),
we identified key offender characteristics in five critical domains:
• Drug Use History: average days of drug use per month at baseline, primary drug of
marijuana, primary drug of alcohol, and primary drug of cocaine (hypothesizing that drug
courts work better with offenders whose substance abuse history was more
serious⎯more days of use and primary drug other than marijuana).
• Prior Criminality: any prior conviction, any prior violent conviction, and number of self-
reported criminal acts in the six months pre-baseline (hypothesizing that drug courts work
better with “higher risk” offenders, defined by greater criminality).
• Mental Health: depressed at baseline, anti-social personality disorder, and narcissistic
personality disorder (hypothesizing that drug courts work better with offenders who did
not suffer from a co-occurring depression, but who did have either of the personality
disorders, which might create receptivity to the drug court’s strong deterrence strategies).
• Social Ties: married, employed or in school, and involvement of blood relatives with
drugs or crime (hypothesizing that drug courts work better with offenders who had a
greater “stake in conformity”—that is, more mainstream social ties).
• Demographics: race/ethnicity, sex, and age (no particular hypothesis).

For each of the above characteristics, we ran three-predictor regression models, including drug
court status, the given characteristic, and an interaction term. Significant interaction terms meant
that the drug court produced especially better or worse outcomes than the comparison group for
offenders with the given characteristic. If our results had produced many significant interactions,
we planned to combine multiple baseline measures into theoretically-based scores (e.g., “high”
or “low” risk classifications) and to add more control variables to our initially parsimonious
models. This step became superfluous, as remarkably few significant interactions were detected.

In modeling the effects of program-level factors that influence drug court effectiveness
(answering: how do drug courts work), we included variables from the following major domains.
• Treatment: for example, number of days of any treatment, residential, outpatient, or self-
help groups; whether or not the offender completed more than 90 days of treatment; and
any treatment within the first 30 days after program entry (testing treatment immediacy).
• Court Supervision: for example, frequency of judicial status hearings, case management
or other supervision officer contacts, and drug tests.
• Legal Leverage: for example, severity of sentence if failing drug court.
• Sanctions and Incentives: for example, anticipated sentence if failing drug court (i.e.,
legal leverage), number of sanctions during participation, number of rewards, percent of
sanctions that involve jail stays, and ratio of sanctions to infractions.
• Supplemental Services: for example, employment and educational assistance; family
support; child services; and administrative, logistical, or legal services.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 93
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

We adopted two distinct approaches in the analysis. In the first, we included all 29 sites, enabling
us to test which program-level factors moderate the impact of the drug court, relative to the
comparison group. In the second approach, we focused on the 23 drug court sites only, enabling
us to test which program-level factors led some drug courts to have better outcomes than other
drug courts. Throughout these approaches, we used a combination of regression modeling in
HLM and structural equation modeling (SEM) in LISREL. The regression strategy gained the
advantages of the hierarchical modeling adjustments discussed above, and produced results that
could disentangle the relative effects of each factor on outcomes. The SEM strategy gained the
advantage of more fully modeling the direct and indirect pathways in which each variable has its
effects—for example, essentially ordering variables in a left-to-right path model from baseline
characteristics to program-level factors to offender attitudes (see below) to outcomes. A final
consideration is that only in a regression framework could we enter a combination of individual-
and court-level policy predictors. That is, apart from our collection of survey data on reported
offender experiences, we coded each site’s policies at the court level; accordingly, within an
HLM framework, variation in those policies could be modeled as Level 2 predictors.

How Do Offender Attitudes and Opinions Change When They Are Exposed To
Drug Courts and How These Changes Help To Explain The Effectiveness Of Drug
Court Programs?

Key offender attitudes included perceived procedural fairness (of the judge, supervision officer,
and court), perceived deterrence (perceptions of noncompliance detection, sanction certainty,
and the deleteriousness of consequences of program failure), and motivation to change (based on
a “readiness to change” instrument). The analyses followed a parallel set of approaches as in the
analyses of program-level factors. For drug court sites only, we analyzed whether offender
perceptions changed over time and whether they predicted our core drug use and criminal
behavior outcomes. For all 29 sites, we analyzed whether the same perceptions mediate the
impact of the drug court relative to the comparison group. As above, we employed a combination
of regression methods in HLM and SEM methods—including a combination of individual-level
predictors, policy-level moderators, and attitudinal mediators in our final SEM models.

Cost‐Benefit Analysis
Our cost-benefit analytic approach differs from most prior drug court research. Typically, cost-
benefit studies have estimated a total cost among a treatment group and a total cost among a
comparison group. Costs of the comparison group are then subtracted from those of the treatment
group to determine the marginal costs of the program. Next, crime, re-arrest, re-incarceration,
and any other impacts are measured for both groups. Outcomes for the treatment group are
subtracted from the comparison group to estimate the impact of the program, which is then
monetized to estimate the marginal benefits of the program. Costs are subtracted from benefits to
determine the net benefits of program participation, which is divided by the sample size to
estimate net benefits per drug court participant. The estimates are rarely developed from a
multivariate analysis of the effect of drug court on costs or benefits, and thus do not control for
competing explanations of costs and benefits.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 94
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

For the MADCE study, we developed an estimate of each individual’s net benefit to society that
we then used as the dependent variable in the cost-benefit analysis. The net benefit variable
(which includes all measured contributions and costs to society) is regressed on group
assignment and other predictors of net benefits (adjusted for selection using propensity weights)
and the group membership parameter is interpreted as the net benefit from drug court. The
coefficient on drug court participation can be positive if drug court is cost-effective (net benefits
are higher), or negative if the net benefits are less than the comparison group; thus, plausible
values range from positive to negative infinity. This approach allows us to test the costs and
benefits of drug court in a situation where identification is complex and requires multiple
controls (propensity scores, multi-level modeling). Finally, the use of multivariate models allows
us to construct a confidence interval around the estimates, rather than, as is traditionally the case,
simply reporting a point estimate or a confidence interval around each particular impact, but not
the final estimate.

In addition to the statistical advantages of this approach, it also has three important practical
advantages. Two are advantages compared to studies that report cost-benefit ratios instead of net
benefits. First, it avoids having to make subjective determinations about what is a cost versus
what is a benefit. In traditional studies, events that require new spending are labeled as costs, and
activities that reduce spending are benefits. Such assignment is arbitrary, and leads to
controversy.37 In this study, we avoid this problem by simply adding together all contributions to
society (such as employment or community service) and all uses of social resources (including
program spending and costs to victims) to create a single metric for each observation. Second, it
does not allow for the creation of cost-benefit ratios, which can be very misleading as we
demonstrate later.38 The other advantage arises from the use of individual, rather than aggregated
data. Aggregated data (e.g., dividing costs by number of participants) yields only a point
estimate. Using individual data allows for an estimate of the confidence interval to describe
heterogeneity in net benefits.

Importantly, this study also measures a far wider range of program impacts than typically
considered in past drug court cost-benefit analyses. Prior research has noted that important drug
court benefits likely include positive impacts on employment, medical service use, and a variety
of other sectors; however, these studies lacked the data to measure or value these impacts (Aos
and Barnoski 2003; Finigan, Carey, and Cox 2007). In this study, we extend prior research by
estimating net benefits from a wider range of drug court effects.

37
The two most controversial issues in drug court cost-benefit analyses (other than the composition of the
comparison group) are how post-program treatment and post-adjudication incarceration are counted. Many
practitioners believe that if a client continues in treatment after completing drug court that is a benefit, while
economists would view that strictly as a cost. In addition, counting prison is a particular dilemma. Some count
prison resulting from drug court failure as a cost associated with drug court, and some count prison (and, in
particular, prison avoidance) as a benefit. The decision is arbitrary, but can dramatically change benefit-cost ratios.
38
For example, suppose a program saves $100 per participant in costs, but with the unintended consequence that
benefits are reduced $500 per person. The benefit cost ratio would be -$500/-$100, or 5:1, and thus would show that
a terrible program was very effective. Alternatively, if the program saved $100 in costs, but yielded $500 in benefits
that ratio would be $500/-$100 or -5:1, and thus show that a very effective program was terrible.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 95
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Here, we provide a cursory overview of the construction of the net benefits variable, which is
detailed more thoroughly in Appendix D of this Volume.39 The final analysis uses multilevel
techniques that mirror the other multivariate analyses discussed earlier in this chapter to model
the individual-level net benefits. This analysis provides an estimate of the overall net benefits of
drug courts. We also replicate the findings of past cost-benefit analyses, as closely as possible, to
benchmark the findings presented here.

Definitions
Before describing the construction of the net benefits variable, we define key terms and
assumptions in this analysis. First, we define social benefits. The goal of the net benefits variable
is to measure social benefits. Some of those social benefits are positive (such as new earnings),
and some are negative (as is the case of harms from new crimes). In order for an activity to be
counted as a social benefit, it must be the case that the activity caused a new benefit. For
example, if a drug court client is employed, the social benefit is equal to the amount of the
individual’s earnings.

Second, cost-benefit analyses should be explicit about who has standing. Standing (often referred
to as the unit of analysis, or ‘perspective’ in cost-benefit analysis) simply refers to who is and is
not included in the analysis. In this analysis, we have taken a social benefits approach, and thus
count costs and benefits to everyone. We strongly believe this approach is preferred to analyses
that count only public costs—the government is not a corporation, and it exists to serve the
people, not to maximize return on investments. Thus, excluding outcomes to private citizens
ignores the purpose of government.

The decision about whether to include the offenders’ costs and benefits in the analysis is often a
source of controversy. A strong argument can be made to include their benefits, since it is their
behavior that is being monetized. The counter argument is that individuals who commit crime
and enter into custody legally forego their rights, and thus explicitly lose standing as a member
of society. This latter argument is the generally-accepted approach, and we generally follow it
here.

Constructing the Net Benefits Variable

The net benefits variable is an individual-level measure of net benefits. To allow variation across
observations, individual costs and benefits are preferred to average measures. For example, when
valuing the effect of drug court on medical expenses, instead of obtaining average days spent in
the hospital for both groups, individual-level reported length of stays are multiplied by average
daily costs to create an individualized estimate.40 The individual net benefit variable has two

39
It should be noted that we use the terminology “net benefit” in order to avoid implying subjective assumptions
about the effectiveness of drug courts. Net benefits can be either positive or negative, and this technique makes no
assumptions as to which is the case.
40
One important caveat is by constructing the net benefits variable before measuring program impacts, the
researcher loses the ability to choose the most conservative monetization assumptions, as is common practice within
cost-benefit analysis. This limitation does not outweigh the advantages, and we use the most plausible, evidence-
based assumptions possible.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 96
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

components—the price of a resource or activity and the amount of that resource or activity that
was consumed.

To conceptualize individual-level net benefits that could be obtained from the data, the starting
point is to consider all the ways that an individual may interact with society at large, yielding
benefits or costs to society. While the MADCE offender survey elicits a detailed portrait on the
quantity of each individual’s activity, prices were often derived from other sources. Pricing, or
monetizing, these activities was done using individual survey responses when possible, using
MADCE site-specific data as a secondary alternative, and national-level evidence when
necessary.

To structure the analysis, individuals’ impacts on society were divided into the following
categories and sub-categories. This stratification is only a conceptual tool—since prices and
quantities will be aggregated across all categories to determine each individual’s total impacts on
society, it is unimportant whether a particular item is improperly categorized. Table 1-3.13
displays all categories and sub-categories, with examples of each. Appendix D thoroughly details
how estimates of each category and sub-category were calculated. Unless otherwise stated, all
dollar values used in the final analysis, from the survey or extant literature, are adjusted to 2008
dollars.

Finally, for clarity, we note again that all of the calculations were performed for all observations
in our sample; thus, the net benefits for the drug court group and the comparison group were
calculated in an identical manner.

Table 1-3.13. Components of Net Benefits

Category Sub-Category Impacts

1. Social productivity A. Employment Earnings
B. Education Schooling
C. Services and Support Child support payments, community service
Provided
2. Criminal justice A. Monitoring Probation officer meetings, drug tests, electronic monitoring
system B. Police Arrests
C. Courts Hearings
D. Corrections Jail and prison (sanctions or otherwise)
E. Drug court Case management, administrative costs
3. Crime and Crimes committed
victimization
4. Service use A. Drug treatment ER, detoxification, residential care, outpatient, methadone
B. Medical treatment Non-drug related hospital stays
C. Mental health treatment Non-drug related stays in mental health facilities
D. Other Halfway houses, public housing, homeless shelters
5. Financial support A. Government Welfare, disability, and other entitlements
use B. Other Money from family and friends

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 97
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
Edition – Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association.

American University/Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project 1999 Program Update
Survey. (2001). http://www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications/execsum.pdf

Andresen E.M., J.A. Malmgren, W.B. Carter, and D.L. Patrick. (1994). Screening for Depression in Well
Older Adults: Evaluation of a Short Form of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10: 77–84.

Aos S. and R. Barnoski. (2003). Washington State’s Drug Courts for Adult Defendants: Outcome
Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Bhati A.S., J.K. Roman, and A. Chalfin. (2008). To Treat or Not to Treat: Evidence on the Prospect of
Expanding Treatment to Drug Involved Offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Cooper C.S. (2001). 2000 Drug Court Survey Report: Program Operations, Services, and Participant
Perspectives: Executive Summary. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project.
November 2001.

Drug Court Program Office. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems,
Appendix 1. Obtained Online at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/195077.pdf

Finigan M.W., S.M. Carey, and A. Cox. (2007). Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of
Operation: Recidivism and Costs (Final Report). Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Gavin D.R., H.E. Ross, and H.A. Skinner. (1989). Diagnostic Validity of the Drug Abuse Screening Test
in the Assessment of DSM-III Drug Disorders. British Journal of the Addiction, 84: 301–307.

Knight K., M. Holcom, and D.D. Simpson. (February, 1994). TCU Psychosocial Functioning and
Motivation Scales: Manual on Psychometric Properties. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University,
Institute of Behavioral Research.

Luellen J.K., W.R. Shadish, and M.H. Clark. (2005). Propensity Scores: An Introduction and
Experimental Test. Evaluation Review, 29: 530–558.

Miller W.R. and J.S. Tonigan. (1996). Assessing Drinker’s Motivation for Change: The Stages of Change
Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 10(2):
81–89.

National TASC. Drug Court Treatment Services Inventory. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs. Drug Courts Program Office, September 1999. Obtained online at
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/188085.pdf. Appendix A of Peyton, Elizabeth and Robert
Gossweiler. Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts: Report on the 1999 National Drug Court
Treatment Survey. May 2001.

New York State Unified Court System Statewide Drug Court Research Project. (2002). Appendix A:
Drug Court Survey and Appendix B: Drug Court Survey Update (July 29, 2002).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 98
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Raudenbush S.W. and A.S. Bryk. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis
Methods, 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rosenbaum P.R. and D.B. Rubin. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational
Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41–55.

Rosenbaum P.R. and D.B. Rubin. (1984). Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using
Subclassification on the Propensity Score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79: 516–
524.

Rubin, D.B. (1973). The Use of Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Remove Bias in
Observational Studies. Biometrics, 29(1): 184–203.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 3. Research Design and Data Collection

and Analysis Strategy 99
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug‐

Involved Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey
Research
Christine H. Lindquist and Kristine Fahrney

Study Overview

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) was funded in 2003 by the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) and conducted by the Urban Institute (UI), RTI International (RTI), and
the Center for Court Innovation (CCI). The purpose of the study was to determine the
effectiveness of drug courts—specialized courts for drug-involved offenders, in which
participants receive intensive court monitoring and substance abuse treatment through a non-
adversarial approach involving a key role played by the judge—compared to other approaches
for supervising and treating drug-involved offenders. In addition to determining whether drug
courts work, the study also sought to identify how drug courts work, for whom drug courts are
effective, and specific features of drug courts that are most effective.

Answering these questions required a multi-site design, in which a diverse set of drug courts and
non-drug court conditions were included in the study. Through a systematic site selection
process, 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites (representing a variety of criminal justice
approaches to treatment for drug-involved offenders) located throughout 8 states were selected.

Several sources of data were used in the MADCE, including:

• Longitudinal interviews conducted with drug court participants and comparison group
members in the selected sites. Drug court participants were individuals newly enrolled in
drug court during the baseline enrollment period of the study. Comparison group
members were individuals newly entering several types of alternative conditions,
including court-referred treatment with regular probation supervision, Treatment
Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC), or other court-based substance abuse
referral mechanisms.

• Oral fluid drug test data gathered from the participants in the longitudinal offender
interviews.

• Official arrest data from state and federal law enforcement authorities obtained for the
participants in the longitudinal offender interviews.

• Court observation data and semi-structured key stakeholder interview data obtained
during site visits to the selected sites.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 100
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Substantial resources were invested in the longitudinal offender interviews, and this study
component proved to be particularly successful, with unusually high retention rates achieved
during the 18-month follow-up period. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to document the
methodological features of the study and lessons learned in recruiting and retaining criminal
justice-involved populations in longitudinal research studies, in order to assist future research
efforts similar in scope.

Methodological Approach

The longitudinal offender interview component entailed both drug court and non-drug court
offenders recruited for baseline interviews, which took place within six weeks of entering the
drug court or comparison condition. Contact information for potential baseline respondents (i.e.,
newly entering individuals who consented to have their contact information released for the
evaluation study) was submitted by the participating sites in accordance with approved data
security protocols. Cases were assigned to RTI-subcontracted field interviewers and recruited for
the baseline interviews. All respondents who completed baseline interviews were recruited for
follow-up interviews conducted at 6- and 18-months post-baseline. Baseline enrollment took
place on a rolling basis over 16 months, and the total data collection period spanned 36 months,
as shown in Figure 1-4.1.

Figure 1-4.1. MADCE Interview Schedule

2005 2006 2007

Interview Wave Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Baseline
6-Mo. Follow Up

18-Mo. Follow Up

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 101
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

The interviews were administered in-person by

Hiring and Training Professional
trained, professional field interviewers who were
Interviewers
supervised by field supervisors. The interviewers
conducted the interviews using computer assisted Because working as a field interviewer is a very
personal interviewing (CAPI) technology. The demanding job, recruiting qualified candidates
interviews took place in private settings in both poses a significant challenge. Interviewers must
be willing to work in intimidating environments
facilities (i.e., jails, prisons, and residential treatment
including jails, prisons, and low-income
facilities) and community locations (i.e., primarily neighborhoods. They must have the creativity
respondents’ homes or libraries). Permission to and persistence to locate respondents, and the
conduct interviews in correctional or treatment self-confidence to gain cooperation. In
facilities was obtained by field supervisors or addition, they must be willing to strictly comply
with project protocols, document their work in
evaluation staff from UI, RTI, and CCI, with all
meticulous detail, and be open to receiving
negotiations conducted in advance of scheduling an regular corrective feedback regarding their
interview at a particular facility. efficiency, data quality, and response rates. For
this reason, hiring experienced interviewers
The interviews lasted approximately 1.5 to 2 hours with a proven track record is the most effective
approach.
and covered a variety of topics including: substance
abuse treatment, supervision intensity, court All interviewers hired to work on the MADCE
experiences, support services received, substance attended a four-day training session.
use, criminal history and criminal behavior, and Interviewers learned about the study
attitudes and perceptions. Informed consent was background, research ethics and respecting
respondent rights, using their laptop,
obtained from all study participants prior to each
standardized interviewing techniques,
interview wave. Separate informed consent forms procedures for receiving assignments and
were administered for both the provision of the oral documenting progress, locating respondents,
fluids sample (that was obtained for all non- gaining cooperation, avoiding refusals, handling
incarcerated respondents at the 18-month interview) critical incidents, interviewing in prisons and
jails, and protecting the security of the data.
and release of criminal justice administrative data.
Interviewers worked in pairs to role play
gaining cooperation, converting refusals, and
At the conclusion of the interviews, non-incarcerated interviewing a variety of different types of
respondents were provided with cash payments. For respondents. At the end of training, all
incarcerated respondents, money orders were interviewers were certified on gaining
cooperation, administering the informed
deposited in the individuals’ accounts if the facility
consent, and conducting the interview.
permitted it. Respondents were paid $35 for the Following training, interviewers reported
baseline interviews, $40 for the 6-month follow-up directly to one of two field supervisors. Field
interviews, and $50 for the 18-month follow-up supervisors conducted weekly conference calls
interviews (with an additional $15 for providing oral with each interviewer to review progress on
each case and discuss strategies for overcoming
fluids samples). Respondents could also receive $5
obstacles.
bonuses for calling to schedule their interviews upon
receiving a lead letter, and $25 bonuses for
completing all three interviews.

The key methodological features employed in the MADCE and associated benefits are outlined
in Figure 1-4.2.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 102
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Figure 1-4.2. MADCE Methodological Features

Key Methodological Benefits

Features
Systematic Approach Standardized materials and a systematic approach to gaining access to jails,
to Facility Access prisons, and substance abuse treatment facilities ensured that our recruiting staff
provided sufficient information about the study to allow facility leadership to
make informed decisions about whether or not to allow the research. The
approach also ensured facilities were prepared for the logistical requirements of
the survey (i.e., length of the interview, materials and equipment that
interviewers would be bringing in, need for private space, etc.)
Professional • Use of professional interviewers provides a number of advantages over
Interviewers utilizing drug-court or other program staff to administer the surveys.

• Using neutral third parties protects participants’ rights. Many of the questions
involved topics that could potentially result in additional sanctions for
research participants if they provided truthful survey responses to the program
staff.

• Research participants are more likely to provide honest answers when the
interviewers are neutral third parties.

• Professional interviewers have the requisite experience and training in

procedures for tracing research participants, gaining cooperation, and
conducting unbiased interviews—three very specialized skills.

• Contacting and locating respondents are labor intensive activities that would
be too demanding of program staffs’ time. More than 8 hours per completed
interview were required for this work, even though interviews were only 1.5
to 2 hours in duration.

• Using professional interviewers, who were hired and paid by RTI, allowed
RTI to address issues of poor performance and terminate unsalvageable
interviewers.

• Using professional interviewers, who had no personal stake in the study

results, helped facilitate neutral, unbiased interviews with a representative
sample of the study population.
In-Person Interviews In-person contacts facilitated rapport building between interviewers and
respondents, leading to higher cooperation rates than would have been possible
with phone or mail surveys. We found that it was particularly difficult to reach
this population by phone even to arrange interview appointments, not only
because they were transitioning in and out of facilities, but also because in times
of financial strain, disconnecting telephone or cell phone service is often one of
the first economies individuals make.
(continued)

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 103
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Figure 1-4.2. MADCE Methodological Features (Cont’d)

Key Methodological Benefits

Features
Computerized This use of a computerized interviewer-administered survey allowed us to utilize
Interviews a lengthy instrument with complicated logic. This enabled us to collect responses
to detailed follow-up questions based on the respondent’s answers to a shorter
list of behavioral questions. The computerized interview also had built in checks
for consistency between responses, ensuring high-quality data.
Quality Control The use of administrative reports detailing each interviewer’s response rates, cost
efficiency, and interview-timing data, coupled with follow-up verification calls
from supervisors to study participants to enquire about the interviewers’ behavior
ensured that interviewers were provided with timely corrective feedback about
their performance.
Biospecimen The use of simple oral specimen collection at the end of the 18-month interview
Collection allowed us to validate respondents’ self-reported drug use.

Linking Survey Data By gaining the respondents’ consent to allow us to link their survey data to their
to Research criminal justice records, we were able to examine official measures of recidivism
participants’ and to track their involvement with the criminal justice system for 6 months
Criminal Justice beyond the survey period, allowing us to evaluate the long-term effects of the
Records programs.

Study Enrollment and Retention

A total of 1,784 individuals completed baseline interviews for the MADCE, with a baseline
response rate of 72 percent. The baseline sample size varied substantially by site (with the drug
court sites intentionally contributing more cases to the overall sample than comparison sites).
Baseline response rates were substantially higher for the drug court sites than the comparison
sites.

As shown in Figure 1-4.3, the vast majority of baseline respondents were successfully
interviewed at both follow-up periods. Eighty-five percent of the baseline sample completed 6-
month follow-up interviews, and 83 percent completed 18-month follow-up interviews. Less
pronounced differences in response rates between the drug court and non-drug court sites were
evident at the follow-up interviews.

For all three interview waves, the majority of non-respondents were not interviewed due to
difficulty locating the respondent, rather than refusals. For example, the total refusal rate was
only 8 percent at baseline, 2 percent at the 6-month follow up, and 3 percent at the 18-month
follow up. A breakdown of the disposition of cases at each interview wave is shown in Figure 1-
4.4. Cases coded as “other non-interview” were primarily cases that the interviewer could not
locate or could not access (such as individuals incarcerated in facilities that would not grant
access for interviews).

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 104
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Figure 1-4.3. Response Rates and Cases Interviewed at Each Interview Wave

Baseline 6-Month Follow Up 18-Month Follow Up

Drug Court Sites
Response rate 81.7% 89.2% 85.7%
Total # interviewed 1157 1012 956

Comparison Sites
Response rate 64.7% 81.5% 83.0%
Total # interviewed 627 528 525

Overall Response Rate 72.3% 86.1% 83.3%

Total # Interviewed 1784* 1540 1481
* The baseline analytic sample was 1,781 due to 3 incomplete interviews that were coded as complete.

Figure 1-4.4. Disposition of Cases by Interview Wave

100
90
80
70
60 Intv. Completed
50
Refusal
40
Other non-Intv.
30
20
10
0
Baseline 6 Month 18 Month

When comparing the retention rates achieved in NIJ’s MADCE to those reported by other efforts
with similar populations, it is evident that the MADCE was substantially more successful in
retaining study participants throughout the follow-up period. For example, a study of
approximately 700 drug court participants and comparison offenders in Broward and
Hillsborough counties retained only 70 percent of baseline interview respondents at a follow-up
interview conducted 9 months later (Lindquist, Krebs, et al. 2009). Other drug court evaluations
with offender interview components have reported similarly low response rates, such as the 60
percent retained over one year in the Harrell, Cavanagh, and Roman (1999) study and the 67
percent retained over three years in the Gottfredson, Kearley, et al. (2005) study.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 105
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

The remainder of this chapter shares strategies found to be particularly effective in successfully
recruiting and retaining interview participants in the MADCE.

Gaining Cooperation: Strategies Contributing to Successful Recruitment

in the Study

In order to successfully enroll individuals into a research study, it is critical to understand

potential respondents’ barriers to participation. Our interviewers were extensively trained on a
variety of recruitment strategies, and developed firsthand knowledge about most effectively
tailoring their requests for participation to address each respondent’s particular concerns. Based
on our experience enrolling participants into the MADCE, three common barriers to gaining
cooperation were encountered. The top three recruitment barriers encountered and our strategies
to overcome them are discussed below.

Barrier #1: Mistrust of anything or anyone related to the criminal justice system.
Our interviewers preemptively clarified that they had no affiliation with the drug court program
or the criminal justice system. In addition, in order to avoid sending mixed signals about their
affiliation, interviewers did not conduct interviews at court houses or in spare offices at the
probation or parole departments, even though doing so could have created efficiencies for both
respondents and interviewers.

Barrier #2: Competing demands for the respondent’s time.

As with any population under criminal justice supervision, prospective respondents had many
requirements associated with their supervision status, which placed severe time constraints on
them. To address time concerns, our interviewers emphasized flexibility, including availability to
work at odd hours at the participant’s request and willingness to make themselves available to
participants who called the toll-free number requesting an immediate appointment. Indeed, some
respondents only “surfaced” for very short windows of time. It was evident that someone who
was motivated one day might not be motivated the next day, so it was extremely important for
the interviewers to be able to take advantage of spur-of-the-moment opportunities.

Barrier #3: General apathy or lack of interest in research.

For research participants who expressed apathy about the study or who expressed hostility
toward the drug court program or the criminal justice system, interviewers discussed how
participation in the survey was an empowering opportunity to “have a voice” and share their
opinions about how well the program/system was or was not meeting their needs.

In addition to customizing the recruitment approach based on the concerns expressed by the
potential respondents, the interviewers learned that persistence (e.g., following up repeatedly
with participants who expressed willingness to participate, but reluctance to commit to a
particular appointment time) and follow-through (e.g., calling back at the times the participant
had indicated were better times to make contact) were critical to their success in gaining
participant cooperation.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 106
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Retaining Study Participants: Strategies Contributing to High Response

Rates

Just as important as successfully enrolling participants into the study is retaining them
throughout the follow-up period, in order to obtain all three completed interview waves for as
many respondents as possible. One of the most significant challenges to retaining study
participants in the 6- and 18-month follow-up interviews for the MADCE study was locating
them again.

Several factors made locating a particular challenge with this population of drug- and criminal
justice system-involved offenders:

• Drug-involved offenders are frequently in and out of jail. Family members—who are
typically the best sources of information about the respondents’ whereabouts―are often
reluctant to admit to researchers that the participant is incarcerated.

• More problematic is that this population is in and out of residential treatment programs,
which are required to keep their patient lists confidential.

• Even when they are out in the community, we found that many participants relocated
between interviews without leaving a forwarding address.

• If they are still using drugs, participants’ personal relationships may have broken down,
such that neighbors, friends, and family members may no longer be in touch with them or
be aware of where they are living.

• Finally, the need to ensure that participation in our research study did not bring
participants under closer scrutiny of the criminal justice system precluded the use of
some typically useful sources of locating information. For example, probation/parole
officers or drug court case managers would likely have been good sources of information
about the respondents, but the decision was made to not consult these sources due to
concerns about our inquiry causing increased attention (and potentially alerting the
officer that the respondent was not where s/he was supposed to be).

Despite these challenges, the MADCE field interviewers were extremely successful in locating
respondents for follow-up interviews. Particularly effective locating strategies for this population
included:

• Asking respondents for other names or aliases that they use.

• Planning ahead for the next interview by asking the research participants for contact
information on several people who will know where they are. With a drug-involved
population, it can be helpful to ask the participants for contacts who will know where
they are when they are using drugs, as well as other contacts who will know where they

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 107
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

are when they are trying to stay clean. In addition, a respondent’s mother is typically a
good contact, because we have found that mothers often stay in touch with offenders
(research participants) after other family members have broken ties. Finally, for
participants who are fathers, the mother(s) of their children are also frequently
knowledgeable regarding their whereabouts. Regardless of who the contact people are, it
is critical that interviewers ask research participants to tell these individuals that it is okay
for them to disclose their addresses if they are contacted by an interviewer with the study.

• Asking the participants where they spend their time when they are using drugs and when
they are clean. This strategy can provide more complete information that can be used to
locate respondents who may not stay clean.

• Checking in with respondents several months before the next interview to see if they are
planning a move and if they have any additional contact information, such as a new cell
phone or a new place of work. As discussed above, the MADCE data collection protocol
entailed a mid-wave contact with all respondents between the baseline and 6-month
interviews and the 6- and 18-month interviews.

• Offering a “call-in” bonus to participants who contact the project’s toll-free number in
response to receiving a letter inviting them to schedule their next interview.

• Maintaining continuity of interviewer assignments so that interviewers are working with

the same participants throughout the life of the study.

• Investing time in developing rapport with participants’ family and friends. This involves
demonstrating persistence and concern for the participants, conveying the study’s
independence from the criminal justice system, and emphasizing the monetary incentive.

• Utilizing public records. Online court dockets reveal a likely time and place to find the
participant. Most prisons or jails either have online or telephone-accessible lists of
current inmates. Arrest records reveal the address at which the respondent was arrested,
which may be a place where they still hang out. The county clerk can provide information
on who bailed the participant out of jail, and can also provide addresses for people who
are under supervision of the criminal justice system. Birth certificates sometimes contain
address information for new parents.

• Attending regularly scheduled drug court meetings, graduations, and other events to
locate drug-court participants.

• Using “hypotheticals” to speak to drug treatment facilities that have confidential patient
lists. For example, without asking a treatment facility to reveal whether or not a particular
person is there, it is possible to ask the facility if their patients can receive letters or
receive phone messages. In such circumstances, correspondence can be send to
respondents who can then, in turn, put the interviewer on their guest list so that the
interviewer can schedule an interview.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 108
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Implications

The lessons learned on effective recruitment and retention in the MADCE can be used to assist
future studies that include in-person interviews with drug- or criminal justice system-involved
populations. These strategies, when accompanied by well-designed data collection protocols, can
maximize the investment in costly in-person data collection through increased recruitment and
retention rates. In sum, much of the success of primary data collection efforts rests on the quality
of the field interviewers employed, and ensuring they have the necessary tools to succeed. On the
MADCE, the interviewers’ skills were developed through formal trainings, as well as frequent
interaction among interviewers. Our supervision structure enabled interviewers to share effective
strategies with one another during both weekly teleconferences held with field supervisors, and
“all hands” teleconferences held among the entire field team. We also attempted to preserve the
knowledge developed by the interviewers by investing resources in retaining interviews for the
entire duration of the study. Such efforts are critical to enhancing the institutional knowledge
among a field team.

References

Gottfredson D.C., B.W. Kearley, S.S. Najaka, and C.M. Rocha. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug
Treatment Court: 3-Year Self-Report Outcome Study. Evaluation Review, 29: 42-64.

Harrell A., S. Cavanagh, and J. Roman. (1999). Findings from the evaluation of the D.C.
Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Lindquist C. H., C.P. Krebs, T.D. Warner, and P.K. Lattimore. (2009). An Exploration of Treatment and
Supervision Intensity Among Drug Court and Non-Drug Court Participants. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 48: 167–193.

MADCE Volume 1. Chapter 4. Lessons Learned in Recruiting and Retaining Drug-Involved

Offenders in Longitudinal Criminal Justice Survey Research 109
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects

Protection in Data Collection for Criminal Justice Populations
Christine H. Lindquist and Kristine Fahrney

Human Subjects Protection Issues for Criminal Justice Populations

Many criminal justice research studies entail the use of primary data collection from individuals
under criminal justice supervision, including prisoners and jail inmates, returning prisoners under
post-release supervision, probationers, and individuals under pre-trial or court supervision. Yet
researchers are not always aware of the human subjects’ protection concerns relevant to this
population, particularly for individuals who are not formally classified as prisoners.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR part 46, subpart C
provide additional protections pertaining to research involving prisoners as subjects, with
“prisoner” defined as “any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution.”
The HHS regulations are primarily based on the fact that prisoners may face constraints that
could affect their ability to make voluntary and un-coerced decisions to participate in research. It
is important to acknowledge, however, that both prisoners and other individuals under criminal
justice supervision face additional constraints that could put them at risk for harm. Both of these
populations do not always receive the same due process rights as the rest of society, and may be
subjected to sanctions for their actions. The simple act of participating in an interview (or
deciding not to participate) increases their risk of adverse consequences—however unintended
by the researchers.

It is important for researchers to better understand these risks, and strategies that can be
implemented to mitigate them. Primary data collection from criminal justice populations is
critical to much research on crime and justice, with self-reported data often the only available
source of information for many domains. In order for such studies to be ethically conducted, they
must be designed to protect all individuals under criminal justice supervision to the greatest
extent possible.

This chapter describes lessons learned in maintaining human subjects’ protection in the
longitudinal offender interview component of the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation
(MADCE). The MADCE research entailed 4,805 interviews conducted at three points in time for
individuals participating in drug courts or under some other type of criminal justice supervision.
The majority of respondents were under criminal justice supervision for all three interviews, with
some respondents incarcerated and others under community supervision.

Summary of the MADCE Longitudinal Interview Component

The MADCE was funded in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and conducted by the
Urban Institute (UI), RTI International (RTI), and the Center for Court Innovation (CCI). The

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 110
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

primary purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of drug courts—specialized
courts for drug-involved offenders, in which participants receive intensive court monitoring and
substance abuse treatment through a non-adversarial approach involving a key role played by the
judge—compared to other approaches for supervising and treating drug-involved offenders.
Twenty-three drug courts and six comparison sites (representing a variety of criminal justice
approaches to treatment for drug-involved offenders) located throughout eight states were
selected.

During an 18-month baseline enrollment period, contact information for potential baseline
respondents (i.e., newly entering individuals who consented to have their contact information
released for the evaluation study) was submitted by the participating sites in accordance with
approved data security protocols. Cases were assigned to RTI-subcontracted field interviewers
and recruited for the baseline interviews. All respondents who completed baseline interviews
were recruited for follow-up interviews conducted at 6- and 18- months post-baseline.

The interviews were conducted in-person by trained, professional field interviewers using
computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) technology. The interviews were conducted in
private settings in both facilities (i.e., jails, prisons, and residential treatment facilities) and
community locations (i.e., primarily respondents’ homes or libraries). Permission to conduct
interviews in correctional or treatment facilities was obtained by field supervisors or evaluation
staff from UI, RTI, and CCI, with all negotiations conducted in advance of scheduling an
interview at a particular facility.

The interviews lasted approximately 1.5 to 2 hours and covered a variety of topics including:
substance abuse treatment, supervision intensity, court experiences, support services received,
substance use, criminal history and criminal behavior, and attitudes and perceptions. Informed
consent was obtained from all study participants prior to each interview wave. Separate informed
consent forms were administered for the provision of the oral fluids sample (which was obtained
for all non-incarcerated respondents at the 18-month interview) and release of criminal justice
administrative data.

At the conclusion of the interviews, non-incarcerated respondents were provided with cash
payments. For incarcerated respondents, money orders were deposited in the individuals’
accounts if the facility permitted it. Respondents were paid $35 for the baseline interviews, $40
for the 6-month follow-up interviews, and $50 for the 18-month follow-up interviews (with an
additional $15 for providing an oral fluids sample). Respondents could also receive $5 bonuses
for calling to schedule their interviews upon receiving a lead letter, and $25 bonuses for
completing all three interviews.
The survey instrument and study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at
UI and RTI. In addition, research approval was obtained from the state department of corrections
for all states in which any respondents were incarcerated in state prisons, from the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, and from individual jails (when required).

A total of 1,784 individuals completed baseline interviews for the MADCE, with 1,540 of these
individuals completing a 6-month follow-up interview and 1,481 completing an 18-month
follow-up interview. The number of study participants who were incarcerated and under

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 111
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

community supervision, which included supervision by the courts (including drug court or other
court), pretrial release, probation, or parole, at each interview is shown in Table 1-5.1.

Table 1-5.1. Number and Proportion of the MADCE Sample Who Were Incarcerated or
Under Community Supervision, by Interview Wave

Baseline 6-Month Follow Up 18-Month Follow Up

Interview Interview Interview
Incarcerated at time of 328 (18%) 259 (17%) 257 (17%)
interview
Reported being under 1,657 (93%) 1,412 (92%) 1,316 (89%)
community supervision
during past 6 months

Lessons Learned in Human Subjects Protection

Like many studies, the MADCE protocols were designed with known risks to criminal justice
populations in mind. Such risks primarily pertain to breach of confidentiality, or situations in
which the respondents’ status as a study participant (or decision not to participate) and/or his or
her actual interview responses become known (either by the interview itself being overheard or
the interview data obtained). Therefore, to minimize the risks of a breach of confidentiality, for
example, study protocols specified data security procedures and, among other things, required
that the privacy of the interview setting be documented by the interviewers (via a series of
prompts in the computerized interview) prior to the interview questions being read.

Despite attempts to anticipate potential risks to respondent rights and build protections into study
protocols, the reality of field data collection is that unexpected situations or events can pose a
major threat to human subjects’ protection. The remainder of this discussion describes lessons
learned “on the ground” in mitigating threats to protection of criminal justice populations as
research participants.

Lesson 1: Thorough and Periodic Interviewer Training on Real World

Scenarios Is Critical

With research studies that entail personal interviews, it is critical to understand that human
subjects’ protection lies almost exclusively with the interviewing team. Indeed, field interviewers
are likely to be the only members of the study team who directly interact with study participants
and actually carry out study protocols in real world circumstances. Therefore, the interviewers’
grasp of human subjects’ protections is of primary importance.

As a standard practice, interviewers commonly receive a fairly standardized training on the

importance of protecting human subjects and the meaning of respondents’ rights. On a typical
research study of the general population, protecting these rights is a reasonably straightforward
proposition for interviewers. Interviewers demonstrate a quick understanding that they must

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 112
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

follow the project informed consent procedures; conduct the interview in a private space and not
reveal the respondent’s answers or information about the nature of the study and why the
respondent was selected to friends and family; and allow the respondent to refuse to participate,
skip individual questions, or terminate the interview at any time. Confusion regarding these
protocols and protocol violations are rare.

However, the threats to the human subjects’ rights of individuals under criminal justice
supervision may not be as immediately obvious to interviewers. An interviewer who is highly
proficient in protecting a respondent’s confidentiality on a typical household survey may not
appropriately recognize situations that threaten the privacy of a prisoner or probationer.
Furthermore, even if the interviewer recognizes a situation as being potentially threatening to a
respondent’s rights, s/he may feel unsure about how to proceed when caught between a
responsibility to protect respondent’s right and a sense of obligation to comply with requests
from authority figures within the criminal justice system.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon researchers to anticipate and train interviewers on the variety of
unique situations they may encounter when conducting interviews with this population (such as
the examples provided in lessons 2 and 4, below). During a lengthy study, periodic refresher
trainings on human subjects’ protection are essential. Not only do refresher trainings keep such
issues a top priority for interviewers, but they also offer the advantage of allowing interviewers
to learn from real situations occurring throughout the course of the study.

In both trainings and interactions with supervisors, interviewers must receive the unequivocal
message that research ethics takes priority over other completing objectives such as completing a
particular interview in a timely manner or maintaining a good relationship with criminal justice
contacts. In addition, staff who interviewers report to and interact with must promote a culture of
“when in doubt, ask,” rather than stifling questions about grey areas out of fear of revealing
ignorance or being reprimanded. The culture among the field team should convey that human
subjects’ protection is not always clear, and decisions often require deliberation among several
team members.

Lesson 2: Avoid Association with the Criminal Justice System as Much as

Possible

Typically, criminal justice research is carried out with the full cooperation—or even
sponsorship—of the criminal justice agency (or facility) affected by the research. As a result,
researchers often have the opportunity to work closely with and receive tangible support from
such agencies in carrying out the research. For example, researchers may be offered interviewing
space, access to private proceedings (or information), or even the assistance of criminal justice
staff in locating respondents or facilitating the interview in other ways.

It is critical that researchers fully consider the potential harm that could come to study
participants as a result of involvement of the criminal justice agencies with authority over them.
Although it may seem counterintuitive, the more interaction that takes place between the study
team (including interviewers, as well as study leadership) and the criminal justice agency

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 113
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

(including “line staff,” as well as administrators), the greater the risks to study participants. The
following scenarios illustrate this point:

• An interviewer has decided to schedule an interview with a drug court participant to take
place in a private location in the courthouse. While she is waiting for the respondent to
arrive at the meeting place, a drug court case manager sees her and stops to talk, casually
asking her who she is waiting for. She discloses the name of the respondent and the
interview time (which was 10 minutes earlier). In an attempt to be helpful and support the
research study, the next time he interacts with the drug court participant, the case
manager imposes a sanction on the participant for being late to the interview.

• A field supervisor who is trying to assist an interviewer locate a study participant for his
follow-up interview decides to contact the probation officer assigned to all drug court
clients, since the officer and her supervisor were fully supportive of the study and had
offered to help in any way. She gives the name of the respondent to the officer, and says
that the study team has had difficulty locating him. The probation officer then looks up
the participant in her files, notes the address, and then decides to double-check whether
the participant is living at the address listed in the chart. After investigating, she realizes
that the participant is no longer living at the address and violates him for failing to inform
her of the change in residence.

• A field interviewer takes advantage of a treatment facility’s offer to let her use an empty
room for interviewing, since it would be more convenient for her and the clients.
Assuming the room is private, she conducts the interview. During the interview, when
she is asking about the participant’s satisfaction with the treatment she is receiving, a
clinician enters the room to retrieve an object. The clinician later reprimands the client
for saying negative things about the center.

Clearly, the most harmful consequence of a breach of confidentiality for research participants
under criminal justice supervision is additional punishment imposed by authority figures within
correctional institutions, community supervision agencies, courts, and even treatment centers.
Researchers need to be fully aware of this potential when designing study protocols that pertain
to working with criminal justice agencies/facilities.

In the MADCE, we had to prohibit interviewers from conducting interviews in any courts, drug
court program offices, probation/parole offices, or treatment centers, due to concerns for
respondents if criminal justice staff were paying attention to who was or was not participating in
the interviews, or who was or not showing up for scheduled interview appointments on time. We
did allow interviewers to attend court hearings and drug court functions; however, interviewers
were required to discretely approach respondents outside of the room and were only allowed to
use this opportunity to set up an appointment for interviewing in another location at a later date.
The field supervisors also looked out for signs of any interviewers’ becoming overly familiar
with criminal justice staff.

MADCE study protocols also prohibited using parole or probation offices to obtain contact
information for study participants. However, in counties in which address information for

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 114
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

individuals under court supervision is a matter of public record and accessible without speaking
directly to a probation or parole office or revealing why the information is needed, we did allow
interviewers to use these sources along with other publicly available information. Although not
implemented on the MADCE, another alternative to obtaining contact information from criminal
justice agencies is to set up an agreement for the systematic sharing of contact information for all
eligible respondents (and to collect it from an administrative data run, rather than the review of
individual case files), so that individuals’ decisions to participate in the study are not revealed
and undue attention is not placed on any individual. However, this approach is not always
feasible due to the burden it may place on research staff.

Finally, prior to hiring any field interviewers, we made sure that they did not have any affiliation
(either currently or in the past) with the criminal justice system. Not only does this practice
minimize the likelihood for overfamiliarity with criminal justice staff (and associated breaches of
confidentiality), but it also helps with subject recruitment. Often, initially hesitant respondents
were willing to participate once they were confident that the study was truly independent from
the criminal justice system. The researchers’ lack of affiliation with the criminal justice system
also increases the willingness of respondents’ families and friends to provide locating
information for future interviews. Not only did this practice contribute to more successful
recruitment and retention, but it also had a likely impact on data quality, with respondents feeling
more comfortable giving honest answers to sensitive interview questions.

Lesson 3: Study Materials Must Not Reveal the Purpose of the Study or the
Respondent’s Status as Criminally‐ or Drug‐Involved

In attempting to locate a research participant, an interviewer may come into contact with a
variety of people in a respondent’s life, including family members, friends, neighbors, and
employers. In addition to talking with these contacts, an interviewer may also have to speak to
correctional facility staff (for incarcerated respondents), treatment facility personnel (for
respondents in residential treatment), or halfway house staff, to locate a respondent.

When working with a criminally- or drug-involved population, it is critical to keep in mind that,
with the exception of correctional facility staff, these contacts may or may not be aware of the
respondent’s drug or criminal involvement. If they become aware of it as a result of actions on
the part of the research team, the respondent could experience adverse consequences that s/he
otherwise would not have faced. Therefore, in order to protect the respondents as much as
possible, it is necessary to craft a non-descriptive “field name” for the research, and to use this
innocuous name on all study materials (including interviewer badges, incentive receipts, etc.).

It is also important to be aware that even materials that are directed only to the respondent—such
as lead letters or brochures—could get misdirected and be viewed by someone else. Neither the
name, nor the content of the materials should suggest anything about the purpose of the study, in
order to keep confidential the individual’s status. Informed consent forms, which are required to
contain detail sufficient for the respondent to make an informed decision, should be handed
directly to the respondent. Because signed informed consent forms carry the added risk of
revealing the person’s decision to participate in the study, the respondent should be given only an

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 115
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

unsigned copy so that it does not necessarily implicate the respondent as a research participant if
someone else later finds it.

Lesson 4: Be Prepared for Common Issues that Arise when Interviewing in

Correctional Institutions

Interviewing offenders in correctional facilities can present data collection challenges and
potential threats to human subjects’ protections. It is important to develop research protocols that
consider real world circumstances under which interviewers operate. As researchers who work in
correctional facilities are aware, interviewer access and logistical arrangements must first be
worked out through often extensive negotiations, even when research approval has already been
granted. These negotiations are typically intended to ensure that the interview can be conducted
in a particular facility in compliance with study protocols. On the MADCE, such preparatory
arrangements were negotiated between field supervisors or evaluation staff from UI, RTI, or CCI
and a high-level administrator at the facility, and focused on whether the requirement that the
interviews be done in a private (yet secure) setting could be fulfilled. Other key negotiations
entailed permission for the interviewers to conduct interviews using their laptops,41 and whether
an incentive could be provided to the respondent.

However, our experience on MADCE taught us that even when the preparatory arrangements
have been worked out to the satisfaction of the study team, the real world conditions that
interviewers face when they arrive to conduct interviews are often far removed from the
arrangements that had been negotiated. In addition, many conditions or arrangements are not
addressed by study protocols at all, requiring interviewers to make determinations about their
acceptability. The manner in which field interviewers react to “on the ground” circumstances is
critical to human subjects’ protection, given that seemingly harmless arrangements can have
severe consequences for respondents.

Based on our experiences, several circumstances occur with sufficient frequency that we
developed protocols to accommodate them. Most frequently, the circumstances pertain to threats
to respondents’ right to informed consent and their rights to have their decision to participate in
the research study kept confidential:

• To save time, correctional officers charged with escorting a potential respondent into the
interview room frequently try to “pre-consent” individuals by asking them directly
whether they want to do the interview (so that individuals who decline do not have to be
escorted to the interview room).

• Correctional staff sometimes associate the term “interview” with media interviews.
Because facilities often have release forms specifically for this purpose, they may require
the respondent to sign a standard release form, which typically states that the respondent

41
On the MADCE, we did have a pencil-and-paper interview (PAPI) version of the instrument and separate, IRB-
approved protocols for the conduct and disposition of the PAPI interview. We followed PAPI procedures in
facilities that prohibited laptops.

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 116
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

agrees to be interviewed by an outside agency (and sometimes even includes a statement

that the information disclosed in the interview will not be kept confidential).

• At some facilities, administrators state that they are required to keep a copy of the signed
consent forms, so that they have documentation that the respondent agreed to be
interviewed for the study.

• At facilities in which a large number of respondents are interviewed, correctional officers

may begin to deduce which respondents have agreed to participate, and which have
declined, from the length of time they spend in the interview room.

All of the circumstances above are problematic from a human subjects’ protection perspective
because the respondents’ decision to participate or decline participation in the interview is
known by correctional staff. This knowledge could have adverse consequences for the
respondent—no matter which decision s/he makes. Some facilities may see it as a prisoner’s
responsibility to do whatever is asked of her/him, and may treat the respondent poorly if s/he
does not comply with a request for interview. Other facilities may be fearful of the respondent
talking honestly with an interviewer about his or her experiences in the facility, and may mistreat
prisoners who do participate. In addition to failing to protect the respondents’ decision to
participate in the interview, some of the circumstances above could coerce respondents into
making a particular decision, particularly in circumstances where a correctional officer directly
asks an inmate if s/he would like to participate in the interview.

As a result of these circumstances, we expanded our MADCE protocols to directly address such
encounters. In negotiating access and logistics with correctional facilities, the field supervisor or
evaluation staff member asked the facility contact to agree that the study would be introduced to
the respondent only by the field interviewer, and that the correctional officers could not ask the
respondents whether they wanted to participate. During the preparatory negotiations, the study
team also asked about any consent forms required by the facility (so that the forms could be
reviewed and a determination could be made about their acceptability), and conveyed that our
signed consent forms could not be shared with the facility. Finally, the study information given
to the facility contact specifically stated that interview times varied widely, from 10 minutes to 2
hours; this was intended to undermine facility staff’s inclination to draw conclusions about
individuals’ agreement to participate in the research based on the amount of time they spent with
the interviewers. Although we had no control over the extent to which this information was
shared with correctional officers, we made every attempt to document such details with our
primary facility contact.

In addition to circumstances that threaten the confidentiality of incarcerated respondents’

decision to participate, additional circumstances encountered in the MADCE study posed other
threats, such as breaches of confidentiality. These circumstances were usually related to
logistical issues regarding interviewing conditions:

• In some facilities, even though pre-arrangements had been worked out successfully, when
interviewers arrived to conduct the interview, they were told that a correctional officer
had to be in the room during the interview.

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 117
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

• In some facilities, interviewers were told that the only room available was a large area
that would simultaneously be used by other staff and inmates for screenings or
evaluations.

• A few facilities did not have any private rooms available for interviewing, but offered to
allow the (private) use of the visitation area. Such circumstances would require the
inmate and the interviewer to be separated by a glass barrier unless a guard could be
present in the room.

While interviewers could easily identify the first scenario as being unacceptable, the second was
more ambiguous because under certain circumstances, privacy can be reasonably ensured in a
“public” location. The interviewers were taught to consult with their field supervisors in such
circumstances; if both parties felt comfortable that no one could overhear the interview (and that
the interviewer and respondent could position their bodies such that no one would ascertain what
was being said by reading lips), they were allowed to proceed. The frequency with which the
“visitation room” scenario arose led us to develop a separate (IRB-approved) protocol to present
to facility staff for consideration. Although we could not allow interviews to be conducted with a
correctional officer present in either room, as long as consent forms could be passed back and
forth (either through the window or in a sealed envelope transferred by the correctional officer)
and show cards could be held up to the glass, the interview was allowed to proceed. Obviously,
this procedure was far from ideal, and only used if no other alternatives were possible.

Implications

Based on our experience conducting thousands of interviews with incarcerated individuals and
those under community supervision, this chapter has identified common situations that threaten
the rights of research participants who are under criminal justice supervision. The key lessons
learned focus on the importance of thoroughly training interviewers on real-world circumstances,
given that they are the ones charged with following study protocols under challenging
circumstances. Frequent refresher trainings on the importance of human subjects protection are
critical, in order to maintain a high level of attention on this issue. Throughout the course of a
field study, an atmosphere of open dialogue about grey areas should be encouraged by the study
team, in order to enhance interviewers’ understanding about human subjects’ protection and to
prevent adverse events. Maintaining human subjects’ protection is more important than
completing a given interview, and this attitude must be cultivated among the field team.

It is also critical to continuously update study protocols to reflect frequent circumstances that
arise during the course of the study, so that ambiguity surrounding the appropriate course of
action can be minimized. This chapter has documented several “real world” threats to human
subjects’ protection—many of which were not addressed in our original protocols. It is our hope
that future studies can incorporate the lessons learned through the MADCE longitudinal offender
interview component, so that these circumstances can be better anticipated in the future, in order
to maximize the protection offered to criminal justice populations who participate in research
endeavors.

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Lessons Learned in Maximizing Human Subjects Protection in Data

Collection for Criminal Justice Populations 118
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Chapter 6. The Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants
Janine M. Zweig

Introduction

The Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute (UI), along with RTI International (RTI) and the
Center for Court Innovation (CCI), conducted the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation
(MADCE)—a seven-year evaluation of adult drug courts funded by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ). The goals of the MADCE are to:

• Test whether drug courts work for participants by reducing drug use, crime, and multiple other
problems associated with drug abuse, in comparison with similar offenders not exposed to drug
courts.

• Examine for whom drug courts work best by isolating key individual factors such as levels of risk
of re-offending and severity of drug addictions that make drug courts more or less effective in
achieving their desired outcomes.

• Explain how drug courts work by studying key program policies and practices that lead to more
successful outcomes and studying offenders’ changes in attitudes and opinions when they are
exposed to drug courts that influence the effectiveness of drug court programs.

• Examine whether drug courts generate cost savings for the criminal justice system and other
public institutions.

The impact study design includes 23 drug courts located in seven geographic “clusters” across
the United States. The participating drug courts collectively reflect substantial variation in
substance abuse treatment intensity, the leverage the court has in monitoring clients, and court
sanctioning and supervision policies.

Additionally, six “comparison” jurisdictions are included,42 which represent several alternative
ways the criminal justice system works with drug-involved offenders in jurisdictions that do not
currently implement drug courts or are unable to serve all drug-involved offenders within the
drug court. Notably, some comparison sites mandated offenders to community-based treatment
(but without other components of the drug court model), while other comparison sites involved
standard probation only.

The study includes a longitudinal offender interview component, including 1,781 offenders
across the 23 drug court and six comparison sites. In-person, computer assisted personal
42
North Carolina probation is one source from which we drew comparison group members. The state is divided
into two judicial districts and, therefore, we divided the comparison group similarly, representing two comparison
sites.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 119
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

interviews were conducted at three different intervals: (1) baseline, which reflects the time when
individuals enroll in drug courts or are sent to the treatment alternatives in comparison sites, (2)
six months after the baseline interview, and (3) 18 months after baseline. People were enrolled
into the study within a 16-month period from March 2005 through June 2006. During this time
frame, individuals newly entering drug court were identified and approached for participation
(or, for the comparison group, newly entering TASC, Breaking the Cycle, or probation); baseline
interviews were conducted within six weeks of program enrollment. Seventy-two percent of
eligible participants were enrolled at baseline. All baseline respondents were approached again at
6 months and 18 months to be re-interviewed, with 86 percent completing 6-month interviews
and 83 percent completing 18-month interviews.

The interviews lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours and covered a variety of topics including:

• Background Characteristics such as demographics, drug use and treatment history,

criminal history, physical health, mental health, employment, housing, family conflict
and support, and close ties to drug users and those involved in the criminal justice
system.

• Perceptions such as perceived legal pressure, motivations, understanding of rules,

perceived risk of sanctions and rewards, perceptions of court and judicial fairness.

• In-Program Behavior such as treatment receipt, receipt of other services, supervision

intensity, case management, drug testing, noncompliance with regulations, sanctions and
rewards received, terminations, graduations.

• Outcomes such as self-reported criminal behavior, drug use, and other personal
functioning.

The purpose of this chapter is three-fold. First, it provides information about the characteristics
of the people in the study when it began. Second, it explores the comparability of characteristics
between the drug court and comparison group members at the start of the study. Third, it conveys
this descriptive information as an important backdrop for interpreting results presented in other
project products describing the impact drug courts have on individuals’ lives. The remainder of
this chapter describes the sample members when they completed the baseline interview upon
entry into the study.43 It describes background characteristics, family characteristics, drug use
patterns, drug treatment history, criminal history, and mental and physical health, and identifies
where the drug court and comparison groups significantly differ using simple bivariate statistical
tests.44

43
The average days between enrollment in the program and timing of baseline interviews were 30.6 days
(significantly longer for the comparison group—31.1 days—than for the participant group—29.7 days). Eighteen
percent of the baseline respondents were incarcerated during the baseline interview, with significantly more of the
comparison group incarcerated (22 percent) than the drug court group (16 percent).
44
Although outcome analyses in other MADCE reports are weighted with propensity scores to correct for
differences between participant and comparison groups and for attrition bias, the information provided in this
chapter is based on unweighted responses from individuals in the study.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 120
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Background Characteristics of Study Participants

Table 1-6.1 documents background characteristics reported by sample members during the
baseline interview. Information is presented for both the drug court and comparison groups
separately, as well as for the combined sample. The majority of the sample is male (70 percent)
as is typical in many studies of criminal justice programs. The average age of study participants
is 33.7 years with the drug court group significantly younger than the comparison group.
Twenty-seven percent of the sample is 18 to 25 years in age and another 22 percent are 26 to 33.
More than half of the sample is White (55 percent), one-third is Black/African American (33
percent), six percent is Hispanic/Latino, and six percent fall into other categories, including those
identifying as multiracial.

Just over one-third (35 percent) of the sample reported having a high school diploma or GED,
and one-quarter (25 percent) reported having some college level education (see Table 1-6.1).
Forty-one percent of the sample had less than a high school education level. Nine percent
reported being in school at the time of the baseline: 10 percent were in high school courses, 29
percent were in GED courses, 44 percent were in some type of college coursework, and 17
percent were in other types of educational programs.

Just over one-third of sample members (36 percent) were working at the time of the baseline (see
Table 1-6.1), with significantly more of the drug court group (39 percent) working than the
comparison group (32 percent). Of those who were working, 69 percent had jobs with formal
pay, 14 percent were self-employed, and 17 percent were receiving casual pay for the work they
did. The drug court group worked significantly more weeks during the six months before
baseline (9.1 weeks) than the comparison group (7.8 weeks). Both groups worked about 37 hours
per week when they were working.

Those who were not working at baseline cited several reasons for this. The most commonly
reported reasons for not working were being in drug treatment (29 percent) or incarcerated (24
percent). Another 13 percent were sick or disabled, 11 percent could not find work, 4 percent did
not want to work, 3 percent were taking care of their homes or families, and 3 percent were
going to school. Another 13 percent cited a variety of other reasons for not working (e.g., retired,
lack of transportation).

The drug court group reported a significantly higher annual income—at $11,659 on average—
than the comparison group—at $8,944 (see Table 1-6.1). More drug court group members
reported jobs and government programs as sources of financial support, while comparison group
members were more likely to report family members. Similar numbers of people from each
group reported receiving income from friends and other sources.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 121
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-6.1. Baseline Background Characteristics of Sample Members by Research Group

Drug Court Comparison

Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781
Male 68%+ 72% 70%

Age
18 to 25 years 30%** 23% 27%
26 to 33 years 23% 21% 22%
34 to 41 years 20% 26% 22%
42 to 49 years 20% 22% 21%
50 to 57 years 6% 7% 6%
58 to 65 years 1% 2% 1%

Average age (in years) 32.97*** 35.06 33.71

Race/Ethnicity
White 57% 50% 55%
Black/African American 29% 41% 33%
Hispanic / Latino 7% 5% 6%
Other (including multiracial) 7% 5% 6%

Highest Education Level

Less than High school degree / GED 39% 45% 41%
High school degree/GED 35% 34% 35%
Some college or higher 26% 22% 25%

Currently in School or Working 43%+ 38% 41%

Currently in School 8% 9% 9%
Currently Employed 39%** 32% 36%

Type of Job (If employed)

Formal Pay 73% 58% 69%
Self-employment 11% 20% 14%
Casual Pay (pay under the table or off the books) 15% 22% 17%

Sources of Financial Support

Job 35%* 30% 33%
Family 37%* 43% 39%
Friends 11% 13% 12%
Government programs 23%*** 13% 20%
Other 13% 14% 14%
(continued)

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 122
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-6.1. Baseline Background Characteristics of Sample Members by Research

Group (Cont’d)
Drug Court Comparison
Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781
Average annual Income (based on a monthly
estimate) $11,659*** $8,944 $10,706

Homeless-Prior 6 Months 11% 13% 12%

Ever Been Homeless 47% 50% 48%
Note: + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Family Characteristics of the People in the Study

We asked sample members about their family members and relatives. Table 1-6.2 shows this
information. Sixty-two percent of the sample had never been married; 11 percent were married;
and 27 percent were married at some point, but were divorced, separated, or widowed at the time
of the baseline interview. About half (51 percent) of the sample were either married or involved
in intimate relationships at that time. Half reported having children younger than 18 years of age;
when older children are included, 61 percent reported being parents. Eighteen percent of people
reported having primary care responsibilities for children younger than 18 years old.
Significantly more drug court group members (37 percent) than comparison group members (32
percent) had either primary care responsibilities or financial support responsibilities for children
under 18.

Many respondents have family members—blood relatives, as well as other relatives—and friends
who have been involved in the criminal justice system. Significantly more comparison group
members reported having blood relatives (59 percent) or other relatives or friends (63 percent)
who have been convicted of crimes as compared to the drug court group (53 percent reported
convictions of blood relatives, and 58 percent reported convictions of other relatives or friends).
Similar proportions of both groups reported having blood relatives (56 percent) or other relatives
or friends (56 percent) who had been incarcerated.

Similar to involvement with the criminal justice system, many sample members reported having
relatives or friends that faced substance use issues. Sixty-five percent reported having blood
relatives who had problems with drugs or alcohol, and 62 percent reported the same for other
relatives or friends. Thirty-two percent reported having blood relatives who had ever been in
drug or alcohol treatment, and 44 percent reported the same for other relatives or friends.

This information indicates study members’ exposure to family and friends with criminal or
substance abuse histories is extensive. Many were exposed to multiple people in their lives
dealing with these problems. When considering drug and alcohol issues, study participants
reported having an average of 1.7 relatives or friends with such issues. When considering both

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 123
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

drug and alcohol issues along with involvement in the criminal justice system, sample members
reported having an average of 6.3 relatives or friends with such issues.

Table 1-6.2. Baseline Family Characteristics of Sample Members by Research Group

Drug
Court Comparison
Group Group Total
N=1156 N=625 N=1781

Marital Status
Never married 65% 58% 62%
Currently married 11% 11% 11%
Previously married (divorced, separated, widowed) 25% 31% 27%

Children
Any Living Children (any age) 60% 62% 61%

Any children younger than 18 50% 50% 50%

Primary care responsibility for children younger than 181 20%+ 16% 18%

Relatives
Any blood relatives ever convicted of crime 53%** 59% 55%
Any other relatives or friends ever convicted of crime 58%* 63% 60%

Any blood relatives ever incarcerated 55% 58% 56%

Any other relatives or friends ever incarcerated 56% 56% 56%

Any blood relatives ever had problems with drugs or alcohol 65% 64% 65%
Any other relatives or friends ever had problems with drugs or
alcohol 64%* 59% 62%

Any blood relatives ever in drug or alcohol treatment 31%+ 35% 32%
Any other relatives or friends ever in drug or alcohol treatment 45% 41% 44%

Note: + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
1
Primary care responsibilities are only asked of those that were not incarcerated at the baseline interview

Drug Use Patterns at Baseline

Offenders get into drug courts because they either are arrested on drug-related charges or exhibit
substance abuse issues with criminal charges that are eligible for the program. The comparison
sites included in the MADCE had similar eligibility requirements. Thus, it is not surprising that
both the drug court and comparison groups reported extensive drug use histories.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 124
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Drug Use History

Everyone in the study reported having used drugs of some sort in their lifetimes, and 93 percent
reported using drugs on a regular basis at some point in their lives.45 The drugs that most
participants used include alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogens or designer drugs (see
Figure 1-6.1). Nearly the entire sample had used alcohol and marijuana, with more than half
using alcohol regularly at some point in their lives, and nearly two-thirds using marijuana
regularly.

The vast majority of the study sample—84 percent—also reported having used cocaine at some
point. Among this group, 37 percent reported using mostly crack cocaine, 39 percent reported
mostly powder cocaine use, and 25 percent reported using both. More than half of the sample—
55 percent—reported using hallucinogens or designer drugs, with significantly more drug court
participants (57 percent) reporting such use than comparison group members (51 percent).

Fewer study members—about one-third—reported using heroin, amphetamines, or illegally

using prescription drugs. Significantly more of the comparison group reported using heroin (36
percent) than did the drug court group (30 percent), while significantly more of the drug court
group (36 percent) reported using amphetamines as compared to the comparison group (30
percent). Similar proportions of the drug court and comparison groups used prescription drugs
illegally.

Far fewer study members—14 percent—reported using methadone illegally. Despite fewer using
this way, significantly more of the comparison group (17 percent) reported this type of use than
the drug court group (12 percent).

Study members reported having used drugs for many years. On average, they began using any of
the drugs asked about at the age of 13.6 years, and had been using for an average of 20 years.
When alcohol and marijuana are eliminated from the analysis, the average age of using other
types of drugs increases to 18.8 years of age and the average length of time using decreases to
13.7 years.

45
Significantly more of the drug court group (95 percent) than the comparison group (90 percent) reported using
drugs regularly.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 125
Percent of Sample

0%
100%
120%

20%
40%
60%
80%
Ever used any drug

Ever used any drugs on a

regular basis

Ever used alcohol

Ever used alcohol on a

regular basis

Ever used marijuana

Ever used marijuana on a

regular basis

Ever used cocaine

Mostly Crack

Mostly Powder
Cocaine

Types of Drugs
Both

Ever used cocaine on a

regular basis

Ever used heroin

Ever used heroin on a

regular basis
Figure 1-6.1: Drug Use History

Ever used hallucinogens or

designer drugs
Ever used hallucinogens or
designer drugs on a regular
basis
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Ever used amphetamines

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

Ever used amphetamines

on a regular basis
Drug Court Sample

Ever used prescription

drugs illegally
Ever used prescription
Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants 126

drugs illegally on a regular

basis

Ever used methadone

illegally
Comparison Sample

Ever used methadone

illegally on a regular basis
Final Version
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Drug Use Six Months before Program Entry

In addition to documenting respondents’ lifetime

substance use, a critical objective of the MADCE was to Substance Use at the Time of
Arrest
document substance use during the time period
immediately preceding program entry, in order to Despite some minor variation
appropriately examine any change in use patterns during between drug court and comparison
the 18-month observation period. As one would expect, groups in the extent of their use in the
the majority of study participants reported using drugs six six months before program entry,
when considering drug use at the time
months before program entry (see Table 1-6.3). Eighty- of arrest, the proportion of each
one percent of the sample used any drugs in the six sample that were using alcohol or
months before enrolling in the study, and 57 percent drugs was the same. Two-thirds of
reported using drugs other than alcohol or marijuana. In study members were under the
both cases, more of the drug court group reported using influence of drugs or alcohol at the
time of the arrest that initiated their
drugs than the comparison group. program enrollment.

On average, study participants used drugs 12.9 days per

month when accounting for all types of drugs, and 7.4 days per month for drugs other than
alcohol or marijuana. The drug court group reported significantly more days of use than the
comparison group. When classifying study members based on days of use, 19 percent of the
sample was classified as non-users, 37 percent were classified as occasional users (1 to 8 days of
use per month), 11 percent were classified as moderate users (9 to 19 days of use per month), and
34 percent were classified as regular users (20 to 30 days of use per month). With alcohol and
marijuana eliminated from the analysis, 44 percent were non-users, 33 percent were occasional
users, 8 percent were moderate users, and 15 percent were regular users. Based on either
categorization, drug court participants were significantly less likely to be non-users than
comparison group members.

Alcohol is the only drug type that more than half of the sample—60 percent—reported using the
six months before program entry at the rate of about five days per month. Additionally, 40
percent of the sample reported heavy drinking an average of three days per month. Excluding
alcohol, marijuana use (43 percent of participants) and cocaine use (41 percent of participants)
were the next most frequently reported drugs in the six months before program entry. In both
cases, significantly more of the drug court group reported using these drugs than did the
comparison group. Sample members reported using marijuana on average 5.5 days per month,
and using cocaine 3.9 days per month.

Far fewer study members reported using other kinds of drugs during the six months before
program entry. Fifteen percent of the sample reported using prescription drugs illegally, with an
average use of one day per month. Twelve percent reported using heroin, with an average use of
1.9 days per month. Fourteen percent of study members reported using amphetamines, with an
average use of 1.6 days per week. Significantly more of the drug court group—15 percent—
reported amphetamine use than the comparison group (11 percent), and the drug court group also
reported significantly more frequent use (1.9 days versus 1.1. days per month). Even fewer study

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 127
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

members reported using hallucinogens or designer drugs (8 percent) or illegally using methadone
(4 percent) in the months preceding baseline interviews.

Table 1-6.3. Drug Use Six Months before Program Entry by Research Group

Drug Court Comparison

Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781

Any use of drugs 84%*** 76% 81%

Any use of drugs other than marijuana or alcohol 61%*** 51% 57%

Average days of use per month before program entry (on all drugs) 13.64*** 11.79 12.90
Non-user (0 days) 16%*** 24% 19%
Occasional user (1 to 8 days) 38% 35% 37%
Moderate user (9 to 19 days) 11% 12% 11%
Regular user (20 to 30 days) 36% 29% 34%

Average days of use per month before program entry (other than alcohol
7.92** 6.58 7.44
and marijuana)
Non-user (0 days) 40%* 49% 44%
Occasional User (1 to 8 days) 36% 28% 33%
Moderate User (9 to 19 days) 8% 8% 8%
Regular User (20 to 30 days) 17% 15% 16%

Alcohol 61% 58% 60%

Average days of use per month 5.02 5.24 5.10

Heavy alcohol (defined as 4 or more drinks per day for women, 5 or more
drinks per day for men) 41% 38% 40%
Average days of use per month 3.32 3.18 3.28

Marijuana 46%** 38% 43%

Average days of use per month 6.18*** 4.21 5.50

Cocaine 44%*** 34% 41%

Average days of use per month 4.17+ 3.48 3.93

Heroin 11% 13% 12%

Average days of use per month 1.72 2.10 1.86

Hallucinogens or designer drugs 9%** 5% 8%

Average days of use per month 0.22* 0.08 0.17

(continued)

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 128
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-6.3. Drug Use Six Months before Program Entry by Research Group (Cont’d)
Drug Court Comparison
Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781

Amphetamines 15%* 11% 14%

Average days of use per month 1.89** 1.18 1.64

Illegal prescription drugs use 16% 13% 15%

Average days of use per month 1.27* 0.84 1.12

Illegal methadone use 4% 5% 4%

Average days of use per month 0.10 0.19 0.07

Use of drugs and alcohol at time of arrest 67% 64% 66%

Note: + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Primary Drug of Choice before Program

Entry
Primary Drug of Choice
Finally, based on information about frequency of alcohol We defined primary drug of choice in the
and drug use six months before program entry, we following way. The primary drug was the
categorized responses into a primary drug of choice for one used during the most months of the six
study members reporting any use during that time (see months before the baseline interview. If
Figure 1-6.2). Crack cocaine was the most frequent participants reported using alcohol,
marijuana, and another drug, then the
primary drug of choice with 26 percent of the study primary drug was defined as the other drug.
sample in this category. The next most frequent primary If participants reported using only alcohol
drug of choice was marijuana with 22 percent of the and marijuana, then the primary drug was
sample in this category. Other primary drugs of choice defined as marijuana.
included: alcohol (for 13 percent of the study sample),
powder cocaine (for 10 percent), amphetamines
(including methamphetamine; for 9 percent), and heroin
(for 5 percent).

Alcohol and Drug Treatment before Program Entry

Because many of the study members had preexisting alcohol or drug problems, it is expected that
some may have sought assistance in the past to deal with these problems. Thus, Table 1-6.4
documents the proportion of sample members who reported receiving treatment in the months

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 129
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Figure 1-6.2: Primary Drug of Choice before Program Entry

30%

25%
Percent of Sample

20%

15%

10%

Types of Drugs

Drug Court Sample Comparison Sample

leading up to program enrollment. In the baseline interview, participants were asked to report
their treatment experiences for the preceding six months (with experiences reported separately
for each of the six months). In order to isolate treatment received before program entry, we
excluded the most recent month (i.e., the month immediately prior to the baseline interview)
because any treatment received during that timeframe was likely received through the
respondent’s participation in drug court, given the lag between enrollment in the program and
completion of the baseline interview. Focusing only on this timeframe is our best attempt to
isolate treatment that occurred before study members were enrolled in either drug court or the
comparison group alternative.

Significantly more of the drug court group (42 percent) than the comparison group (23 percent)
reported receiving some type of alcohol or drug treatment—excluding alternative approaches—
and for a longer time (6.3 days versus 3.0 days) in the time period prior to program enrollment.
When considering just clinical treatment (defined as detoxification, residential, medicinal
intervention, outpatient group counseling, and outpatient individual counseling), 35 percent of

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 130
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-6.4. Baseline Drug or Alcohol Treatment before Program Entry for Sample Members by
Research Group

Drug Court Comparison

Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781

Any drug or alcohol treatment (excluding alternative approaches) 42%*** 23% 35%

Total days per month of treatment (excluding alternative approaches) 6.29*** 3.02 5.14

Clinical Treatment
Any clinical drug or alcohol treatment 35%*** 18% 29%

Total days per month of clinical treatment 4.15*** 1.74 3.31

If any drug or alcohol treatment:

Any detoxification program 10% 11% 10%
Average days per month of detoxification 0.36 0.46 0.38
Any residential treatment 24% 25% 24%
Average days per month of residential treatment 3.07 2.77 3.00
Any medicinal intervention (e.g. methadone maintenance,
Naltrexone, etc.) 10% 8% 9%
Average days per month of medicinal intervention 2.02 1.39 1.87
Any outpatient group counseling 56%*** 40% 52%
Average days per month of outpatient group counseling 3.81*** 2.27 3.45
Any outpatient individual counseling 43%*** 26% 39%
Average days per month of outpatient individual
counseling 1.46* 0.66 1.28

Non-Clinical Treatment
Any drug or alcohol self-help treatment 65% 71% 66%
Average days per month of self-help treatment 6.36 6.09 6.30
Any emergency room trips for drug or alcohol use 2% 2% 2%
Average emergency room trips per month for drug or
alcohol use 0.02 0.03 0.03
Any alternative approaches to treatment (e.g. acupuncture,
meditation, biofeedback) 12%** 7% 11%
Average days per month of alternative approaches to
treatment 1.65* 0.78 1.45
+ p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Note: In the baseline interview, participants were asked to report their treatment experiences for the preceding six months (with
experiences reported separately for each of the six months). In order to isolate treatment received before program entry, we excluded the
most recent month (i.e., the month immediately prior to the baseline interview) because any treatment received during that timeframe was
likely received through the respondent’s participation in drug court, given the lag between enrollment in the program and completion of
the baseline interview.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 131
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

the drug court group and 18 percent of the comparison group reported receiving such services.
Differences between the groups are due to receipt of outpatient individual counseling and
outpatient group counseling. Forty-three percent of the drug court group received outpatient
individual counseling and 56 percent received outpatient group counseling versus 26 percent and
40 percent respectively for the comparison group. Similar rates of the two groups received
residential treatment (24 percent), detoxification (10 percent), and medicinal interventions (9
percent).

Two-thirds of both samples obtained assistance from self-help groups such as Alcoholics
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Only 11 percent of the study sample sought help
through alternative approaches—such as acupuncture—although significantly more of the drug
court group did so (12 percent) than the comparison group (7 percent).

Criminal History and Patterns of Criminal Activities

Based on respondents’ self-report of their criminal history, significantly more of the comparison
group had prior arrests before the one that brought them into the study (92 percent of the
comparison versus 86 percent of the drug court group) and, of these, they reported more prior
arrests (about 11 prior arrests for the comparison group versus 8 for the drug court group—see
Table 1-6.5). Both groups experienced their first arrest at approximately the same age of 20.5
years. Prior arrests led to significantly more convictions and incarcerations for the comparison
group. More than three-quarters of the comparison group had been convicted and incarcerated in
jail or prison before the arrest that brought them into the study, compared to the drug court
group, of whom 68 percent had been previously convicted, and 64 percent had been previously
incarcerated. Significantly more of the comparison group reported having been convicted of
violent crimes, weapons charges, drug crimes, and property crimes.

The significant differences between groups on criminal history patterns, however, are not evident
when examining criminal involvement in the six months before study enrollment. Forty-six
percent of the total sample was arrested during the six months before enrollment. The vast
majority of the arrests were for drug crimes—including possession, sales, and other drug
crimes—with 38 percent of the sample reporting such arrests.

Although the comparison group reported significantly more extensive criminal histories in terms
of arrest, conviction, and incarceration, when considering self-reported criminal activities (i.e.,
engaging in various types of crimes—regardless of whether they were caught), they reported
significantly fewer criminal activities during the six months before study enrollment than drug
court group members. More drug court group members (75 percent) reported engaging in
criminal activities than comparison group members (71 percent), and at significantly higher rates
(an average of 23 activities for the drug court group versus 19 for the comparison). A similar
pattern exists when looking only at drug activities. More drug court group members (70 percent)
reported drug activities—including possession, sales, and other drug activity—than comparison
group members (65 percent), and at significantly higher rates (an average of 14 activities for the
drug court group versus 12 for the comparison).

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 132
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Table 1-6.5. Baseline Criminal History and Activities of Sample Members by Research Group

Drug Court Comparison

Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781

Criminal History
Arrests
Any prior arrests 86%*** 92% 89%
Age of first arrest (in years) 20.48 20.43 20.46
Number of prior arrests 8.45*** 11.36 9.46
Convictions
Any prior convictions - select categories 68%*** 77% 71%
Any prior violent convictions (including harassment) 13%*** 20% 15%
Any prior weapon convictions 6%*** 11% 8%
Any drug crimes (includes possession, sales, and other drug crimes) 46%*** 58% 50%
Any prior DUI/DWI conviction 23% 26% 24%
Any prior property conviction 24%* 29% 26%
Any prior prostitution, public order, vagrancy convictions 6% 7% 6%
Incarceration
Prior incarceration in juvenile detention 18%** 23% 20%
Prior incarceration in jail or prison (more than 24 hours) 64%*** 75% 67%

Arrests six months before program entry

Any arrests 45% 48% 46%
Average number of arrests 0.72 0.90 0.79
Drug crimes (includes possession, sales, and other drug crimes) 37% 38% 38%
Average number of drug crimes 0.29 0.41 0.33
Drove while intoxicated (if not incarcerated during past six months) 6% 6% 6%
Average number of driving while intoxicated arrests 0.34 0.31 0.33
Violent crime (includes harassment) 3% 3% 3%
Carried weapon 1% 1% 1%
Property crimes 5% 7% 6%
Prostitution, public order, vagrancy arrests 1% 2% 1%

Criminal activity six months before program entry

Any criminal activity 75%* 71% 74%
Average number of criminal activities 22.73** 19.34 21.54
Drug activity (includes possession, sales, and other drug activity) 70%* 65% 68%
Average number of drug activities 13.85** 12.00 13.20
Drove while intoxicated (if not incarcerated during past six months) 35% 31% 34%
Average number of driving while intoxicated arrests 3.04 2.82 2.96
Committed violent crimes (includes harassment) 8%+ 5% 7%
Carried weapon 13% 14% 13%
Property crimes 12% 10% 11%
Prostitution, public order, vagrancy 3% 2% 3%
Note: + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 133
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Mental and Physical Health

The drug court and comparison groups were similar with respect to self-reported mental and
physical health status at the time of study enrollment (see Table 1-6.6). Three-quarters reported
their overall mental health as good, very good, or excellent. However, based on scores on
specific mental health conditions calculated from respondents’ reporting of specific symptoms,
38 percent were classified as meeting criteria for depression, 43 percent were classified as having
anti-social personality disorder, and 49 percent were classified as having narcissism. Just over
one-quarter of the sample reported any chronic health problems.

Table 1-6.6. Baseline Mental and Physical Health of Sample Members by Research Group

Drug Court Comparison

Group Group Total
N=1,156 N=625 N=1,781
Mental Health
Overall mental health
Poor 4% 6% 4%
Fair 20% 19% 20%
Good 28% 28% 28%
Very good 26% 24% 26%
Excellent 22% 24% 23%

Depression (average score; ranges from 0 to 30) 8.60 8.19 8.45

Percent depressed (score equal or greater than 10) 39% 37% 38%
Anti-social personality disorder (both conduct disorder and pervasive
pattern) 43% 42% 43%
Conduct disorder 45% 43% 44%
Pervasive pattern of disregard for, violation of, the rights of others 91% 90% 91%
Narcissism (average score; ranges from 0 to 9) 4.46 4.51 4.48
Percent narcissist (score equal to or greater than 5) 49% 50% 49%
Anti-social personality disorder PLUS narcissism 28% 26% 27%

Physical Health
Any chronic medical problems 26% 28% 27%
Note: + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Conclusions

This chapter summarized the characteristics of the participants at the time they enrolled in the
study. The description provided here shows that the sample members have extensive criminal
histories, substance abuse histories, and histories of mental health problems, as well as
relationships with both family and friends who also have used drugs and been involved in the
criminal justice system. A number of statistically significant differences between the drug court
group and the comparison group were found across the dimensions of characteristics presented

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 134
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

here. The MADCE adjusted for these group differences in analyses assessing the impact of drug
court participation on outcomes related to these baseline characteristics (e.g., recidivism,
relapse), and when identifying for whom drug courts work best.

Volume 1. Chapter 6. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation—Baseline

Characteristics of Study Participants 135
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Appendix A. Survey Item Catalog

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 136

Final Version

Demographics

Interview location
Baseline/6 month/18 month

_DEM0# • IS THIS INTERVIEW BEING CONDUCTED IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY?†

(YES, NO)*

Age
Baseline/6 month/18 month

_DEM1 • In what month, day, and year were you born?

_DEM2 • So that makes you {calculated age} years old. Is this correct? (Yes, No)*

Race/ethnicity
Baseline /6 month/18 month

_DEM3 • Which of the following best describes you? Please choose all that apply. (White;
Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or East Indian;
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander)

Gender
Baseline/6 month/18 month

_DEM4 • RECORD THE RESPONDENT’S GENDER. (MALE, FEMALE)*

Education
Baseline

BDEM5 • What is the highest grade or level of school you have completed? Would you say…
(No school completed; 1st grade; 2nd grade; 3rd grade; 4th grade; 5th grade; 6th grade; 7th
grade; 8th grade; 9th grade; 10th grade; 11th grade; 12th grade; GED or other high school
equivalent; Vocational or trade school graduate/certificate program; Some college but
no degree; Associate degree including 2 year occupational, technical, or academic
program; 4 year college graduate; Advanced degree including master’s, professional,
or doctoral degrees)

BDEM6 • Are you currently in school? (Yes, No)*

BDEM7 o (If yes) What type of school are you currently attending? Are you taking…?
(High school courses, A GED course, Vocational training, College courses,
Some other type of schooling)

6 month/18 month

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 137

Final Version

_DEM5a • Have you attended school or training since the last time we interviewed you? (Yes,
No)*

_DEM6 • (If yes) Are you currently in school? (Yes, No)*

_DEM7 o (If yes) What type of school are you currently attending? Are you
taking…? (High school courses, A GED course, Vocational training,
College courses, Some other type of schooling)

_DEM5 • (If attended school or training since last interview} What is the highest grade or level
of school you have completed? Would you say… (No school completed; 1st grade; 2nd
grade; 3rd grade; 4th grade; 5th grade; 6th grade; 7th grade; 8th grade; 9th grade; 10th
grade; 11th grade; 12th grade; GED or other high school equivalent; Vocational or
trade school graduate/certificate program; Some college but no degree; Associate
degree including 2 year occupational, technical, or academic program; 4 year college
graduate; Advanced degree including master’s, professional, or doctoral degrees)

Employment
Baseline

BDEM8 • Do you currently work a job for pay? By 'job' we mean a formal job that has a pay
stub, self-employment, or a casual pay job that is paid 'under the table' or 'off the
books'? (If R is currently incarcerated: Do not include employment in prison
industries, but do include work release employment.) (Yes, No)

BDEM8c • During the past six months, how many weeks did you work for pay? (If R is currently
incarcerated: Do not include work in prison industries but do include work release
employment.)

BDEM8b o (If R does not currently have a job OR R was not working for any part of the
past 6 months) What is the main reason you are not currently working (if not
working for part of past 6 months: were not working for part of the past six
months)? Is it because you are (if not working for part of past 6 months: were)
… (Retired, Taking care of home or family, Going to school, Could not find
work, Could not get transportation, Did not want to work, Were in drug
treatment, Sick or disabled, Incarcerated, Some other reason)

BDEM8d o (If R currently has a job OR R worked for pay during any of the past 6
months) Is (if not currently working: was) your current or most recent job…?
(Formal pay--a job that has a pay stub, Self-employment, Casual pay--a job
that is 'under the table' or 'off the books')

BDEM8e o (If R currently has a job OR R worked for pay during any of the past 6
months) How many hours a week do (if not currently working: did) you
usually work for your current or most recent job?

6 month/18 month

_DEM8 • Do you currently work a job for pay? By 'job' we mean a formal job that has a pay
stub, self-employment, or a casual pay job that is paid 'under the table' or 'off the

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 138

Final Version

books'? (If R is currently incarcerated: Do not include employment in prison

industries, but do include work release employment.) (Yes, No)

_DEM8a • (If yes) Have you been employed the whole time since your last interview on {last
interview date}

_DEM8c o (If R does not currently have a job OR was not working for any part of the
time since last interview) Since we last interviewed you on {last interview
date}, how many weeks did you work for pay? (If R is currently
incarcerated: Do not include work in prison industries but do include
work release employment.)

_DEM8b o (If R does not currently have a job OR was not working for any
part of the time since the last interview) What is the main reason
you are not currently working (if number of weeks worked for pay
is less than number of weeks since last interview: were not
working for part of the time since your last interview)? Is it
because you are (if number of weeks worked for pay is less than
number of weeks since last interview: were) … (Retired, Taking
care of home or family, Going to school, Could not find work,
Could not get transportation, Did not want to work, Were in drug
treatment, Sick or disabled, Incarcerated, Some other reason)

_DEM8d o (If R currently has a job OR R worked for pay during any part of the time
since last interview) Is (if not currently working: was) your current or most
recent job…? (Formal pay--a job that has a pay stub, Self-employment,
Casual pay--a job that is 'under the table' or 'off the books')

_DEM8e o (If R currently has a job OR R worked for pay during any part of the time
since last interview) How many hours a week do (if not currently working:
did) you usually work for your current or most recent job?

Marital/partner status
Baseline/6 month/18 month

_DEM9 • Are you currently…(Married, Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Never married)?

_DEM9a o (If R is not married) Are you currently involved in a steady intimate
relationship? (Yes, No)

_DEM9b o (If R is married OR is involved in steady relationship AND R is not

incarcerated) Do you currently live with that person? (Yes, No)

Parental status/primary care responsibilities

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_DEM10 • Do you have any living children, regardless of age? By children we mean any
biological children or any other children for whom you currently have custody or had
custody of in the past. (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 139

Final Version

_DEM10a o (If yes) How many living children do you have?

_DEM10b o (If yes) How old is your child? (If R has more than one child: How old are
each of your children? Age of additional children specified in _DEM10c)

_DEM11 (If R has any children under 18 and R is not currently incarcerated)
Do you have primary care responsibilities for any of your own
children under the age of 18? By primary care responsibilities, we
mean that the children live with you most of the time, you feed and
clothe them, and that you are not paid for this? (Yes, No)

_DEM11a • (If yes) For how many of your own children under the age of
18 do you have primary care responsibilities?

_DEM11b • (If no or R is incarcerated) During the past 30 days have

you had in-person visits with your children under the age of
18…(Daily, A couple of times a week, Weekly, Two or
three times during the past 30 days, Once during the past 30
days, Or was your last in-person visit more than 30 days
ago)?

_DEM12 (If R has any children under 18) Of your own children under the age
of 18, how many do you currently financially support in any way?

_DEM12a (If R has any children under 18) Are you currently required by a
court to pay child support for any of your children under the age of
18? (Yes, No)

_DEM12b (If R has any children under 18) Do you owe back child support?
(Yes, No)

_DEM12c • (If yes) How much back child support do you owe? (Less
than $1,000; $1,000 to $1,999; $2,000 to $2,999; $3,000 to
$3,999; $4,000 to $4,999; More than $5,000 [if more than
$5,000, exact amount specified in _DEM12d])

_DEM12e • (If yes) Has the state forgiven or decreased any of the back
child support debt that you owe? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 140

Final Version

Supervision Status

Supervision status
Baseline

BSUP1 • Were you under any supervision by the courts, including drug court or any other
court, pretrial release, probation or parole at any point during the past six months?
(Yes, No)

BSUP2 o (If yes) Which type of supervision? Pick all that apply. (Pretrial release,
Probation, Parole, Drug Court)

BSUP3 o (If yes) In which of the past 6 months were you on supervision?

BSUP4a o (If R was on probation or parole) How long have you been on probation or
parole?

BSUP4b o (If R was on probation or parole) How much probation or parole time do
you have left?

6 month/18 month

_SUP1 • Were you under any supervision by the courts, including drug court or any other
court, pretrial release, probation or parole at any point since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

_SUP2 o (If yes) Which type of supervision? Pick all that apply. (Pretrial release,
Probation, Parole, Drug Court)

_SUP3 o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview were you on
supervision?

_SUP4a (If R was on probation or parole) How long have you been on
probation or parole?

_SUP4b (If R was on probation or parole) How much probation or parole

time do you have left?

Supervision officer/case manager contacts

The questions in this section are only asked if R was under supervision at any point
during the past 6 months (for baseline) or since the last interview (for 6/18 month)

Baseline

Which of the following staff members are you supposed to talk to?

BSUP5a • A probation or parole officer? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 141

Final Version

BSUP5b • A pretrial supervision officer? (Yes, No)

BSUP5c • Are you supposed to talk to a drug court case manager? A case manager is someone
who talks with you about issues or needs you have, tries to get you into services or
programs, helps you get benefits or assistance, and monitors your progress. These
services are called case management and the person who provides them could be
called a social worker, a case manager or case worker, or it could be your probation
or parole officer. (Yes, No)

BSUP5d o (If R is supposed to talk to a probation or parole officer) Are you supposed
to talk to a probation or parole officer at least once a month? (Yes, No)

BSUP5e o (If R is supposed to talk to a pretrial supervision officer) Are you supposed
to talk to a pretrial supervision officer at least once a month? (Yes, No)

BSUP5f o (If R is supposed to talk to a drug court case manager) Are you supposed to
talk to a drug court case manager at least once a month? (Yes, No)

BSUP6 o (If R is supposed to talk to more than one type of staff member) You have
indicated that you report to the following people: {BSUP5a-BSUP5c}.
Which one is the main one you have to report to? (Probation or parole
officer, Pretrial supervision officer, Drug court case manager)

On subsequent questions that refer to “{supervision officer},” the fill is determined by

the BSUP5 series and BSUP6.

BSUP6a o (If R is supposed to talk to more than one type of staff member) Which one is
the main one who reports to the court? (Probation or parole officer, Pretrial
supervision officer, Drug court case manager)

BSUP6b o (If R is supposed to talk to a drug court case manager) Which of the
following best describes the role of the drug court case manager? (The drug
court case manager works for the drug court, The drug court case manager
works for TASC, The drug court case manager works for the treatment
provider, The drug court case manager is a probation or parole officer, The
drug court case manager is a pretrial supervision officer)

Regardless of how often you are supposed to talk to your {supervision officer}, we
would like to know how often you have actually had contact with your {supervision
officer}.

BSUP8 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you had phone contact with your
{supervision officer}?

BSUP9 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you spoken face to face with your
{supervision officer}?

BSUP10 o (If a drug court case manager is NOT the main person OR the only person R
is supposed to talk to) During the past 30 days, have you met with a case
manager? A case manager is… (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 142

Final Version

BSUP10a (If yes) During the past 30 days, how often, on average, have you
met with someone to get case management services? Would you
say…(Less than once a week, About once a week, More often than
once a week)?

6 month/18 month

Which of the following staff members are you supposed to talk to? If you are no longer
on supervision, please indicate which of the following staff members you were supposed
to talk to at any point since your last interview.

_SUP5a • A probation or parole officer? (Yes, No)

_SUP5b • A pretrial supervision officer? (Yes, No)

_SUP5c • Are/Were you supposed to talk to a drug court case manager? A case manager is
someone who talks with you about issues or needs you have, tries to get you into
services or programs, helps you get benefits or assistance, and monitors your
progress. These services are called case management and the person who provides
them could be called a social worker, a case manager or case worker, or it could be
your probation or parole officer. (Yes, No)

_SUP5d o (If R is supposed to talk to a probation or parole officer) At any point since
your last interview, have you been required to talk to a probation or parole
officer at least once a month? (Yes, No)

_SUP5e o (If R is supposed to talk to a pretrial supervision officer) At any point since
your last interview, have you been required to talk to a pretrial supervision
officer at least once a month? (Yes, No)

_SUP5f o (If R is supposed to talk to a drug court case manager) At any point since
your last interview, have you been required to talk to a drug court case
manager at least once a month? (Yes, No)

_SUP6 o (If R is supposed to talk to more than one type of staff member) You have
indicated that you have reported to the following people since your last
interview: {SSUP5a-SSUP5c}. Which one is the main one you have been
reporting to? (Probation or parole officer, Pretrial supervision officer, Drug
court case manager)

On subsequent questions that refer to “{supervision officer},” the fill is determined by

the _SUP5 series and _SUP6.

_SUP6a o (If R is supposed to talk to more than one type of staff member) Which one is
the main one who has been reporting to the court? (Probation or parole
officer, Pretrial supervision officer, Drug court case manager)

_SUP6b o (If R is supposed to talk to a drug court case manager) Which of the
following best describes the role of the drug court case manager? (The drug

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 143

Final Version

court case manager works for the drug court, The drug court case manager
works for TASC, The drug court case manager works for the treatment
provider, The drug court case manager is a probation or parole officer, The
drug court case manager is a pretrial supervision officer)

Regardless of how often you are supposed to talk to your {supervision officer}, we
would like to know how often you have actually had contact with your {supervision
officer} since your last interview.

_SUP8 • Since your last interview, how many times have you had phone contact with your
{supervision officer}?

_SUP9 • Since your last interview, how many times have you spoken face to face with your
{supervision officer}?

_SUP10 o (If a drug court case manager is NOT the main person OR the only person R
is supposed to talk to) Since your last interview, have you met with a case
manager? A case manager is… (Yes, No)

_SUP10a (If yes) Since your last interview, how often, on average, have you
met with someone to get case management services? Would you
say…(Less than once a week, About once a week, More often than
once a week)?

Street Time

Street time calculation

Note: Before the questions below, the FI and the R fill out an event history calendar

Baseline

BSTC1 • At any point during the past six months, were you held in a jail or prison? (Yes, No)

BSTC1a o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you spend any time in jail or
prison?

BSTC1a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in jail or prison?

BSTC1b1 • (If in for more than one day during {month}) Were you put
in jail or prison… (Once that month, More than once that
month, or Were you still in jail or prison after being put
there in a previous month)?

BSTC1c1 • Were you in jail for… (A new crime, A technical violation

or sanction, Both a new crime and a technical violation or
sanction, Or the same thing as previous month)?

BSTC1A1 through BSTC1C1 repeated in BSTC1a2–BSTC1a12 for each month R was in

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 144

Final Version

jail or prison during previous 6 months. If answer to BSTC1a indicates the R was in
jail/prison the entire six months before baseline, the rest of the street time module is
skipped.

BSTC2 • At any point during past six months, were you in a hospital or emergency room for at
least a 24-hour period? Do not include emergency room or hospital visits that were
related to alcohol or drug abuse or visits that were seeking treatment for substance
abuse? (Yes, No)

BSTC2a o (If yes) In which of the past six months were you in a hospital or emergency
room for at least a 24-hour period?

BSTC2a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in a hospital or
emergency room?

BSTC2A1 repeated in BSTC2a2–BSTC2a12 for each month R was in hospital or

emergency room during previous 6 months.

BSTC3 • At any point during past six months, did you spend time in residential mental health
treatment? Residential treatment is a place where a person lives away from home to
receive services and care for their mental health, emotions, or nerves. Do not count
hospital stays for mental health care and do not count residential care for substance
abuse treatment only. (Yes, No)

BSTC3a o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you spend time in residential
mental health treatment?

BSTC3a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in residential mental
health treatment?

BSTC3A1 repeated in BSTC3a2–BSTC3a12 for each month R was in residential mental

health treatment during previous 6 months.

6 month/18 month

_STC1 • At any point since your last interview, were you held in a jail or prison? (Yes, No)

_STC1a o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you spend any
time in jail or prison?

_STC1a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in jail or prison?

_STC1b1 • (If in for more than one day during {month}) Were you put
in jail or prison… (Once that month, More than once that
month, or Were you still in jail or prison after being put
there in a previous month)?

_STC1c1 • Were you in jail for… (A new crime, A technical violation

or sanction, Both a new crime and a technical violation or
sanction, Or the same thing as previous month)?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 145

Final Version

_STC1A1 through _STC1C1 repeated in _STC1a2–_STC1a12 for each month R was in

jail or prison since last interview. If answer to _STC1a indicates that R was in jail/prison
the entire time since the last interview, the rest of the street time module is dropped.

_STC2 • At any point since your last interview, were you in a hospital or emergency room for
at least a 24-hour period? Do not include emergency room or hospital visits that were
related to alcohol or drug abuse or visits that were seeking treatment for substance
abuse? (Yes, No)

_STC2a o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview were you in a
hospital or emergency room for at least a 24-hour period?

_STC2a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in a hospital or
emergency room?

_STC2A1 repeated in _STC2a2–_STC2a12 for each month R was in hospital or

emergency room since last interview.

_STC3 • At any point since your last interview, did you spend time in residential mental
health treatment? Residential treatment is a place where a person lives away from
home to receive services and care for their mental health, emotions, or nerves. Do
not count hospital stays for mental health care and do not count residential care for
substance abuse treatment only. (Yes, No)

_STC3a o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you spend time
in residential mental health treatment?

_STC3a1 For how many days of {1st month} were you in residential mental
health treatment?

_STC3A1 repeated in _STC3a2–STC3a12 for each month R was in residential mental

health treatment since last interview.

Housing
Baseline

BSTC4 • At any point during past six months, did you ever live in these places? (SELECT
ALL THAT APPLY: On the street; In your own house or apartment, meaning your
name is on the title, mortgage, or lease; In someone else’s house or apartment; In a
transitional housing building or halfway house; In a motel/hotel or rooming house; In
a shelter; In an abandoned building or vacant unit; In some other place)

BSTC5 o (If R lived in more than one place) During the past six months, where did
you mostly live? (On the street; In your own house or apartment, meaning
your name is on the title, mortgage, or lease; In someone else’s house or
apartment; In a transitional housing building or halfway house; In a
motel/hotel or rooming house; In a shelter; In an abandoned building or
vacant unit; In some other place)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 146

Final Version

BSTC5a (If R only lived OR mostly lived in own home or someone else’s
home) Was the (house/apartment) public housing? Public housing is
defined as a unit in a building owned by a public housing authority.
(Yes, No)

BSTC5b • (If no) Was the (house/apartment) Section 8? Section 8

housing is where a section 8 voucher is being used to pay
for part or all of your rent for a privately owned unit. (Yes,
No)

6 month/18 month

_STC4 • Since your last interview, did you ever live in these places? (SELECT ALL THAT
APPLY: On the street; In your own house or apartment, meaning your name is on
the title, mortgage, or lease; In someone else’s house or apartment; In a transitional
housing building or halfway house; In a motel/hotel or rooming house; In a shelter;
In an abandoned building or vacant unit; In some other place)

_STC5 o (If R lived in more than one place) Since your last interview, where did you
mostly live? (On the street; In your own house or apartment, meaning your
name is on the title, mortgage, or lease; In someone else’s house or
apartment; In a transitional housing building or halfway house; In a
motel/hotel or rooming house; In a shelter; In an abandoned building or
vacant unit; In some other place)

_STC5a (If R only lived OR mostly lived in own home or someone else’s
home) Was the (house/apartment) public housing? Public housing is
defined as a unit in a building owned by a public housing authority.
(Yes, No)

_STC5b • (If no) Was the (house/apartment) Section 8? Section 8

housing is where a section 8 voucher is being used to pay
for part or all of your rent for a privately owned unit. (Yes,
No)

Current Offense and Program Entry

Current offense information

Baseline

BPEC1 • (If preload arrest data are available) Our records show that the arrest that led to
your current involvement in the criminal justice system took place on {arrest date}.
Is this correct? (Yes, No)

BPEC1a • (If preload arrest data are available) Was that arrest for {charge}? (Yes, No)

BPEC2 • (If arrest date from preload is incorrect or not available) What was the date of the

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 147

Final Version

arrest that led to your current involvement in the criminal justice system?

BPEC2a • (If charge from preload is incorrect or not available) Was that arrest for…(SELECT
ALL THAT APPLY: A violent crime such as physical or sexual assault, rape,
robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder, murder, vehicular manslaughter, or
vehicular homicide; Some other crime against people, including hit and run or
harassment; Carrying a gun, knife, or other weapon; A drug possession crime,
including possession of either drugs or drug paraphernalia; A drug sales crime; Some
other drug crime, such as manufacturing, trafficking, or prescription fraud; A DWI or
DUI crime; A property crime, including burglary, larceny, auto theft, bad checks,
fraud, forgery, or grand theft; Prostitution, public order, or vagrancy; A technical
violation of supervision conditions; Or something else [other specified in
BPEC2a_sp])?

I am now going to ask you about your experiences with the criminal justice system
related to this arrest that occurred on {arrest date}.

BPEC3 • Were you convicted on this charge, did you pled guilty, or did neither of these
happen? (Convicted of this or a lesser charge, Pled guilty of this or a lesser charge,
Neither)

BPEC3a o (If R was convicted OR R pled guilty) In what month and year were you
convicted (if pled guilty: did you plead guilty) on this charge?

BPEC3b o (If neither happened) Is the case still pending? (Yes, No)

BPEC4 o (If R was convicted OR pled guilty) Were you sentenced based on this
charge? (Yes, No)

BPEC4a (If yes) In what month and year were you sentenced on this charge?

BPEC4b • (If R is currently incarcerated) Is this arrest on {arrest date} the reason you are in
(jail/prison) right now? (Yes, No)

BPEC5 • (If R is not currently incarcerated OR if above arrest is not the reason R is currently
in jail) Did you spend at least 24 hours in jail for the arrest on {arrest date}? (Yes,
No)

BPEC5aa o (If yes AND R was convicted or pled guilty) Did you spend time in jail
waiting for the case to be decided, after the case was decided or both?
(Waiting for the case to be decided, After the case was decided, Both)

BPEC5a o (If R spent time in jail waiting for the case to be decided OR [R spent at least
24 hours in jail for above arrest AND case is still pending]) How long did
you spend time in jail before the case was decided?

BPEC5b o (If R spent time in jail after the case was decided) How long did you spend
time in jail after the case was decided?

BPEC5c • (If above arrest is the reason R is currently in jail) On what day did you start doing

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 148

Final Version

(jail/prison) time for this arrest?

BPEC5d • (If above arrest is the reason R is currently in jail) When is your expected release
date?

Drug Court Participation

Baseline

BPEC6 • (If R not preloaded as a drug court participant) Were you offered the option to be in
a drug court program for your current charge? A drug court is a special court
program that refers offenders to drug treatment and involves close monitoring,
appearing before the judge regularly to review your progress, and being supervised
by a probation or other type of officer. (Yes, No)

BPEC7 • Are you currently participating in drug court? A drug court is a special court
program that refers offenders to drug treatment and involves close monitoring,
appearing before the judge regularly to review your progress, and being supervised
by a probation or other type of officer? (Yes, No)*

BPEC7a • (If R was offered drug court OR R is currently in drug court OR R was preloaded as
a drug court participant) (If R was preloaded as a drug court participant but is not
currently in drug court: Although you are not currently participating in drug court,
our records indicate that you were enrolled at one point in time so throughout this
interview we will be asking you several questions about the drug court program.) In
what month and year were you offered this program?

BPEC7b • (If R self-reports drug court in BPEC7) In what month and year did you agree
to be a part of the program? Agreeing to be a part of the program means you
formally told the judge you agreed to be in it or you signed a document
agreeing to being in the program.

BPEC8 • (If R was offered drug court OR R was preloaded as a drug court participant) Who
referred you to the drug court program? (The police officer that arrested you, A
prosecutor, A public defender or attorney that you hired, A probation officer, A
judge, A person who did a drug screening or assessment on you, Or did you ask for it
yourself)

BPEC9 • (If R was offered drug court OR R was preloaded as a drug court participant) What
did you think the most likely sentence would be for you if you did not participate in
the drug court program? (Nothing, I would get off; Probation only; Less than 6
months in jail or prison; Six months to one year in jail or prison; More than one and
up to five years in jail or prison; More than five years in prison)

BPEC9a o (If R responded jail or prison) Did you think you would be jailed or
imprisoned immediately? (Yes, No)

BPEC9b o (If R responded probation, jail, or prison) How bad did you think it would
be if you had received this sentence? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not
bad at all)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 149

Final Version

BPEC10 • (If R was preloaded as a drug court participant but did not self-report current drug
court participation in BPEC7) Are you no longer in drug court because…(You
graduated, You dropped out of it yourself, You were kicked out of it, You were put
in jail)?

BPEC10a • (If R was preloaded as a drug court participant but did not self-report current drug
court participation) In what month and year did you {graduate/drop out/get kicked
out/get put in jail}?

BPEC10b o (If R dropped out) Please tell me the reason you dropped out of drug court.
(The drug court program involved too much work, The drug court program
costs too much, The drug court program conflicted with your work or child
care responsibilities, The drug court program was too hard or expensive to
get to, You were not satisfied with the services you were receiving, There
were too many restrictions on your lifestyle, You did not think you needed
the services being offered through the drug court program, You did not get
along with the people running the drug court, You did not think the drug
court program was fair, You dropped out for some other reason)

BPEC10c o (If R dropped out or was kicked out) What sentence did you receive after
you dropped out of (if R was kicked out: got kicked out of) the drug court
program? (Nothing yet, Probation, Jail or prison time, Or something else
[something else specified in BPEC10c_sp])

BPEC10d (If R received probation, jail/prison, or something else) How

quickly was this sentence given? (At the time you dropped out or
were kicked out, Up to a week after you dropped out or were kicked
out, Between a week and a month after you dropped out or were
kicked out, Longer than a month after you dropped out or were
kicked out)

BPEC10e (If R received probation, jail/prison, or something else) How bad

was it to receive this sentence? Would you say… (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)?

BPEC11 • Have you ever been in a drug court before? (If R was preloaded as a drug court
participant: I mean drug court experiences before this current time.) (Yes, No)

BPEC11a o (If yes) How many separate times have you participated in a drug court
program? By separate times we do not mean every time you appeared in
court or saw a case manager, but we mean individual times you enrolled in a
program no matter how many times you went to court or to case managers.

BPEC11b o (If yes) Did your previous drug court experiences end up with
you…(SELECT ALL THAT APPLY: Graduating, Dropping out, Being
kicked out, Being put in jail)?

6 month/18 month

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 150

Final Version

_PEC7 • Are you currently participating in drug court? A drug court is a special court
program that refers offenders to drug treatment and involves close monitoring,
appearing before the judge regularly to review your progress, and being supervised
by a probation or other type of officer? (Yes, No)*

_PEC7b o (If no) At any point since your last interview, did you participate in
drug court? (Yes, No)

_PEC7c o (If R reported current participation or participation in drug court at

any point since last interview) In which of the months since your last
interview did you participate in drug court?

_PEC10 o (If R self-reported drug court participation in the baseline interview but is
not currently in drug court) Are you no longer in drug court because…(You
graduated, You dropped out of it yourself, You were kicked out of it, You
were put in jail)?

_PEC10a o (If R self-reported drug court participation in the baseline interview but is
not currently in drug court) In what month and year did you {graduate/drop
out/get kicked out/get put in jail}?

_PEC10b (If R dropped out) Please tell me the reason you dropped out of drug
court. (The drug court program involved too much work, The drug
court program costs too much, The drug court program conflicted
with your work or child care responsibilities, The drug court
program was too hard or expensive to get to, You were not satisfied
with the services you were receiving, There were too many
restrictions on your lifestyle, You did not think you needed the
services being offered through the drug court program, You did not
get along with the people running the drug court, You did not think
the drug court program was fair, You dropped out for some other
reason)

_PEC10c (If R dropped out or was kicked out) What sentence did you receive
after you dropped out of (if R was kicked out: got kicked out of) the
drug court program? (Nothing yet, Probation, Jail or prison time, Or
something else [something else specified in _PEC10c_sp])

_PEC10d • (If R received probation, jail/prison, or something else)

How quickly was this sentence given? (At the time you
dropped out or were kicked out, Up to a week after you
dropped out or were kicked out, Between a week and a
month after you dropped out or were kicked out, Longer
than a month after you dropped out or were kicked out)

_PEC10e • (If R received probation, jail/prison, or something else)

How bad was it to receive this sentence? Would you say…
(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 151

Final Version

Perceptions of Risk, Rewards, and Consequences

Perceptions of what will happen if fail program

Baseline

These questions only asked if R self-reported current participation in drug court in

BPEC7.

BRISK1 • What do you think the most likely sentence would be for you if you fail the drug
court program? (Nothing will happen, You will be put on probation, You will be sent
to jail or prison, Or something else [other specified in BRISK1a])

BRISK2 o (If R responds other than nothing) How quickly do you think this sentence
would be given? Do you think it would be given…(At the time you are
kicked out, Up to a week after you are kicked out, Between a week and a
month after you are kicked out, Longer than a month after you are kicked
out)?

BRISK3 o (If R responds other than nothing) How bad do you think it would be if you
were to receive this sentence? Would you say…(Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)?

6 month/18 month

These questions only asked if R ever self-reported participation in drug court (including
the baseline interview).

_RISK1 • (If R self-reported current drug court participation) What do you think the most
likely sentence would be for you if you fail the drug court program? (Nothing will
happen, You will be put on probation, You will be sent to jail or prison, Or
something else [other specified in _RISK1a])

• (If R did not self-report current drug court participation) When you were still in the
drug court program, what did you think the most likely sentence would be for you if
you fail the drug court program? ? (Nothing will happen, You will be put on
probation, You will be sent to jail or prison, Or something else [other specified in
_RISK1a])

_RISK2 o (If R responds other than nothing) How quickly {do/did} you think this
sentence would be given? Do you think it would be given…(At the time you
are kicked out, Up to a week after you are kicked out, Between a week and a
month after you are kicked out, Longer than a month after you are kicked
out)?

_RISK3 o (If R responds other than nothing) How bad {do/did} you think it would be
if you were to receive this sentence? Would you say…(Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 152

Final Version

Arrest and Incarceration History

Arrest history
Baseline

BARR1 • Before your arrest on {arrest date}, how many times, if any, were you arrested or
notified of charges before you turned 18?

BARR2 • Before your arrest on {arrest date}, how many times, if any, were you arrested or
notified of charges after you turned 18?

BARR3 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) How old were you the first
time you were arrested or charged with a crime?

BARR4 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) What were you arrested for at
that time?

BARR5 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a violent crime, such as physical or sexual
assault, rape, robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder, murder, vehicular
manslaughter, or vehicular homicide? (Yes, No)

BARR6 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of any other crimes against people, including
hit and run or harassment? (Yes, No)

BARR7 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a weapon possession crime for carrying a
gun, knife, or other weapon? (Yes, No)

BARR8 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a drug possession crime, including
possession of either drugs or drug paraphernalia? (Yes, No)

BARR9 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a drug sales crime? (Yes, No)

BARR10 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of any other drug crimes, such as
manufacturing, trafficking, or prescription fraud? (Yes, No)

BARR11 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a DWI or DUI crime? (Yes, No)

BARR12 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of a property crime, including burglary,
larceny, auto theft, bad checks, fraud, forgery, or grand theft? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 153

Final Version

BARR13 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) Before your arrest on {arrest
date}, were you ever convicted of prostitution, public order crimes, or
vagrancy? (Yes, No)

Incarceration history
Baseline

BARR14 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges) In your life, have you ever
been locked up in a juvenile detention facility, a juvenile training school, or
in any other kind of juvenile facility because of committing a crime? (Yes,
No)

BARR15 o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges AND R is NOT currently
incarcerated) Not counting your current arrest offense, and not including
any time you may have spent in a juvenile facility, have you ever been in jail
or prison for more than 24 hours at one time? (Yes, No)

BARR15a o (If R was ever arrested or notified of charges AND R is either currently
incarcerated or has been in jail or prison for more than 24 hours) Not
counting your current arrest offense, how many times in your life have you
been sent to prison?

Addiction Severity

Addiction Severity Index

Baseline

BADDSV1 • In the past six months, have you used drugs other than those required for medical
reasons? (Yes, No)

BADDSV2 • In the past six months have you abused prescription drugs? (Yes, No)

BADDSV3 • In the past six months did you abuse more than one drug at a time? (Yes, No)

BADDSV4 • In the past six months did you get through the week without using drugs or alcohol?
(Yes, No)

BADDSV5 • In the past six months, were you always able to stop using drugs or alcohol when you
wanted to? (Yes, No)

BADDSV6 • In the past six months, have you had 'blackouts' or 'flashbacks' as a result of drug or
alcohol use? (Yes, No)

BADDSV7 • In the past six months, did you ever feel bad or guilty about drug or alcohol use?
(Yes, No)

BADDSV8 • In the past six months, did your partner or other family members ever complain

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 154

Final Version

about your involvement with drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

BADDSV9 • In the past six months, has drug or alcohol abuse created problems between you and
your partner or your other family members? (Yes, No)

BADDSV10 • In the past six months, have you lost friends because of use of drugs or alcohol?
(Yes, No)

BADDSV11 • In the past six months, have you neglected your family because of use of drugs or
alcohol? (Yes, No)

BADDSV12 • In the past six months, have you been in trouble at work because of use of drugs or
alcohol?46 (Yes, No)

BADDSV13 • In the past six months, have you lost a job because of drug or alcohol abuse? (Yes,
No)

BADDSV14 • In the past six months, have you gotten into fights when under the influence of drugs
or alcohol? (Yes, No)

BADDSV15 • In the past six months, have you engaged in illegal activities in order to obtain drugs
or alcohol? (Yes, No)

BADDSV16 • In the past six months, have you been arrested for possession of illegal drugs? (Yes,
No)

BADDSV17 • In the past six months, have you experienced withdrawal symptoms, such as feeling
sick, when you stopped taking drugs or drinking alcohol. Would you say…(Yes; No,
I haven’t experienced withdrawal in the past 6 months because I have continued to
use; No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal in the past 6 months because I hadn’t used
drugs or alcohol during that time; No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal when I
stopped using in the past 6 months; No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal in the past
6 months because it is medically managed)

BADDSV18 • In the past six months, have you had medical problems, such as memory loss,
convulsions, bleeding, hepatitis, or any other medical problems, as a result of drug or
alcohol use? (Yes, No)

BADDSV19 • In the past six months, have you gone to anyone for help for a drug or alcohol
problem (Yes, No)

BADDSV20 • In the past six months, have you been involved in a treatment program especially
related to drug or alcohol use? (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

_ADDSV1 • Since your last interview, have you used drugs other than those required for medical
reasons? (Yes, No)

46
Until 11/30/05,BADDSV12-13 were only asked of respondents who had worked a job during the past 6 months.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 155

Final Version

_ADDSV2 • Since your last interview have you abused prescription drugs? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV3 • Since your last interview did you abuse more than one drug at a time? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV4 • Since your last interview did you get through the week without using drugs or
alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV5 • Since your last interview, were you always able to stop using drugs or alcohol when
you wanted to? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV6 • Since your last interview, have you had 'blackouts' or 'flashbacks' as a result of drug
or alcohol use? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV7 • Since your last interview, did you ever feel bad or guilty about drug or alcohol use?
(Yes, No)

_ADDSV8 • Since your last interview, did your partner or other family members ever complain
about your involvement with drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV9 • Since your last interview, has drug or alcohol abuse created problems between you
and your partner or your other family members? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV10 • Since your last interview, have you lost friends because of use of drugs or alcohol?
(Yes, No)

_ADDSV11 • Since your last interview, have you neglected your family because of use of drugs or
alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV12 • Since your last interview, have you been in trouble at work because of use of drugs
or alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV13 • Since your last interview, have you lost a job because of drug or alcohol abuse?
(Yes, No)

_ADDSV14 • Since your last interview, have you gotten into fights when under the influence of
drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV15 • Since your last interview, have you engaged in illegal activities in order to obtain
drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV16 • Since your last interview, have you been arrested for possession of illegal drugs?
(Yes, No)

_ADDSV17 • Since your last interview, have you experienced withdrawal symptoms, such as
feeling sick, when you stopped taking drugs or drinking alcohol. Would you
say…(Yes; No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal because I have continued to use;
No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal because I hadn’t used drugs or alcohol during
that time; No, I haven’t experienced withdrawal when I stopped using; No, I haven’t
experienced withdrawal because it is medically managed)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 156

Final Version

_ADDSV18 • Since your last interview, have you had medical problems, such as memory loss,
convulsions, bleeding, hepatitis, or any other medical problems, as a result of drug or
alcohol use? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV19 • Since your last interview, have you gone to anyone for help for a drug or alcohol
problem (Yes, No)

_ADDSV20 • Since your last interview, have you been involved in a treatment program especially
related to drug or alcohol use? (Yes, No)
Primary Drug
_ADDSV21 6 month47/18 month

• Thinking back to the year before your arrest on {fill}, which of the following was
your primary drug? (Alcohol of Hashish, Marijuana, Powder cocaine, Crack
cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine, Other amphetamines, Hallucinogens,
Prescription medication, Methadone, UNABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 2 OR
MORE DRUGS, R INSISTS THAT HE/SHE WAS NOT USING DURING YEAR
BEFORE ARREST, If R is unable to choose between 2 or more drugs, other is
specified in _ADDSV21a)

_ADDSV22 • Thinking about the drugs that you have used, which of the following is currently
your primary drug? (Alcohol of Hashish, Marijuana, Powder cocaine, Crack
cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine, Other amphetamines, Hallucinogens,
Prescription medication, Methadone, UNABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 2 OR
MORE DRUGS, R INSISTS THAT HE/SHE IS NOT USING, If R is unable to
choose between 2 or more drugs, other is specified in _ADDSV22a)

_ADDSV23 • Have you ever used cocaine at least once in your life? (Yes, No)

_ADDSV24 • (If yes) Did you usually use crack, powder, or did you use them both equally?
(Crack, Powder, Both)

Treatment Motivation

Treatment motivation—problem recognition

Baseline/6 month/18 month

Please listen to the following statements and indicate the answer that best describes you
or the way you have been feeling in the past 30 days. Please tell me if these statements
never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always apply:

_TREMO1 • Your drug or alcohol use has been a problem for you. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

47
In the 6 month interview, these items were not added until February 2006 (1/3 of the way through the 6 month
period).

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 157

Final Version

_TREMO1A • Your drug or alcohol use has been more trouble than it is worth. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1B • Your drug or alcohol use has been causing problems with the law. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1C • Your drug or alcohol use has been causing problems in thinking or doing your work.
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1D • Your drug or alcohol use has been causing problems with family or friends. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1E • (If person NOT incarcerated for the whole six months before baseline or time since
last interview) Your drug or alcohol use has been causing problems finding or
keeping a job. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1F • Your drug or alcohol use has been causing problems with your health. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1G • Your drug or alcohol use has been making your life worse and worse. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1H • Your drug or alcohol use is going to cause your death if you do not quit soon.
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

Treatment motivation—desire for help

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_TREMO1I • You need help in dealing with your drug or alcohol use. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO1L • It is urgent that you find help immediately for your drug or alcohol use. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1N • You are tired of the problems caused by drugs or alcohol. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1O • You will give up your friends and hangouts to solve your drug or alcohol problems.
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1Q • You can quit using drugs or alcohol without any help. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO1R • Your life has gone out of control. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1T • You want to get your life straightened out. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often,
Always)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 158

Final Version

Treatment motivation—treatment readiness

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_TREMO1J • You have too many outside responsibilities now to be in a treatment program.
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1K • Treatment programs seem too demanding for you. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO1M • Treatment may be your last chance to solve your drug or alcohol problems. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1P • Treatment programs will not be very helpful to you. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO1S • Treatment programs can really help you. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1U • You want to be in a drug or alcohol treatment program. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

Treatment motivation—external pressure

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_TREMO1V • (If person NOT incarcerated for the whole six months before baseline or time since
last interview) You could be sent to jail or prison if you are not in treatment. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1W • You feel a lot of pressure to be in treatment. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often,
Always)

_TREMO1X • You have legal problems that require you to be in treatment. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO1Y • You are concerned about legal problems. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often,
Always)

_TREMO1Z • You have family members who want you to be in treatment. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

Treatment eagerness—problem recognition

_TREMO4 • You really want to make changes in your drinking or drug use. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4B • If you don’t change your drinking or drug use soon, your problems are going to get
worse. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4F • You are a problem drinker(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4I • You have serious problems with drinking or drug use(Never, Rarely, Sometimes,

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 159

Final Version

Often, Always)

_TREMO4K • Your drinking or drug use is causing a lot of harm. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO4N • You know that you have a drinking or drug problem (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
Often, Always)

_TREMO4P • You are an alcoholic or addict (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

Treatment eagerness—ambivalence
_TREMO4A • Sometimes you wonder if you are an alcoholic or drug addict. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4E • Sometimes you wonder if your drinking or drug use is hurting other people. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4J • Sometimes you wonder if you are in control of your drinking or drug use. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4O • There are times when you wonder if you drink or use too much. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

Treatment eagerness—taking steps

_TREMO4C • You have already started making some changes in your drinking or drug use. (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4D • You were drinking or using too much at one time, but you’ve managed to change
your drinking or drug habits.: (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4G • You’re not just thinking about changing your drinking or drug habit, you’re already
doing something about it. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4H • You have already changed your drinking or drug use, and you are looking for ways
to keep from slipping back into your old pattern. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often,
Always)

_TREMO4L • You are actively doing things now to cut down or stop drinking or using drugs.
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4M • You want help to keep from going back to the drinking or drug problems that you
had before. (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4Q • You are working hard to change your drinking or drug use. (Never, Rarely,
Sometimes, Often, Always)

_TREMO4R • You have made some changes to your drinking or drug habits, and you want some
help to keep from going back to the way you used to drink or use drugs (Never,
Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 160

Final Version

Deterrence, Likelihood, Severity of Sanctions

Deterrence, likelihood, and severity of sanctions for rule violations

Baseline/6 month/18 month

This domain only asked of baseline R’s who have been under supervision at some
point during the past six months or who were preloaded as drug court
participants and follow up R’s who have been under supervision at some point
since the last interview OR who self-reported current drug court participation
during their baseline interview.

_RULES4 • Now I'd like to talk about what you think would happen to you if you used drugs
while under supervision. If you were to use drugs while under supervision of the
court, how likely do you think it is that the judge or your {supervision officer} would
find out? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5 • If the judge or your {supervision officer} thought you were using drugs, how likely
do you think it is that one of them would:
o Increase drug testing or treatment requirements for you? (Very likely,
Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5A o Increase the number of times you have to meet with them or add other
supervision requirements? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5B o Give you community service, a writing assignment, or make you sit in the
jury box to observe court proceedings? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5C o Give you a formal warning in writing? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5D o Give you an informal verbal warning? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5E o Give you electronic monitoring? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5F o Require you to attend day reporting? Day reporting is when someone has to
report to a supervision officer or facility on a daily basis. (Very likely,
Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5G o Put you on house arrest or community control? (Very likely, Somewhat
likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5H o Give you a few days in jail? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 161

Final Version

unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5I o Give you a long time in jail or send you to prison? (Very likely, Somewhat
likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES5J o (For baseline R’s preloaded as drug court participant and follow-up R’s
who self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current
interview) Demote you to a previous phase of drug court or return you to the
beginning of a phase in drug court? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES7 • Now I’d like to ask what you think would happen to you if you failed to keep
appointments, skips drug tests, or failed to attend drug treatment as required while on
supervision. If you failed to keep appointments, skipped drug tests, or failed to
attend drug treatment as required, how likely do you think it is that the judge or your
{supervision officer} would find out? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11 • If the judge or your {supervision officer} thought you had failed to keep
appointments, skipped drug tests, or failed to attend drug treatment as required, how
likely do you think it is that one of them would:
o Increase drug testing or treatment requirements for you? (Very likely,
Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11A o Increase the number of times you have to meet with them or add other
supervision requirements? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11B o Give you community service, a writing assignment, or make you sit in the
jury box to observe court proceedings? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11C o Give you a formal warning in writing? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11D o Give you an informal verbal warning? (Very likely, Somewhat likely,
Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11E o Give you electronic monitoring? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11F o Require you to attend day reporting? Day reporting is when someone has to
report to a supervision officer or facility on a daily basis. (Very likely,
Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11G o Put you on house arrest or community control? (Very likely, Somewhat
likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11H o Give you a few days in jail? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat
unlikely, Very unlikely)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 162

Final Version

_RULES11I o Give you a long time in jail or send you to prison? (Very likely, Somewhat
likely, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely)

_RULES11J o (For baseline R’s preloaded as drug court participant and follow up R’s who
self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current interview)
Demote you to a previous phase of drug court or return you to the beginning
of a phase in drug court? (Very likely, Somewhat likely, Somewhat unlikely,
Very unlikely)

Substance Use History

Substance use history and current use

Baseline

BSUC1 • Have you ever had a drink of any type of alcoholic beverage? (Yes, No)

BSUC1A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you drank alcohol?

BSUC1B o (If yes) Have you ever drunk alcohol on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC1C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to drink alcohol on a
regular basis?

BSUC1D o (If yes) Did you drink alcohol at any point during the past six months, that is,
since {fill date}? (Yes, No)

BSUC1E • (If yes) Did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks of
alcoholic beverages in a single day at any point during the past six
months? (Yes, No)

BSUC2 • I’m going to ask you about your use of prescription drugs. Have you ever used the
following medicines without a prescription or for other reasons than were
prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered:
sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, pain relievers opiates, or anabolic steroids? (Yes,
No)

BSUC2A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used one of these medicines
without a prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger
amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered?

BSUC2B o (If yes) Have you ever used one of these medicines without a prescription or
for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often
than your doctor ordered on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC2C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use one of these
medicines without a prescription or for other reasons than were
prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor
ordered on a regular basis?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 163

Final Version

BSUC2D o (If yes) Did you use one of these medicines without a prescription or for
other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than
your doctor ordered during the past six months? (Yes, No)

BSUC7 • Have you ever used Methadone without a prescription or for other reasons than
were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered? (Yes,
No)

BSUC7A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used methadone without a
prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts,
or more often than your doctor ordered?

BSUC7B o (If yes) Have you ever used methadone without a prescription or for other
reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your
doctor ordered on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC7C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use methadone
without a prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or
in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered on a
regular basis?

BSUC7D o (If yes) Did you use methadone without a prescription or for other reasons
than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor
ordered at any point during the past six months? (Yes, No)

BSUC9 • Have you ever used marijuana or hashish at least once in your life? (Yes, No)

BSUC9A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used marijuana?

BSUC9B o (If yes) Have you ever used marijuana on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC9C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use marijuana on a
regular basis?

BSUC9D o (If yes) Did you use marijuana at any point during the past six months? (Yes,
No)

BSUC10 • Have you ever used hallucinogens or designer drugs, such as ecstasy, LSD or acid,
mushrooms, Mescaline, Peyote, Green, PCP, or Angel Dust at least once in your
life?" (Yes, No)

BSUC10A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used hallucinogens or designer
drugs?

BSUC10B o (If yes) Have you ever used hallucinogens or designer drugs on a regular
basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC10C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use hallucinogens or
designer drugs on a regular basis?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 164

Final Version

BSUC10D o (If yes) Did you use hallucinogens or designer drugs at any point during the
past six months? (Yes, No)

BSUC11 • Have you ever used cocaine at least once in your life? This includes all forms of
cocaine such as powder cocaine, crack cocaine, free base, or coca paste.

BSUC11A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used cocaine?

BSUC11B o (If yes) Have you ever used cocaine on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC11C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use cocaine on a
regular basis?

BSUC11D o (If yes) Did you use cocaine at any point during the past six months? (Yes,
No)

BUSC11E • (If yes) Do you usually use…? (Crack, Powder, Or do you use them
both equally)

BSUC12 • Have you ever used heroin at least once in your life? This includes smoking,
sniffing, snorting, and injecting heroin. (Yes, No)

BSUC12A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used heroin?

BSUC12B o (If yes) Have you ever used heroin on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC12C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use heroin on a
regular basis?

BSUC12D o (If yes) Did you use heroin at any point during the past six months? (Yes,
No)

BSUC13 • Have you ever used amphetamines, such as monster, crank, Methamphetamine, or
Ice, at least once in your life? (Yes, No)

BSUC13A o (If yes) How old were you the first time you used amphetamines?

BSUC13B o (If yes) Have you ever used amphetamines on a regular basis? (Yes, No)

BSUC13C • (If yes) How old were you when you began to use amphetamines on
a regular basis?

BSUC13D o (If yes) Did you use amphetamines at any point during the past six months?
(Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 165

Final Version

_SUC1D • Did you drink alcohol at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_SUC1E o (If yes) Did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks of
alcoholic beverages in a single day at any point since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

Now I’m going to ask about your use of prescription drugs including sedatives,
tranquilizers, stimulants, pain relievers, opiates, or anabolic steroids.

_SUC2D • Did you use one of these medicines without a prescription or for other reasons than
were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered since
your last interview? (Yes, No)

_SUC7D • Did you use methadone without a prescription or for other reasons than were
prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered at any since
your last interview? (Yes, No)

_SUC9D • Did you use marijuana or hashish at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_SUC10D • Did you use hallucinogens or designer drugs such as ecstasy, LSD or acid,
mushrooms, Mescaline, Peyote, Green, PCP, or Angel Dust at any point since your
last interview? (Yes, No)

_SUC11D • Did you use cocaine at any point since your last interview? This includes all forms of
cocaine such as powder cocaine, crack cocaine, free base, or coca paste? (Yes, No)

_SUC11E o (If yes) Do you usually use…? (Crack, Powder, Or do you use them both
equally)

_SUC12D • Did you use heroin at any point since your last interview? This includes smoking,
sniffing, snorting, and injecting. (Yes, No)

_SUC13D • Did you use amphetamines such as monster, crank, Methamphetamine, or Ice at any
point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

Calendering of substance use

Baseline

BSUC15 • (If R drank alcohol at any point during the past 6 months) In which of the past six
months did you drink alcohol?

BSUC15A1 o About how often, on average, did you drink alcohol in {1st month}? (Every
day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

BSUC15A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC15A1 through BSUC15A1A repeated in BSUC15a2–BSUC15a12a for each month

R drank alcohol during previous 6 months.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 166

Final Version

BSUC16 • (If R had five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks of alcoholic beverages in a
single day at any point during the past six months) In which of the past six months
did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks in a single day?

BSUC16A1 o About how often, on average, did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or
more drinks in a single day in {1st month}? }? (Every day, A few days per
week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

BSUC16A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC16A1 through BSUC16A1A repeated in BSUC16a2–BSUC16a12a for each month

R drank 5 or more (if male) or 4 or more (if female) alcoholic beverages during previous
6 months.

BSUC17 • (If R used prescription drugs in the past 6 months) In which of the past six months
did you use prescription drugs such as those listed on this card without a
prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more
often than our doctor ordered?

BSUC17A1 o About how often, on average, did you use prescription drugs such as those
listed on this card without a prescription or for other reasons than were
prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than our doctor ordered in
{1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per
month, Once)

BSUC17A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC17A1 through BSUC17A1A repeated in BSUC17a2–BSUC17a12a for each month

R used prescription drugs during previous 6 months.

BSUC22 • (If R used methadone in past 6 months) In which of the past six months did you use
methadone without a prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in
larger amounts, or more often than your doctor ordered?

BSUC22A1 o About how often, on average, did you use Methadone without a prescription
or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often
than your doctor ordered in {1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week
but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

BSUC22A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC22A1 through BSUC22A1A repeated in BSUC22a2–BSUC22a12a for each month

R used methadone during previous 6 months.

BSUC24 • (If R used marijuana at any point during the past 6 months) In which of the past six
months did you use marijuana or hashish?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 167

Final Version

BSUC24A1 o About how often, on average, did you use marijuana, or hashish in {1st
month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per
month, Once)
BSUC24A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC24A1 through BSUC24A1A repeated in BSUC24a2–BSUC24a12a for each month

R used marijuana or hashish during previous 6 months.

BSUC25 • (If R used hallucinogens or designer drugs at any point during the past 6 months) In
which of the past six months did you use hallucinogens or designer drugs, such as
LSD, or acid, mushrooms, Mescaline, peyote, green PCP, or Angel Dust?

BSUC25A1 o About how often, on average, did you use hallucinogens or designer drugs
in {1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days
per month, Once)

BSUC25A1A o "Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC25A1 through BSUC25A1A repeated in BSUC25a2–BSUC25a12a for each month

R used hallucinogens or designer drugs during previous 6 months.

BSUC26 • (If R used cocaine at any point during the past 6 months) In which of the past six
months did you use cocaine?

BSUC26A1 o About how often, on average, did you use cocaine in {1st month}? (Every
day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

BSUC26A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC26A1 through BSUC26A1A repeated in BSUC26a2–BSUC26a12a for each month

R used cocaine during previous 6 months.

BSUC27 • (If R used heroin at any point during the past 6 months) In which of the past six
months did you use heroin?

BSUC27A1 o About how often, on average, did you use heroin in {1st month}? (Every
day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

BSUC27A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC27A1 through BSUC27A1A repeated in BSUC27a2–BSUC27a12a for each month

R used heroin during previous 6 months.

BSUC28 • (If R used amphetamines at any point during the past 6 months) In which of the past
six months did you use amphetamines?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 168

Final Version

BSUC28A1 o About how often, on average, did you use amphetamines in {1st month}?
(Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month,
Once)

BSUC28A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC28A1 through BSUC28A1A repeated in BSUC28a2–BSUC28a12a for each month

R used amphetamines during previous 6 months.

6 month/18 month

_SUC15 • (If R drank alcohol at any point since last interview) In which of the months since
your last interview did you drink alcohol?

_SUC15A1 o About how often, on average, did you drink alcohol in {1st month}? (Every
day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

_SUC15A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC15A1 through _SUC15A1A repeated in _SUC15a2–SUC15a12a for each month R

drank alcohol since last interview.

_SUC16 • (If R had five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks of alcoholic beverages in a
single day at any point since last interview) In which of the months since your last
interview did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or more drinks in a single day?

_SUC16A1 o About how often, on average, did you have five (if male)/four (if female) or
more drinks in a single day in {1st month}? }? (Every day, A few days per
week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

_SUC16A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC16A1 through _SUC16A1A repeated in SUC16a2–SUC16a12a for each month R

drank 5 or more (if male) or 4 or more (if female) alcoholic beverages since last
interview.

_SUC17 • (If R used prescription drugs at any point since last interview) In which of the
months since your last interview did you use prescription drugs such as those listed
on this card without a prescription or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in
larger amounts, or more often than our doctor ordered?

_SUC17A1 o About how often, on average, did you use prescription drugs such as those
listed on this card without a prescription or for other reasons than were
prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than our doctor ordered in
{1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per
month, Once)

_SUC17A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 169

Final Version

this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC17A1 through _SUC17A1A repeated in _SUC17a2–SUC17a12a for each month R

used prescription drugs since last interview.

_SUC22 • (If R used methadone at any point since last interview) In which of the months since
your last interview did you use methadone without a prescription or for other
reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often than your doctor
ordered?

_SUC22A1 o About how often, on average, did you use Methadone without a prescription
or for other reasons than were prescribed, or in larger amounts, or more often
than your doctor ordered in {1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week
but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

_SUC22A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC22A1 through _SUC22A1A repeated in _SUC22a2–_SUC22a12a for each month R

used methadone.

_SUC24 • (If R used marijuana at any point since last interview) In which of the months since
your last interview did you use marijuana or hashish?

_SUC24A1 o About how often, on average, did you use marijuana, or hashish in {1st
month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per
month, Once)
_SUC24A1A o (If R was in jail more than one but less than 28 days during 1st month) Did
this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC24A1 through _SUC24A1A repeated in _SUC24a2–_SUC24a12a for each month R

used marijuana or hashish since last interview.

_SUC25 • (If R used hallucinogens or designer drugs at any point since last interview) In
which of the months since your last interview did you use hallucinogens or
designer drugs, such as LSD, or acid, mushrooms, Mescaline, peyote, green PCP, or
Angel Dust?

_SUC25A1 o About how often, on average, did you use hallucinogens or designer drugs
in {1st month}? (Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days
per month, Once)

_SUC25A1A o "Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC25A1 through _SUC25A1A repeated in _SUC25a2–_SUC25a12a for each month R

used hallucinogens or designer drugs since last interview.

_SUC26 • (If R used cocaine at any point since last interview) In which of the months since
your last interview did you use cocaine?
_SUC26A1 o About how often, on average, did you use cocaine in {1st month}? (Every

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 170

Final Version

day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

_SUC26A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC26A1 through _SUC26A1A repeated in _SUC26a2–_SUC26a12a for each month R

used cocaine since last interview.

_SUC27 • (If R used heroin at any point since last interview) In which of the months since your
last interview did you use heroin?

_SUC27A1 o About how often, on average, did you use heroin in {1st month}? (Every
day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month, Once)

_SUC27A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC27A1 through _SUC27A1A repeated in _SUC27a2–_SUC27a12a for each month R

used heroin since last interview.

_SUC28 • (If R used amphetamines at any point since last interview) In which of the months
since your last interview did you use amphetamines?

_SUC28A1 o About how often, on average, did you use amphetamines in {1st month}?
(Every day, A few days per week but not daily, A few days per month,
Once)

_SUC28A1A o Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC28A1 through _SUC28A1A repeated in _SUC28a2–_SUC28a12a for each month R

used amphetamines since last interview.

Drug use during current offense

Baseline

BSUC30 • Were you under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of your arrest? We
are referring to the arrest on {arrest date} (Yes, No)

Needle use
Baseline

BSUC31 • At any point during the past six months have you used a needle to get any drug
injected under your skin, into a muscle, or into a vein for non-medical reasons? (Yes,
No)

BSUC31A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you use a needle to get any drug
injected under your skin, into a muscle, or into a vein for non-medical
reasons?

BSUC31A1 • During {1st month}, did you use a needle or works that had been
used by someone else for injecting drugs? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 171

Final Version

BSUC31A1A • (If yes) When you used a needle or works that someone else
had used first, what did you do most of the time before using
the needles or works to shoot up? Did you…(Use them
without cleaning them with anything, Clean them only with
tap water, Clean them with bleach and tap water, Clean only
with alcohol and water, Clean only with peroxide and water,
Clean only in boiling water, Clean some other way)

BSUC31A1B • (If yes AND number of days in jail or prison during month
was less than 28 and greater than 0) Did this happen while
you were incarcerated, while you were on the street, or
both? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSUC31A1 through BSUC31A1B repeated in BSUC31a2–BSUC31a12b for each month

R used needles during previous 6 months.

6 month/18 month

_SUC31 • At any point since your last interview have you used a needle to get any drug
injected under your skin, into a muscle, or into a vein for non-medical reasons? (Yes,
No)

_SUC31A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you use a needle
to get any drug injected under your skin, into a muscle, or into a vein for
non-medical reasons?

_SUC31A1 • During {1st month}, did you use a needle or works that had been
used by someone else for injecting drugs? (Yes, No)

_SUC31A1A • (If yes) When you used a needle or works that someone else
had used first, what did you do most of the time before using
the needles or works to shoot up? Did you…(Use them
without cleaning them with anything, Clean them only with
tap water, Clean them with bleach and tap water, Clean only
with alcohol and water, Clean only with peroxide and water,
Clean only in boiling water, Clean some other way)

_SUC31A1B • (If yes AND number of days in jail or prison during month
was less than 28 and greater than 0) Did this happen while
you were incarcerated, while you were on the street, or
both? (Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SUC31A1 through _SUC31A1B repeated in _SUC31a2–_SUC31a12b for each month R

used a needle to get any drug injected under skin, into a muscle, or into a vein for non-
medical reasons since last interview.

Drug tests/breathalyzers
Baseline

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 172

Final Version

BSUC32 • At any point during the past six months, have you breathed into a breathalyzer to test
for alcohol? (Yes, No)

BSUC32A o (If Yes) In which of the past six months did you breathe into a breathalyzer to
test for alcohol?

BSUC32A1 • How many times did you breathe into a breathalyzer during {1st
month}?

BSUC32A1A • (If >0) How many breathalyzer tests were positive during
{1st month}?

BSUC32A1B • (If number of days in jail or prison during month was less than 28
and greater than 0) Were you breathalyzed while you were
incarcerated, while you were on the street, or both? (Incarcerated,
On the street, Or both)

BSUC32A1 through BSUC32A1B repeated in BSUC32a2–BSUC32A12b for each month

R breathed into a breathalyzer to test for alcohol during previous 6 months.

BSUC33 • At any point during the past six months, were you tested for drugs other than
alcohol? (Yes, No)

BSUC33A o (If yes) In which of the past six months were you tested for drugs other than
alcohol?

BSUC33A1 • How many times were you tested for drugs other than alcohol during
{1st month}?

BSUC33A1A • (If >0) How many drug tests were positive during {1st
month}?

BSUC33A1B • (If number of days in jail or prison during month was less than 28
and greater than 0) Were you given these drug tests while you were
incarcerated, while you were on the street, or both? (Incarcerated,
On the street, Or both)

BSUC33A1 through BSUC33A1B repeated in BSUC33a2–BSUC33a12a for each month

R tested for drugs other than alcohol during previous 6 months.

6 month/18 month

_SUC32 • At any point since your last interview, have you breathed into a breathalyzer to test
for alcohol? (Yes, No)

_SUC32A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you breathe into
a breathalyzer to test for alcohol?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 173

Final Version

_SUC32A1 • How many times did you breathe into a breathalyzer during {1st
month}?

_SUC32A1A • (If >0) How many breathalyzer tests were positive during
{1st month}?

_SUC32A1B • (If number of days in jail or prison during month was less than 28
and greater than 0) Were you breathalyzed while you were
incarcerated, while you were on the street, or both? (Incarcerated,
On the street, Or both)

_SUC32A1 through _SUC32A1B repeated in _SUC32a2–_SUC32a12b for each month R

breathed into a breathalyzer to test for alcohol since last interview.

_SUC33 • At any point since your last interview, were you tested for drugs other than alcohol?
(Yes, No)

_SUC33A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview were you tested for
drugs other than alcohol?

_SUC33A1 • How many times were you tested for drugs other than alcohol during
{1st month}?

_SUC33A1A • (If >0) How many drug tests were positive during {1st
month}?

_SUC33A1B • (If number of days in jail or prison during month was less than 28
and greater than 0) Were you given these drug tests while you were
incarcerated, while you were on the street, or both? (Incarcerated,
On the street, Or both)

_SUC33A1 through _SUC33A1B repeated in _SUC33a2–_SUC33a12b for each month R

tested for drugs other than alcohol since last interview.

Stage of change
Baseline/6 month/18 month

_SUC34A • (If R reported using any drugs in the current or previous month) Do you plan to quit
using all drugs that have not been specifically prescribed by your doctor in the next 6
months? (Yes, No)

_SUC34 • (If R reported using any drugs in the current or previous month) Do you plan to quit
using all drugs that have not been specifically prescribed by your doctor in the next
30 days? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 174

Final Version

Substance Abuse Treatment

Substance abuse treatment

Baseline
BSAT1 • At any point during the past six months have you received any drug or alcohol
treatment such as residential treatment, individual counseling, group counseling or
other types of activities, or participated in self-help groups to help you stop using
drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

BSAT2 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you go to the emergency room for
drug or alcohol treatment By this we mean times you went to the emergency
room or ER for emergency services, not times you may have gone into a
hospital for detoxification, outpatient treatment, or self-help groups. (Yes, No)

BSAT2A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you go to the emergency
room for drug or alcohol treatment?

BSAT2A1 • How many days did you go to the emergency room for drug
or alcohol treatment during {1st month}?

BSAT2B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT2A1 and BSAT2B1 repeated in BSAT2a2–BSAT2b12 for each month R went to the
emergency room for drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months.

BSAT3 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you have a hospital stay for
detoxification—or detox—to stabilize your mood and behavior? Detox may
be a program lasting between 2 and 14 days. (Yes, No)

BSAT3A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you have a hospital stay
for detox—to stabilize your mood and behavior?

BSAT3A1 • How many days did you have a hospital stay for detox –to
stabilize your mood and behavior during {1st month}?

BSAT3B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT3A1 and BSAT3B1 repeated in BSAT3a2–BSAT3b12 for each month R had a

hospital stay for detox during the past six months.

BSAT4 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, were you in a residential drug or
alcohol treatment program? A residential drug or alcohol treatment program

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 175

Final Version

is a place where a person lives away from home and services are intended to
last at least a couple weeks but may last for several weeks or months. (Yes,
No)

BSAT4A • (If yes) In which of the past six months were you in residential drug
or alcohol treatment?

BSAT4A1 • How many days were you in residential drug or alcohol

treatment during {1st month}?

BSAT4B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT4A1 and BSAT4B1 repeated in BSAT4a2–BSAT4b12 for each month R had

residential drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months.

BSAT5 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you have medicinal interventions to
treat alcohol or drug abuse such as methadone maintenance, Naltrexone, or
Buprenorphine? (Yes, No)

BSAT5A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you have a medicinal
intervention?

BSAT5A1 • How many days did you have a medicinal intervention

during {1st month}?

BSAT5B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT5A1 and BSAT5B1 repeated in BSAT5a2–BSAT5b12 for each month R had a

medical intervention during the past six months.

BSAT6 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you have outpatient group
counseling for substance abuse treatment? This does not include self-help
groups such as AA or NA. (Yes, No)

BSAT6A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you have outpatient
group counseling?

BSAT6A1 • How many days did you have outpatient group counseling
during {1st month}?

BSAT6B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 176

Final Version

BSAT6A1 and BSAT6B1 repeated in BSAT6a2–BSAT6b12 for each month R had any
outpatient group counseling during the past six months.

BSAT7 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you have outpatient individual
counseling for substance abuse treatment? This does not include advice from
peer sponsors. (Yes, No)

BSAT7A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you have outpatient
group counseling?

BSAT7A1 • How many days did you have outpatient individual

counseling during {1st month}?

BSAT7B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT7A1 and BSAT7B1 repeated in BSAT7a2–BSAT7b12 for each month R had any
outpatient individual counseling during the past six months.

BSAT8 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you participate in any self help
groups such as alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous, often known
as AA or NA? (Yes, No)

BSAT8A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you participate in AA or
NA?

BSAT8A1 • How many days did you participate in AA or NA during {1st

month}?

BSAT8A1A • How often did you have contact with your peer SPONSOR?
(Every day, A few days per week but not every day, Once a
week, A few days per month, One time per month, Never,
Not applicable- does not have a peer sponsor)

BSAT8B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did you participate in AA or NA while you were …?
(Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

BSAT8A1 through BSAT8B1 repeated in BSAT8a2–BSAT8b12 for each month R

participated in AA or NA during the past six months.

BSAT9 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you participate in any alternative
approaches to alcohol and drug treatment, such as acupuncture, meditation,
or biofeedback? (Yes, No)

BSAT9A • (If yes) In which of the past six months did you participate in

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 177

Final Version

alternative approaches to alcohol and drug treatment?

BSAT9A1 • How many days did you participate in alternative

approaches to alcohol and drug treatment during {1st
month}?

BSAT9B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

BSAT9A1 and BSAT9B1 repeated in BSAT9a2–BSAT9b12 for each month R participated

in any alternative approaches to alcohol and drug treatment during the past six months.

BSAT10 • Not counting the past six months, at any point in your life, were you ever enrolled in
substance abuse treatment for alcohol or drug abuse? For this question we do not
mean self-help groups such as AA or NA. (Yes, No)

BSAT10A o (If yes) How many times did you previously enroll in substance abuse
treatment programs?

BSAT11 • Not counting the past six months, at any point in your life, did you participate in self-
help groups such as AA or NA for help with alcohol or drug abuse problems? (Yes,
No)

BSAT11A o (If yes) Not counting the past six months, how many times in your life did
you start attending self-help groups? By this we do not mean the actual
number of meetings you attended during that period in your life, but the
number of times you felt the need to start attending meetings and began to
do so?

6 month/18 month
_SAT1 • At any point since your last interview have you received any drug or alcohol
treatment such as residential treatment, individual counseling, group counseling or
other types of activities, or participated in self-help groups to help you stop using
drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

_SAT2 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) Since your
last interview did you go to the emergency room for drug or alcohol
treatment? By this we mean times you went to the emergency room or ER for
emergency services, not times you may have gone into a hospital for
detoxification, outpatient treatment, or self-help groups. (Yes, No)

_SAT2A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you go to
the emergency room for drug or alcohol treatment?

_SAT2A1 • How many days did you go to the emergency room for drug
or alcohol treatment during {1st month}?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 178

Final Version

_SAT2B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT2A1 and _SAT2B1 repeated in _SAT2a2–_SAT2b12 for each month R went to the
emergency room for drug or alcohol treatment since last interview.

_SAT3 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you have a hospital stay for
detoxification—or detox—to stabilize your mood and behavior? Detox may
be a program lasting between 2 and 14 days. (Yes, No)

_SAT3A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you
have a hospital stay for detox –to stabilize your mood and behavior?

_SAT3A1 • How many days did you have a hospital stay for detox –to
stabilize your mood and behavior during {1st month}?

_SAT3B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT3A1 and _SAT3B1 repeated in _SAT3a2–_SAT3b12 for each month R had a

hospital stay for detox since last interview.

_SAT4 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, were you in a residential drug or alcohol
treatment program? A residential drug or alcohol treatment program is a
place where a person lives away from home and services are intended to last
at least a couple weeks but may last for several weeks or months. (Yes, No)

_SAT4A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview were you in
residential drug or alcohol treatment?

_SAT4A1 • How many days were you in residential drug or alcohol

treatment during {1st month}?

_SAT4B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT4A1 and _SAT4B1 repeated in _SAT4a2–_SAT4b12 for each month R had

residential drug or alcohol treatment since last interview.

_SAT5 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you have medicinal interventions to treat
alcohol or drug abuse such as methadone maintenance, Naltrexone, or
Buprenorphine? (Yes, No)

_SAT5A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 179

Final Version

have a medicinal intervention?

_SAT5A1 • How many days did you have a medicinal intervention

during {1st month}?

_SAT5B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT5A1 and _SAT5B1 repeated in _SAT5a2–_SAT5b12 for each month R had a

medical intervention since last interview.

_SAT6 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you have outpatient group counseling for
substance abuse treatment? This does not include self-help groups such as
AA or NA. (Yes, No)

_SAT6A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you
have outpatient group counseling?

_SAT6A1 • How many days did you have outpatient group counseling
during {1st month}?

_SAT6B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT6A1 and_SSAT6B1 repeated in _SAT6a2–_SAT6b12 for each month R had any

outpatient group counseling since last interview.

_SAT7 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you have outpatient individual counseling
for substance abuse treatment? This does not include advice from peer
sponsors. (Yes, No)

_SAT7A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you
have outpatient group counseling?

_SAT7A1 • How many days did you have outpatient individual

counseling during {1st month}?

_SAT7B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT7A1 and _SAT7B1 repeated in _SAT7a2–SAT7b12 for each month R had any
outpatient individual counseling since last interview.

_SAT8 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you participate in any self-help groups

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 180

Final Version

such as alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous, often known as AA

or NA? (Yes, No)

_SAT8A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you
participate in AA or NA?

_SAT8A1 • How many days did you participate in AA or NA during {1st

month}?

_SAT8A1A • How often did you have contact with your peer SPONSOR?
(Every day, A few days per week but not every day, Once a
week, A few days per month, One time per month, Never,
Not applicable- does not have a peer sponsor)

_SAT8B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did you participate in AA or NA while you were …?
(Incarcerated, On the street, Or both)

_SAT8A1 through _SAT8B1 repeated in _SAT8a2–_SAT8b12 for each month R

participated in AA or NA since last interview.

_SAT9 o (If R received any drug or alcohol treatment since last interview) At any
point since your last interview, did you participate in any alternative
approaches to alcohol and drug treatment, such as acupuncture, meditation,
or biofeedback? (Yes, No)

_SAT9A • (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you
participate in alternative approaches to alcohol and drug treatment?

_SAT9A1 • How many days did you participate in alternative

approaches to alcohol and drug treatment during {1st
month}?

_SAT9B1 • (If R in jail or prison greater than zero but less than 28
days) Did this happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On
the street, Or both)

_SAT9A1 and _SAT9B1 repeated in _SAT9a2–_SAT9b12 for each month R participated

in any alternative approaches to alcohol and drug treatment since last interview.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 181

Final Version

Criminal Behavior Calendar

Criminal behaviors
Baseline

BCBC1 • At any point during the past 6 months have you committed any violent crimes,
regardless of whether or not you were caught? By violent crimes, we mean things
like physical or sexual assault, rape, robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder,
murder, vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular homicide, whether you knew the
person or not? (Yes, No)

BCBC2 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you committed any other crimes against
people, regardless of whether or not you were caught? Crimes against people include
hit and run or harassment. (Yes, No)

BCBC3 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you carried a gun, knife, or other
weapon, regardless of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

BCBC4 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you used or possessed either drugs or
drug paraphernalia, regardless of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

BCBC5 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you sold any drugs, regardless of
whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

BCBC6 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you committed any other drug crimes,
such as manufacturing, trafficking, or prescription fraud, regardless of whether or not
you were caught? (Yes, No)

BCBC7 • (If R not incarcerated the entire six months before baseline) At any point during the
past 6 months, have you driven while intoxicated or under the influence, regardless
of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

BCBC8 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you committed any property crimes,
regardless of whether or not you were caught? Property crimes include burglary,
larceny, auto theft, bad checks, fraud, forgery, or grand theft. (Yes, No)

BCBC9 • At any point during the past 6 months, have you committed any prostitution, public
order, or vagrancy crimes regardless of whether or not you were caught? Do not
include any procedural violations you may have committed. (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

_CBC1 • At any point since your last interview, have you committed any violent crimes,
regardless of whether or not you were caught? By violent crimes, we mean things
like physical or sexual assault, rape, robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder,
murder, vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular homicide, whether you knew the
person or not? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 182

Final Version

_CBC2 • At any point since your last interview, have you committed any other crimes against
people, regardless of whether or not you were caught? Crimes against people include
hit and run or harassment. (Yes, No)

_CBC3 • At any point since your last interview, have you carried a gun, knife, or other
weapon, regardless of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

_CBC4 • At any point since your last interview, have you used or possessed either drugs or
drug paraphernalia, regardless of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

_CBC5 • At any point since your last interview, have you sold any drugs, regardless of
whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

_CBC6 • At any point since your last interview, have you committed any other drug crimes,
such as manufacturing, trafficking, or prescription fraud, regardless of whether or not
you were caught? (Yes, No)

_CBC7 • (If R not incarcerated the entire time since previous interview) At any point since
your last interview, have you driven while intoxicated or under the influence,
regardless of whether or not you were caught? (Yes, No)

_CBC8 • At any point since your last interview, have you committed any property crimes,
regardless of whether or not you were caught? Property crimes include burglary,
larceny, auto theft, bad checks, fraud, forgery, or grand theft. (Yes, No)

_CBC9 • At any point since your last interview, have you committed any prostitution, public
order, or vagrancy crimes regardless of whether or not you were caught? Do not
include any procedural violations you may have committed. (Yes, No)

Criminal behavior calendar

Baseline

BCBC10 • (If R has committed any violent crimes at any point during the past 6 months) In
which of the past six months did you commit at least one violent crime?

BCBC10A1 o How many times did you commit a violent crime during {1st month}?

BCBC10B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC10C1 • How many times were you arrested for a violent crime in {1st
month}?

BCBC10A1 through BCBC10C1 repeated in BCBC10a2–BCB10c12 for each month R

committed any violent crimes during the past 6 months.

BCBC11 • (If R committed any other crimes against people during the past 6 months)) In which
of the past six months did you commit at least one other crime against people?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 183

Final Version

BCBC11A1 o How many times did you commit at least one other crime against people
during {1st month}?

BCBC11B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC11C1 • How many times were you arrested for some other crime against
people in {1st month}?

BCBC11A1 through BCBC11C1 repeated in BCBC11a2–BCB11c12 for each month R

committed any violent crimes during the past 6 months.

BCBC12 • (If R carried a gun, knife, or other weapon during the past 6 months) In which of the
past six months did you carry a weapon at least one day?

BCBC12A1 o How many days did you carry a weapon during {1st month}?

BCBC12B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC12C1 • How many times were you arrested for carrying a weapon in {1st
month}?

BCBC12A1 through BCBC12C1 repeated in BCBC12a2–BCB12c12 for each month R

carried a gun, knife, or other weapon during the past 6 months.

BCBC13 • (If R used or possessed either drugs or drug paraphernalia during the past 6 months)
In which of the past six months did you use or possess either drugs or drug
paraphernalia?

BCBC13A1 o How many days did you use or possess either drugs or drug paraphernalia
during {1st month}?

BCBC13B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC13C1 • How many times were you arrested for using or possessing either
drugs or drug paraphernalia in {1st month}?

BCBC13A1 through BCBC13C1 repeated in BCBC13a2–BCBC13c12 for each month R

used or possessed either drugs or drug paraphernalia during the past 6 months.

BCBC14 • (If R sold any drugs during the past 6 months) In which of the past six months did
you sell drugs?

BCBC14A1 o How many times did you sell drugs during {1st month}?:

BCBC14B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 184

Final Version

BCBC14C1 • How many times were you arrested for selling drugs in {1st month}?

BCBC14A1 through BCBC14C1 repeated in BCBC14a2–BCB14c12 for each month R

sold any drugs during the past 6 months.

BCBC15 • (If R committed any other drug crimes, such as manufacturing, trafficking, or
prescription fraud during the past 6 months) In which of the past six months did you
commit other drug crimes?

BCBC15A1 o How many times did you commit other drug crimes during {1st month}?

BCBC15B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC15C1 • How many times were you arrested for some other drug crime in
{1st month}?

BCBC15A1 through BCBC15C1 repeated in BCBC15a2–BCBC15c12 for each month R

committed any other drug crimes during the past 6 months

BCBC16 • (If R has driven while intoxicated or under the influence during the past 6 months) In
which of the past six months have you driven while intoxicated or under the
influence?

BCBC16A1 o How many times did you drive while intoxicated or under the influence
during {1st month}?

BCBC16B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC16C1 • How many times were you arrested for driving while intoxicated or
under the influence in {1st month}?

BCBC16A1 through BCBC16C1 repeated in BCBC16a2–BCB16c12 for each month R

has driven while intoxicated or under the influence during the past 6 months.

BCBC17 • (If R has committed any property crimes during the past 6 months) In which of the
past six months did you commit property crimes?

BCBC17A1 o How many times did you commit property crimes during {1st month}?

BCBC17B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC17C1 • How many times were you arrested for a property crime in {1st
month}?

BCBC17A1 through BCBC17C1 repeated in BCBC17a2–BCBC17c12 for each month R

committed any property crimes during the past 6 months.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 185

Final Version

BCBC18 • (If R has committed any prostitution, public order, or vagrancy crimes during the
past 6 months) In which of the past six months did you commit prostitution, public
order, or vagrancy crimes?

BCBC18A1 o How many times did you commit prostitution, public order, or vagrancy
crimes during {1st month}?

BCBC18B1 • (If R incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

BCBC18C1 • How many times were you arrested for prostitution, public order, or
vagrancy crimes in {1st month}?

BCBC18A1 through BCBC18C1 repeated in BCBC18a2–BCBC18c12 for each month R

committed prostitution, public order, or vagrancy crimes during the past 6 months.

6 month/18 month

_CBC10 • (If R has committed any violent crimes at any point since last interview) In which of
the months since your last interview did you commit at least one violent crime?

_CBC10A1 o How many times did you commit a violent crime during {1st month}?

_CBC10B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC10C1 • How many times were you arrested for a violent crime in {1st
month}?

_CBC10A1 through _CBC10C1 repeated in _CBC10a2–_CBC10c12 for each month R

committed any violent crimes since last interview.

_CBC11 • (If R committed any other crimes against people since last interview) In which of the
months since your last interview did you commit at least one other crime against
people?

_CBC11A1 o How many times did you commit at least one other crime against people
during {1st month}?

_CBC11B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC11C1 • How many times were you arrested for some other crime against
people in {1st month}?

_CBC11A1 through _CBC11C1 repeated in _CBC11a–_CBC11c12 for each month R

committed any violent crimes since last interview.

_CBC12 • (If R carried a gun, knife, or other weapon since last interview) In which of the
months since your last interview did you carry a weapon at least one day?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 186

Final Version

_CBC12A1 o How many days did you carry a weapon during {1st month}?

_CBC12B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC12C1 • How many times were you arrested for carrying a weapon in {1st
month}?

_CBC12A1 through _CBC12C1 repeated in _CBC12a2–_CBC12c12 for each month R

carried a gun, knife, or other weapon since last interview.

_CBC13 • (If R used or possessed either drugs or drug paraphernalia since last interview) In
which of the months since your last interview did you use or possess either drugs or
drug paraphernalia?

_CBC13A1 o How many days did you use or possess either drugs or drug paraphernalia
during {1st month}?

_CBC13B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC13C1 • How many times were you arrested for using or possessing either
drugs or drug paraphernalia in {1st month}?

_CBC13A1 through _CBC13C1 repeated in _CBC13a2–_CBC13c12 for each month R

used or possessed either drugs or drug paraphernalia since last interview.

_CBC14 • (If R sold any drugs since last interview) In which of the months since your last
interview did you sell drugs?

_CBC14A1 o How many times did you sell drugs during {1st month}?:

_CBC14B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC14C1 • How many times were you arrested for selling drugs in {1st month}?

_CBC14A1 through _CBC14C1 repeated in _CBC14a2–_CBC14c12 for each month R

sold any drugs since last interview.

_CBC15 • (If R committed any other drug crimes, such as manufacturing, trafficking, or
prescription fraud since last interview) In which of the months since your last
interview did you commit other drug crimes?

_CBC15A1 o How many times did you commit other drug crimes during {1st month}?

_CBC15B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 187

Final Version

_CBC15C1 • How many times were you arrested for some other drug crime in
{1st month}?

_CBC15A1 through _CBC15C1 repeated in _CBC15a2–_CBC15c12 for each month R

committed any other drug crimes since last interview.

_CBC16 • (If R has driven while intoxicated or under the influence since last interview) In
which of the months since your last interview have you driven while intoxicated or
under the influence?

_CBC16A1 o How many times did you drive while intoxicated or under the influence
during {1st month}?

_CBC16B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC16C1 • How many times were you arrested for driving while intoxicated or
under the influence in {1st month}?

_CBC16A1 through _CBC16C1 repeated in _CBC16a2–_CBC16c12 for each month R

has driven while intoxicated or under the influence since last interview.

_CBC17 • (If R has committed any property crimes since last interview) In which of the months
since your last interview did you commit property crimes?

_CBC17A1 o How many times did you commit property crimes during {1st month}?

_CBC17B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC17C1 • How many times were you arrested for a property crime in {1st
month}?

_CBC17A1 through _CBC17C1 repeated in _CBC17a2–_CBC17c12 for each month R

committed any property crimes since last interview.

_CBC18 • (If R has committed any prostitution, public order, or vagrancy crimes since last
interview) In which of the months since your last interview did you commit
prostitution, public order, or vagrancy crimes?

_CBC18A1 o How many times did you commit prostitution, public order, or vagrancy
crimes during {1st month}?

_CBC18B1 • (If R is incarcerated more than zero but less than 28 days) Did this
happen while you were …? (Incarcerated, On the street, or Both)

_CBC18C1 • How many times were you arrested for prostitution, public order, or
vagrancy crimes in {1st month}?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 188

Final Version

_CBC18A1 through _CBC18C1 repeated in _CBC18a2–_CBC18c12 for each month R

committed prostitution, public order, or vagrancy crimes since last interview.

Violations

Violations (conditions of supervision)

Baseline

This module only asked if R has been under supervision during past 6 months or was
preloaded as a drug court participant.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about the {rules or requirements of your
supervision/conditions of your drug court program participation}. Which of the
following are rules or requirements of your {supervision/drug court program
participation}?

BVIO2 • Is appearing for regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearings a condition of

your {supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO3 • Is meeting with a case manager, a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation}? A case manager is someone who talks with you about issues or needs
you have, tries to get you into services or programs, helps you get benefits or
assistance and monitors your progress. (Yes, No)

BVIO4 • Is meeting with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer a condition of
your {supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO5 • Is doing community service a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO6 • Is being electronically monitored, on house arrest, or some other way of daily
reporting to a supervision officer a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO9 • Is taking regularly scheduled drug tests a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO10 • Is taking unscheduled or random drug tests a condition of your {supervision/drug

court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO11 • Is attending drug or alcohol treatment a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO11A o (If yes) Is following the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program
required of you? (Yes, No)

BVOP11B o (If yes) Is successfully completing drug or alcohol treatment required of you?
(Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 189

Final Version

BVIO11C o (If yes) What type of drug or alcohol treatment is required of you? (No
particular type of treatment has been identified by the court or supervising
agency, Detoxification, Residential treatment, Outpatient group counseling,
Medicinal intervention such as methadone maintenance, naltrexone or
buprenorphine, Individual counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics
Anonymous, Alternative approaches such as acupuncture, meditation, or
biofeedback, or Some other kind of treatment)

BVIO11D o (If yes) Which of the following pay for portions of the costs of your drug or
alcohol treatment? (Your private health insurance, You, Medicaid, The
court, Probation, Other)

BVIO11E • (If R pays for portions of the costs of drug or alcohol

treatment))How much do you pay for drug or alcohol treatment?

BVIO12 • Is attending mental health treatment a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO13 • Is participating in other programs such as a batterer intervention, life skills, anger
management, or parenting skills program a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO14 • Is showing up on time to any required court hearings, appointments, or treatment

programs a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO16 • {If R is required by court to pay child support} Is paying child support a condition of
your {supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO17 • Is paying court ordered payments, including fees for drug tests, other fees, fines, and
restitution a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO18 • Is not carrying a weapon a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation}?

(Yes, No)

BVIO19 • Is not frequenting places where drugs or alcohol are sold a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO20 • Is not associating with the victim of your crime a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO21 • Is not associating with gang members a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO22 • Is not associating with people with felony convictions a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation}? (Yes, No)

BVIO23 • Is having a good attitude a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation}?

(Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 190

Final Version

6 month48/18 month

This module only asked if R has been under supervision at any point since previous
interview or self-reported drug court participation during baseline interview.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about the {rules or requirements of your
supervision/conditions of your drug court program participation.} Which of the
following were rules or requirements of your {supervision/drug court program
participation} since your last interview?

_VIO2 • Was appearing for regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearings a condition of
your {supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

_VIO3 • Was meeting with a case manager a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? A case manager is someone
who talks with you about issues or needs you have, tries to get you into services or
programs, helps you get benefits or assistance and monitors your progress. (Yes, No)

_VIO4 • Was meeting with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer a condition of
your {supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

_VIO5 • Was doing community service a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO6 • Was being electronically monitored, on house arrest, or some other way of daily
reporting to a supervision officer a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO9 • Was taking regularly scheduled drug tests a condition of your {supervision/drug
court participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO10 • Was taking unscheduled or random drug tests a condition of your {supervision/drug
court participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO11 • Was attending drug or alcohol treatment a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO11A o (If yes) Was following the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program
required of you at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO11B o (If yes) Was successfully completing drug or alcohol treatment required of
you at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO11C o (If yes) Which of the following types of drug or alcohol treatment has been
required of you at any point since your last interview? (No particular type of
treatment has been identified by the court or supervising agency,

48
Due to a bug in the 6 month instrument, the vio2-23 series was not asked of the first 424 respondents.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 191

Final Version

Detoxification, Residential treatment, Outpatient group counseling,

Medicinal intervention such as methadone maintenance, naltrexone or
buprenorphine, Individual counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics
Anonymous, Alternative approaches such as acupuncture, meditation, or
biofeedback, or Some other kind of treatment)

_VIO11D o (If yes) Which of the following have paid for portions of the costs of your
drug or alcohol treatment at any point since your last interview? (Your
private health insurance, You, Medicaid, The court, Probation, Other)

_VIO11E • (If R pays for portions of the costs of drug or alcohol

treatment))How much do you pay for drug or alcohol treatment?

_VIO12 • Was attending mental health treatment a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO13 • Was participating in other programs such as a batterer intervention, life skills, anger
management, or parenting skills program a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO14 • Was showing up on time to any required court hearings, appointments, or treatment
programs a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation} at any point
since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO16 • (If R is required by court to pay child support) Was paying child support a condition
of your {supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

_VIO17 • Was paying court ordered payments, including fees for drug tests, other fees, fines,
and restitution a condition of your {supervision/drug court participation} at any point
since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO18 • Was not carrying a weapon a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO19 • Was not frequenting places where drugs or alcohol are sold a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes,
No)

_VIO20 • Was not associating with the victim of your crime a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes,
No)

_VIO21 • Was not associating with gang members a condition of your {supervision/drug court
participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO22 • Was not associating with people with felony convictions a condition of your
{supervision/drug court participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes,
No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 192

Final Version

_VIO23 • Was having a good attitude a condition of your {supervision/drug court

participation} at any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

Violations (violations of conditions)

Baseline

This module only asked if R has been under supervision during the past 6 months or was
preloaded as a drug court participant.

BVIO24 • (If appearing for regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearings is a condition of
supervision/drug court participation) At any point during the past six months, did
you skip a regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing at least once that you
were supposed to attend, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew
about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO24A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you skip a regularly scheduled
monitoring or status hearing at least once that you were supposed to attend?

BVIO24A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip a regularly
scheduled monitoring or status hearing?

BVIO24B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped a
regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing during {1st
month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

BVIO24A1 and BVIO24B1 repeated in BV1O24a2–BV1O24b12 for each month R

skipped a regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing during the past six months.

BVIO25 • (If meeting with a case manager a condition of supervision/drug court participation)
At any point during the past six months, did you fail to meet with your case manager
(if “supervision officer” is not drug court case manager, Fill: regardless of whether
your {supervision officer} knew about it)? (Yes, No)

BVIO25A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to meet with a case
manager?

BVIO25A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to meet with a case
manager?

BVIO25B1 • (If main supervision officer is not drug court case manager) How
often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to meet
with a case manager during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO25A1 and BVIO25B1 repeated in BVIO25a2–BVIO25b12 for each month R failed

to meet with a case manager during the past six months.

BVIO26 • (If meeting with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer was a condition
of supervision/drug court participation) At any point during the past six months, did

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 193

Final Version

you fail to meet with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer? (Yes, No)

BVIO26A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to meet with a pretrial
officer, probation officer or parole officer?

BVIO26A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to meet with a
pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer?

BVIO26B1 • (If main supervision officer is a drug court case manager) How
often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to meet
with a pretrial officer, probation officer, or parole office during {1st
month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

BVIO26A1 and BVIO26B1 repeated BVIO26a2–BVIO26b12 for each month R failed to

meet with a pretrial officer, probation officer, or parole officer during the past six
months.

BVIO27 • (If community service, paying child support, or paying court ordered payments a
condition of supervision/drug court participation) At any point during the past six
months, did you {skip required community service activities/fail to make child
support/fail to make other court ordered payments} regardless of whether your
{supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO27A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you {skip required community
service activities/fail to make child support/fail to make other court ordered
payments}?

BVIO27A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you {skip required
community service activities/fail to make child support/fail to make
other court ordered payments}?

BVIO27B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you {skipped
required community service/failed to make child support/failed to
make other court ordered payments} during {1st month}? Would
you say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO27A1 and BVIO27B1 repeated in BVIO27b2–BVIO27b12 for each month R failed

to required conditions during the past six months.

BVIO28 • (If being electronically monitored, on house arrest, or some other way of daily
reporting to a supervision officer was a condition of supervision/drug court
participation during past six months) At any point during the past six months, did
you violate your electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting
requirements, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes,
No)

BVIO28A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you violate your electronic
monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting requirements at least
once?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 194

Final Version

BVIO28A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you violate your electronic
monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting
requirements?

BVIO28B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you violated
your electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day
reporting requirements during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO28A1 and BVIO28B1 repeated in BVIO28a2–BVIO28b12 for each month R

violated electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting requirements
during the past six months.

BVIO31 • (If taking regularly scheduled drug tests a condition of supervision/drug court
participation during past six months) At any point during the past six months, did
you skip regularly scheduled drug tests, regardless of whether your {supervision
officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO31A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you skip regularly scheduled
drug tests?

BVIO31A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip regularly
scheduled drug tests?

BVIO31B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
regularly scheduled drug tests during {1st month}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO31A1 and BVIO31B1 repeated in BVIO31a2–BVIO31b12 for each month R skipped

regularly scheduled drug tests during the past six months.

BVIO32 • (If taking unscheduled or random drug tests a condition of supervision/drug court
participation during past six months) At any point during the past six months, did
you fail to take unscheduled or random drug tests, regardless of whether your
{supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO32A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to take unscheduled or
random drug tests?

BVIO32A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip random drug
tests?

BVIO32B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
random drug tests during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO32A1 and BVIO32B1 repeated in BVIO32a2–BVIO32b12 for each month R skipped

random drug tests during the past six months.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 195

Final Version

BVIO33 • (If attending drug or alcohol treatment a condition of supervision/drug court

participation during past six months) At any point during the past six months, did
you skip drug or alcohol treatment, regardless of whether your {supervision officer}
knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO33A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you skip drug or alcohol
treatment?

BVIO33A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip drug or alcohol
treatment?

BVIO33B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
drug or alcohol treatment during {1st month}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO33A1 and BVIO33B1 repeated in BVIO33a2–BVIO33b12 for each month R skipped

drug or alcohol treatment during the past six months.

BVIO34 • (If following the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program a condition of
supervision/drug court participation during the past six months) At any point during
the past six months, did you fail to follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment
program, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO34A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to follow the rules of the
drug or alcohol treatment program?

BVIO34A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to follow the rules
of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

BVIO34B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to
follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program during {1st
month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

BVIO34A1 and BVIO34B1 repeated in BVIO34a2–BVIO34b12 for each month R failed

to follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program during the past six months.

BVIO35 • (If successfully completing drug or alcohol treatment a condition of supervision/drug

court participation during the past six months) At any point during the past six
months, did you get kicked out of or drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment
program, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO35A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you get kicked out of or drop out
of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

BVIO35A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you get kicked out of or
drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

BVIO35B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you got kicked
out of or drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment program during

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 196

Final Version

{1st month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not
every time, Not at all)

BVIO35A1 and BVIO35B1 repeated in BVIO35a2–BVIO35b12 for each month R got

kicked out of or dropped out of the drug and alcohol treatment program during the past
six months.

BVIO36 • (If attending mental health treatment OR participating in other programs such as
batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or parenting skills program a
condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you fail to attend {mental health treatment
and/or a batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or parenting skills
program}, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO36A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to attend {mental health
treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or
parenting skills program}

BVIO36A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to attend {mental
health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life skills, anger
management, or parenting skills program}?

BVIO36B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to
attend {mental health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life
skills, anger management, or parenting skills program}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO36A1 and BVIO36B1 repeated in BVIO36a2–BVIO36b12 for each month R failed

to attend mental health and/or batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or
parenting skills programs during the past six months.

BVIO38 • (If showing up on time to any required court hearings, appointments, or treatment
programs a condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation during the past six
months) At any point during the past six months, did you fail to show up on time to
required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs, regardless of whether
your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO38A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you fail to show up on time to
required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs?

BVIO38A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to show up on time
to required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs?

BVIO38B1 • How often did your {SUPERVISION OFFICER} know that you
failed to show up on time to required court hearings, appointments,
or treatment programs during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO38A1 and BVIO38B1 repeated in BVIO38a2–BVIO38b12 for each month R failed

to show up on time to required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 197

Final Version

during the past six months.

BVIO42 • (If not carrying a weapon, not frequenting places where drugs or alcohol are sold,
not associating with the victim of your crime, not associating with gang members,
not associating with people with felony convictions, OR having a good attitude a
condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation during the past six months) At
any point during the past six months, did you violate other conditions such as {not
carrying a weapon/not frequenting places where drugs or alcohol are sold/not
associating with the victim of your crime/not associating with gang members/not
associating with people with felony convictions/having a good attitude}, regardless
of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

BVIO42A o (If yes) In which of the past six months did you violate these other
conditions?

BVIO42A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you violate these other
conditions?

BVIO42B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you violated
these other conditions during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

BVIO42A1 and BVIO42B1 repeated in BVIO42a2–BVIO42b12 for each month R

violated these other conditions during the past six months.

6 month/18 month

This module asked if R has been under supervision at any point since previous interview
or self-reported drug court participation during baseline interview.

_VIO24 • (If appearing for regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearings a condition of
supervision/drug court participation) Since your last interview, did you skip a
regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing at least once that you were
supposed to attend, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it at
any point since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_VIO24A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you skip a
regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing at least once that you were
supposed to attend?

_VIO24A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip a regularly
scheduled monitoring or status hearing?

_VIO24B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped a
regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing during {1st
month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

_VIO24A1 and _VIO24B1 repeated in _VIO24a2–_VIO24b12 for each month R skipped

a regularly scheduled monitoring or status hearing since last interview.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 198

Final Version

_VIO25 • (If meeting with a case manager a condition of supervision/drug court participation)
Since your last interview, did you fail to meet with your case manager (if supervision
officer is not drug court case manager, fill: regardless of whether your {supervision
officer} knew about it)? (Yes, No)

_VIO25A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to meet
with a case manager?

_VIO25A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to meet with a case
manager?

_VIO25B1 • (If main supervision officer is not drug court case manager) How
often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to meet
with a case manager during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO25A1 and _VIO25B1 repeated in _VIO25a2–_VIO25b12 for each month R failed to

meet with a case manager since last interview.

_VIO26 • (If meeting with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer a condition of
supervision/drug court participation) Since your last interview on {interview date},
did you fail to meet with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer? (Yes,
No)

_VIO26A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to meet
with a pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer?

_VIO26A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to meet with a
pretrial officer, probation officer or parole officer?

_VIO26B1 • (If main supervisor is a drug court case manager) How often did
your {supervision officer} know that you failed to meet with a
pretrial officer, probation officer, or parole office during {1st
month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

_VIO26A1 and _VIO26B1 repeated in _VIO26a2–_VIO26b12 for each month R failed to

meet with a pretrial officer, probation officer, or parole officer since last interview]

_VIO27 • (If community service, paying child support, or paying court ordered payments a
condition of supervision/drug court participation) At any point since your last
interview, did you {skip required community service activities/fail to make child
support/fail to make other court ordered payments} regardless of whether your
{supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO27A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you {skip
required community service activities/fail to make child support/fail to make
other court ordered payments}?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 199

Final Version

_VIO27A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you {skip required
community service activities/fail to make child support/fail to make
other court ordered payments}.

_VIO27B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you {skipped
required community service/failed to make child support/failed to
make other court ordered payments} during {1st month}? Would
you say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO27A1 and _VIO27B1 repeated in _VIO27a2–_VIO27b12 for each month R failed to

required conditions since last interview.

_VIO28 • (If being electronically monitored, on house arrest, or some other way of daily
reporting to a supervision officer a condition of supervision/drug court
participation) Since your last interview on {interview date}, did you violate your
electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting requirements,
regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO28A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you violate your
electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting
requirements at least once?

_VIO28A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you violate your electronic
monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting
requirements?

_VIO28B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you violated
your electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day
reporting requirements during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO28A1 and _VIO28B1 repeated in _VIO28a2–_VIO28b12 for each month R violated

electronic monitoring, house arrest or other type of day reporting requirements since
last interview.

_VIO31 • (If taking regularly scheduled drug tests a condition of supervision/drug court
participation) Since your last interview, did you skip regularly scheduled drug tests,
regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO31A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you skip
regularly scheduled drug tests?

_VIO31A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip regularly
scheduled drug tests?

_VIO31B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
regularly scheduled drug tests during {1st month}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO31A1 and _VIO31B1 repeated in _VIO31a2–_VIO31b12 for each month R skipped

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 200

Final Version

regularly scheduled drug tests since last interview.

_VIO32 • (If taking unscheduled or random drug tests as a condition of supervision/drug court
participation) Since your last interview on {interview date}, did you fail to take
unscheduled or random drug tests, regardless of whether your {supervision officer}
knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO32A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to take
unscheduled or random drug tests?

_VIO32A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip random drug
tests?

_VIO32B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
random drug tests during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO32A1 and _VIO32B1 repeated in _VIO32a2–VIO32b12 for each month R skipped

random drug tests since last interview.

_VIO33 • (If attending drug or alcohol treatment a condition of supervision/drug court

participation) Since your last interview, did you skip drug or alcohol treatment,
regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO33A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you skip drug or
alcohol treatment?

_VIO33A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you skip drug or alcohol
treatment?

_VIO33B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you skipped
drug or alcohol treatment during {1st month}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO33A1 and _VIO33B1 repeated in _VIO33a2–_VIO33b12 for each month R skipped

drug or alcohol treatment since last interview.

_VIO34 • (If following the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program a condition of
supervision/drug court participation during the past six months) Since your last
interview, did you fail to follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program,
regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO34A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to
follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

_VIO34A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to follow the rules
of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

_VIO34B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to
follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program during {1st

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 201

Final Version

month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not every
time, Not at all)

_VIO34A1 and _VIO34B1 repeated in _VIO34a2–_VIO34b12 for each month R failed to

follow the rules of the drug or alcohol treatment program since last interview.

_VIO35 • (If successfully completing drug or alcohol treatment a condition of supervision/drug

court participation) Since your last interview, did you get kicked out of or drop out
of the drug or alcohol treatment program, regardless of whether your {supervision
officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO35A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you get kicked
out of or drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

_VIO35A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you get kicked out of or
drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment program?

_VIO35B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you got kicked
out of or drop out of the drug or alcohol treatment program during
{1st month}? Would you say…(Every time, At least once but not
every time, Not at all)

_VIO35A1 and _VIO35B1 repeated in _VIO35a2–_VIO35b12 for each month R got

kicked out of or dropped out of the drug and alcohol treatment program since last
interview.

_VIO36 • (If attending mental health treatment OR participating in other programs such as
batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or parenting skills program a
condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation) Since your last interview, did
you fail to attend {mental health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life skills,
anger management, or parenting skills program}, regardless of whether your
{supervision officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO36A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to
attend {mental health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life skills,
anger management, or parenting skills program}

_VIO36A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to attend {mental
health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life skills, anger
management, or parenting skills program}?

_VIO36B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you failed to
attend {mental health treatment and/or a batterer intervention, life
skills, anger management, or parenting skills program}? Would you
say…(Every time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO36A1 and _VIO36B1 repeated in _VIO36a2–_VIO36b12 for each month R failed to

attend mental health and/or batterer intervention, life skills, anger management, or
parenting skills programs since last interview.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 202

Final Version

_VIO38 • (If showing up on time to any required court hearings, appointments, or treatment
programs is a condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation) Since your last
interview, did you fail to show up on time to required court hearings, appointments,
or treatment programs, regardless of whether your {supervision officer} knew about
it? (Yes, No)

_VIO38A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you fail to show
up on time to required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs?

_VIO38A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you fail to show up on time
to required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs?

_VIO38B1 • How often did your {SUPERVISION OFFICER} know that you
failed to show up on time to required court hearings, appointments,
or treatment programs during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO38A1 and _VIO38B1 repeated in _VIO38a2–_VIO38b12 for each month R failed to

show up on time to required court hearings, appointments, or treatment programs since
last interview.

_VIO42 • (If not carrying a weapon, not frequenting places where drugs or alcohol are sold,
not associating with the victim of your crime, not associating with gang members,
not associating with people with felony convictions, OR having a good attitude a
condition of R’s supervision/drug court participation) Since your last interview, did
you violate other conditions such {not carrying a weapon/not frequenting places
where drugs or alcohol are sold/not associating with the victim of your crime/not
associating with gang members/not associating with people with felony
convictions/having a good attitude}, regardless of whether your {supervision
officer} knew about it? (Yes, No)

_VIO42A o (If yes) In which of the months since your last interview did you violate
these other conditions?

_VIO42A1 • How many times during {1st month} did you violate these other
conditions?

_VIO42B1 • How often did your {supervision officer} know that you violated
these other conditions during {1st month}? Would you say…(Every
time, At least once but not every time, Not at all)

_VIO42A1 and _VIO42B1 repeated in _VIO42a2–_VIO42b12 for each month R

violated these other conditions since last interview.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 203

Final Version

Sanctions Calendar

Sanctions (sanctions received)

Baseline

This domain only asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point during the
past six months or who were preloaded as drug court participants.

Now I am going to ask you what types of sanctions or punishments you may have
received during the past 30 days. During the past 30 days have you received the
following sanctions or punishments?

BSAN12 • During the past 30 days, have you been reprimanded or warned? (Yes, No)

BSAN14 • During the past 30 days, have you been assigned to do a writing assignment? (Yes,
No)

BSAN15 • During the past 30 days, have you been assigned community service? (Yes, No)

BSAN16 • During the past 30 days, have you been assigned an increase in the number of
required drug tests? (Yes, No)

BSAN17 • During the past 30 days, have you been assigned an increased number of required
AA/NA meetings? (Yes, No)

BSAN18 • During the past 30 days, have you been assigned an increase in the amount of drug or
alcohol treatment you are required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment
program? (Yes, No)

BSAN19 • (If R preloaded as drug court participant) During the past 30 days, have you been
required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceedings? (Yes, No)

BSAN21 • (If R preloaded as drug court participant) During the past 30 days, have you been
kicked out of drug court? (Yes, No)

BSAN22 • During the past 30 days, have you been on electronic monitoring, day reporting,
house arrest, or community control? (Yes, No)

BSAN25 • During the past 30 days, have you received one to three consecutive nights in jail?
(Yes, No)

BSAN26 • During the past 30 days, have you received four or more consecutive nights in jail?
(Yes, No)

BSAN27 • During the past 30 days, have you received a formal violation? A formal violation is
where a judge alters someone’s probation, parole, or pretrial supervision because the
person did not follow the terms or conditions of supervision. (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 204

Final Version

BSAN28 • During the past 30 days, have you received some other sanction or punishment?
(Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

This domain only asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point since
previous interview or self-reported drug court participation during baseline interview.

Now I am going to ask you what types of sanctions or punishments you may have
received during your last interview. Since your last interview, have you received the
following sanctions or punishments?

_SAN12 • Since your last interview, have you been reprimanded or warned? (Yes, No)

_SAN14 • Since your last interview, have you been assigned to do a writing assignment? (Yes,
No)

_SAN15 • Since your last interview, have you been assigned community service? (Yes, No)

_SAN16 • Since your last interview, have you been assigned an increase in the number of
required drug tests? (Yes, No)

_SAN17 • Since your last interview, have you been assigned an increased number of required
AA/NA meetings? (Yes, No)

_SAN18 • Since your last interview, have you been assigned an increase in the amount of drug
or alcohol treatment you are required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment
program? (Yes, No)

_SAN19 • (If R self-reported drug court participation at baseline or current interview) Since
your last interview, have you been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug
court proceedings? (Yes, No)

_SAN21 • (If R self-reported drug court participation at baseline or current interview) Since
your last interview, have you been kicked out of drug court? (Yes, No)

_SAN22 • Since your last interview, have you been on electronic monitoring, day reporting,
house arrest, or community control? (Yes, No)

_SAN25 • Since your last interview, have you received one to three consecutive nights in jail?
(Yes, No)

_SAN26 • Since your last interview, have you received four or more consecutive nights in jail?
(Yes, No)

_SAN27 • Since your last interview, have you received a formal violation? A formal violation
is where a judge alters someone’s probation, parole, or pretrial supervision because
the person did not follow the terms or conditions of supervision. (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 205

Final Version

_SAN28 • Since your last interview, have you received some other sanction or punishment?
(Yes, No)

Sanctions (details about specific sanctions received)

Baseline

This section only asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point during the
past six months or who were preloaded as drug court participants.

BSAN29 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) How many times have
you been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days?

BSAN29A1 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) Did the judge give
you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN29A2 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) Did your {supervision
officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN29A3 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) Did someone else give
you this sanction (Yes, No)

BSAN29B • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in these sanctions?
Would you say…? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN29C • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN29D • (If R has been reprimanded or warned during the past 30 days) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN31 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) How
many times have you been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30
days?

BSAN31A1 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) Did the
judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN31A2 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) Did your
{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN31A3 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN31B • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) Did you
expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this
sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN31C • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) Did you

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 206

Final Version

think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

BSAN31D • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment during the past 30 days) How
serious was being assigned a writing assignment? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

BSAN32 • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) How many times
have you been assigned community service during the past 30 days?

BSAN32A1 • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) Did the judge
give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN32A2 • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) Did your
{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN32A3 • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) Did someone
else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN32B • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) Did you expect
your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this
sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN32C • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days ) Did you think
you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

BSAN32D • (If R has been assigned community service during the past 30 days) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN33 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days) How many times has your number of required drug tests been increased
during the past 30 days?

BSAN33A1 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN33A2 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days)Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN33A3 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days)Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN33B • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days)Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN33C • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 207

Final Version

30 days) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer},
found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN33D • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests in the past
30 days) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat
serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN34 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) How many times have you been assigned an increase in the number of
required AA/NA meetings during the past 30 days?

BSAN34A1 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN34A2 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN34A3 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN34B • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN34C • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer},
found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN34D • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings in the past
30 days) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat
serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN35 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) How many times have you been assigned an increase in the amount of drug or
alcohol treatment you are required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment
program during the past 30 days?

BSAN35A1 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN35A2 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN35A3 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 208

Final Version

days) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN35B • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that
resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN35C • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer},
found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN35D • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program in the past 30
days) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat
serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN36 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) How many times have you been required to sit in the jury box to
observe drug court proceedings during the past 30 days?

BSAN36A1 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN36A2 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN36A3 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN36B • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

BSAN36C • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision
officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN36D • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding in the
past 30 days) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious,
Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN38 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) How many times
have you been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days?

BSAN38A1 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) Did the judge give
you this sanction? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 209

Final Version

BSAN38A2 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) Did your
{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN38A3 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) Did someone else
give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN38B • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN38C • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN38D • (If R has been kicked out of drug court during the past 30 days) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN39 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) How many days have you been on electronic
monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community control during the past 30
days?

BSAN39A1 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN39A2 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) Did your {supervision officer} give you this
sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN39A3 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN39B • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find
out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

BSAN39C • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your
{supervision officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN39D • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control during the past 30 days) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned?
(Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN42 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
How many times have you received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the
past 30 days?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 210

Final Version

BSAN42A1 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days) Did
the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN42A2 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days) Did
your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN42A3 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN42B • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days) Did
you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in
this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN42C • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days) Did
you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

BSAN42D • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

BSAN43 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
How many times have you received four or more consecutive nights in jail during
the past 30 days?

BSAN43A1 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN43A2 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN43A3 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN43B • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that
resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN43C • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

BSAN43D • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail during the past 30 days)
How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

BSAN44 • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) How many times have

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 211

Final Version

you received a formal violation during the past 30 days?

BSAN44A1 • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) Did the judge give you
this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN44A2 • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) Did your {supervision
officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN44A3 • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) Did someone else give
you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN44B • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN44C • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN44D • (If R has received a formal violation during the past 30 days) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

BSAN45SP • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) What
was the other sanction you received?

BSAN45 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) How
many times have you received this sanction or punishment during the past 30 days?

BSAN45A1 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) Did
the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN45A2 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) Did
your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN45A3 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

BSAN45B • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) Did
you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in
this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BSAN45C • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) Did
you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

BSAN45D • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment during the past 30 days) How
serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at
all serious)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 212

Final Version

6 month/18 month

This section only asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point since
previous interview or self-reported drug court participation during baseline interview.

_SAN29 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) How many times have
you been reprimanded or warned since your last interview?

_SAN29A1 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) Did the judge give you
this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN29A2 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) Did your {supervision
officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN29A3 • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) Did someone else give
you this sanction (Yes, No)

_SAN29B • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in these sanctions?
Would you say…? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN29C • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN29D • (If R has been reprimanded or warned since R’s last interview) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN31 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) How
many times have you been assigned to do a writing assignment since your last
interview?

_SAN31A1 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) Did the
judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN31A2 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) Did your
{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN31A3 • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN31B • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) Did you
expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this
sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN31C • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) Did you
think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 213

Final Version

_SAN31D • (If R has been assigned to do a writing assignment since R’s last interview) How
serious was being assigned a writing assignment? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

_SAN32 • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) How many times
have you been assigned community service since your last interview?

_SAN32A1 • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) Did the judge
give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN32A2 • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) Did your
{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN32A3 • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) Did someone
else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN32B • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) Did you expect
your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this
sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN32C • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview ) Did you think
you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

_SAN32D • (If R has been assigned community service since R’s last interview) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN33 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview) How many times has your number of required drug tests been
increased since your last interview?

_SAN33A1 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN33A2 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview)Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN33A3 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview)Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN33B • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview)Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

_SAN33C • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision
officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 214

Final Version

_SAN33D • (If R has been assigned an increase in the number of required drug tests since R’s
last interview) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious,
Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN34 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) How many times have you been assigned an increase in the number of
required AA/NA meetings since your last interview?

_SAN34A1 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN34A2 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN34A3 • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN34B • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

_SAN34C • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision
officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN34D • (If R has been assigned an increased number of required AA/NA meetings since R’s
last interview) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious,
Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN35 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) How many times have you been assigned an increase in the amount of
drug or alcohol treatment you are required to have or assigned to a more intense
treatment program since your last interview?

_SAN35A1 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN35A2 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN35A3 • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 215

Final Version

_SAN35B • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN35C • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer},
found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN35D • (If R has been assigned an increase in the amount of drug and alcohol treatment
required to have or assigned to a more intense treatment program since R’s last
interview) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious,
Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN36 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) How many times have you been required to sit in the jury box to
observe drug court proceedings since your last interview?

_SAN36A1 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN36A2 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN36A3 • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN36B • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the
violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not,
Definitely not)

_SAN36C • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision
officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN36D • (If R has been required to sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceeding since
R’s last interview) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious,
Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN38 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) How many times
have you been kicked out of drug court since your last interview?

_SAN38A1 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) Did the judge give
you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN38A2 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) Did your

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 216

Final Version

{supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN38A3 • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) Did someone else
give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN38B • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN38C • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN38D • (If R has been kicked out of drug court since R’s last interview) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN39 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) How many days have you been on electronic
monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community control since your last
interview?

_SAN39A1 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN39A2 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) Did your {supervision officer} give you this
sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN39A3 • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN39B • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find
out about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

_SAN39C • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) Did you think you would receive a sanction if your
{supervision officer}, found out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN39D • (If R has been on electronic monitoring, day reporting, house arrest, or community
control since R’s last interview) How serious was getting reprimanded or warned?
(Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN42 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
How many times have you received one to three consecutive nights in jail since your
last interview?

_SAN42A1 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview) Did

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 217

Final Version

the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN42A2 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview) Did
your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN42A3 • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN42B • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview) Did
you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in
this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN42C • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview) Did
you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

_SAN42D • (If R has received one to three consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

_SAN43 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
How many times have you received four or more consecutive nights in jail since
your last interview?

_SAN43A1 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
Did the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN43A2 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
Did your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN43A3 • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
Did someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN43B • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
Did you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that
resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN43C • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
Did you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

_SAN43D • (If R has received four or more consecutive nights in jail since R’s last interview)
How serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious,
Not at all serious)

_SAN44 • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) How many times have
you received a formal violation since your last interview?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 218

Final Version

_SAN44A1 • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) Did the judge give you
this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN44A2 • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) Did your {supervision
officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN44A3 • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) Did someone else give
you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN44B • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) Did you expect your
{supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in this sanction?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN44C • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) Did you think you
would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out about the violations
that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN44D • (If R has received a formal violation since R’s last interview) How serious was
getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at all serious)

_SAN45SP • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) What
was the other sanction you received?

_SAN45 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) How
many times have you received this sanction or punishment since your last interview?

_SAN45A1 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) Did
the judge give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN45A2 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) Did
your {supervision officer} give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN45A3 • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) Did
someone else give you this sanction? (Yes, No)

_SAN45B • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) Did
you expect your {supervision officer}, to find out about the violations that resulted in
this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_SAN45C • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) Did
you think you would receive a sanction if your {supervision officer}, found out
about the violations that resulted in this sanction? (Definitely, Probably, Probably
not, Definitely not)

_SAN45D • (If R has received some other sanction or punishment since R’s last interview) How
serious was getting reprimanded or warned? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not at
all serious)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 219

Final Version

Rewards

Rewards
Baseline

This section only asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point
during the past six months or who were preloaded as drug court participants.

BREWRD1 • The following questions are about rewards or incentives you may have received in
the past 30 days. In the past 30 days, have you received praise by your {supervision
officer}? (Yes, No)

BREWRD1A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive praise by your
{supervision officer}?

BREWRD1B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BFAIR30A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BREWRD1C o (If yes) Did you expect to get praise by your {supervision officer}?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD1D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get praise by your {supervision officer}?
(Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWD2 • In the past 30 days, have you received praise from a judge? (Yes, No)

BREWRD2A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive praise by a
judge?

BREWRD2B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BFAIR31A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BREWRD2C o (If yes) Did you expect to get praise by a judge? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD2D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get praise by a judge? (Very pleased,
Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWRD3 • In the past 30 days, were you rewarded with a decreased frequency of required drug
tests? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 220

Final Version

BREWRD3A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive a decreased
frequency of required drug tests?

BREWRD3B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD3C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of required drug tests?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD3D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of required drug
tests? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWRD4 • In the past 30 days, did you receive a decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Yes, No)

BREWRD4A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive decreased
frequency of drug or alcohol treatment?

BREWRD4B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD4C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD4D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWRD5 • In the past 30 days, did you receive a decreased frequency of required AA/NA
meetings? (Yes, No)

BREWRD5A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive a decreased
frequency of required AA/NA meetings?

BREWRD5B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD5C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of required AA/NA
meetings? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD5D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of required
AA/NA meetings? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to
me)

BREWRD6 • In the past 30 days, did you receive a decreased frequency of contacts with your
{supervision officer}? (Yes, No)

BREWRD6A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive decreased

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 221

Final Version

frequency of contacts with your {supervision officer}?

BREWRD6B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD6C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of contacts with your
{supervision officer}? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD6D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of contacts with
your {supervision officer}? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not
matter to me)

BREWRD7 • In the past 30 days, did you receive a promotion to a higher phase of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Yes, No)

BREWRD7A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive a promotion to a
higher phase of drug or alcohol treatment?

BREWRD7B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BFAIR29A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BREWRD7C o (If yes) Did you expect to get a promotion to a higher phase of drug or
alcohol treatment? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD7D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get a promotion to a higher phase of drug
or alcohol treatment? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to
me)

BREWRD8 • In the past 30 days, did you receive increased travel privileges? (Yes, No)

BREWRD8A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive increased travel
privileges?

BREWRD8B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD8C o (If yes) Did you expect to get increased travel privileges? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD8D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get increased travel privileges? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWRD9 • In the past 30 days, did you receive tokens, vouchers, or small gifts? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 222

Final Version

BREWRD9A o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive tokens,
vouchers, or small gifts?

BREWRD9B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BFAIR28A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BREWRD9C o (If yes) Did you expect to get tokens, vouchers, or small gifts? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD9D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get tokens, vouchers or small gifts? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

BREWRD10 • In the past 30 days, did you receive any other reward or incentive? (Yes, No)

BREWRD10A o (If yes) What was the other reward you received?

BREWRD10B o (If yes) In the past 30 days, how many times did you receive this other
reward or incentive?

BREWRD10C o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

BREWRD10D o (If yes) Did you expect to get this other reward or incentive? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

BREWRD10E o (If yes) How pleased were you to get this other reward or incentive? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

6 month/18 month

This section asked of R’s who have been under supervision at some point since previous
interview or self-reported drug court participation in baseline interview.

_REWRD1 • The following questions are about rewards or incentives you may have received
since your last interview. Since your last interview, have you received praise by your
{supervision officer}? (Yes, No)

_REWRD1A o (If yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive praise by
your {supervision officer}?

_REWRD1B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_FAIR30A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 223

Final Version

_REWRD1C o (If yes) Did you expect to get praise by your {supervision officer}?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD1D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get praise by your {supervision officer}?
(Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD2 • Since your last interview, have you received praise from a judge? (Yes, No)

_REWRD2A o (If yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive praise by
a judge?

_REWRD2B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_FAIR31A o (If yes) Very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you? (Very
helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

_REWRD2C o (If yes) Did you expect to get praise by a judge? (Definitely, Probably,
Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD2D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get praise by a judge? (Very pleased,
Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD3 • Since your last interview, were you rewarded with a decreased frequency of required
drug tests? (Yes, No)

_REWRD3A o (If Yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive a
decreased frequency of required drug tests?

_REWRD3B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_REWRD3C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of required drug tests?
(Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD3D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of required drug
tests? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD4 • Since your last interview, did you receive a decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Yes, No)

_REWRD4A o (If yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive decreased
frequency of drug or alcohol treatment?

_REWRD4B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 224

Final Version

_REWRD4C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD4D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of drug or alcohol
treatment? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD5 • Since your last interview, did you receive a decreased frequency of required AA/NA
meetings? (Yes, No)

_REWRD5A o (If yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive a
decreased frequency of required AA/NA meetings?

_REWRD5B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_REWRD5C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of required AA/NA
meetings? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD5D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of required
AA/NA meetings? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to
me)

_REWRD6 • Since your last interview, did you receive a decreased frequency of contacts with
your {supervision officer}? (Yes, No)

_REWRD6A o (If yes) Since your last interview, how many times did you receive decreased
frequency of contacts with your {supervision officer}?

_REWRD6B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_REWRD6C o (If yes) Did you expect to get decreased frequency of contacts with your
{supervision officer}? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD6D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get decreased frequency of contacts with
your {supervision officer}? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not
matter to me)

_REWRD7 • Since your last interview, did you receive a promotion to a higher phase of drug or
alcohol treatment? (Yes, No)

_REWRD7A o (If yes) Since your last interview on {last interview date}, how many times
did you receive a promotion to a higher phase of drug or alcohol treatment?

_REWRD7B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 225

Final Version

_FAIR29A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

_REWRD7C o (If yes) Did you expect to get a promotion to a higher phase of drug or
alcohol treatment? (Definitely, Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD7D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get a promotion to a higher phase of drug
or alcohol treatment? (Very pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to
me)

_REWRD8 • Since your last interview, did you receive increased travel privileges? (Yes, No)

_REWRD8A o (If yes) Since your last interview on {last interview date}, how many times
did you receive increased travel privileges?

_REWRD8B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_REWRD8C o (If yes) Did you expect to get increased travel privileges? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD8D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get increased travel privileges? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD9 • Since your last interview, did you receive tokens, vouchers, or small gifts? (Yes, No)

_REWRD9A o (If yes) Since your last interview on {last interview date}, how many times
did you receive tokens, vouchers, or small gifts?

_REWRD9B o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_FAIR28A o (If yes) Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly
helpful to you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

_REWRD9C o (If yes) Did you expect to get tokens, vouchers, or small gifts? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD9D o (If yes) How pleased were you to get tokens, vouchers or small gifts? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, It did not matter to me)

_REWRD10 • Since your last interview, did you receive any other reward or incentive? (Yes, No)

_REWRD10A o (If yes) What was the other reward you received?

_REWRD10B o (If yes) Since your last interview on {last interview date}, how many times
did you receive this other reward or incentive?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 226

Final Version

_REWRD10C o (If yes) For which of the following behaviors did you receive this reward?
Please include all that apply. (Staying clean, Completing all treatment
requirements, Something else)

_REWRD10D o (If yes) Did you expect to get this other reward or incentive? (Definitely,
Probably, Probably not, Definitely not)

_REWRD10E o (If yes) How pleased were you to get this other reward or incentive? (Very
pleased, Somewhat pleased, Pleased, It did not matter to me)

Court Hearings and Contacts

Court hearings
Baseline

BCOURT1 • How many times have you appeared in court during the past 30 days?

BCOURT2 o (If appeared in court in the past month and if [R was under supervision
during past 6 months OR preloaded as drug court participant]) How many
of these appearances were for regularly scheduled monitoring or status
hearings?

BCOURT3 o (If appeared in court in the past month and if [R was under supervision
during past 6 months OR preloaded as drug court participant]) How many
of these appearances were violation hearings? In a violation hearing, the
judge considers whether to formally violate someone's supervision because
the offender did not follow the terms or conditions of supervision.

BCOURT4 • (If one or more appearances were violation hearings) Were you
picked up on a warrant for any of these violation hearings? (Yes,
No)

BCOURT5 o (If appeared in court in the past month) How many of these appearances
were for arrests on new offenses?

BCOURT6 o (If appeared in court in the past month) How many of these appearances
were for other matters, such as family court hearings or other criminal cases?

6 month/18 month

_COURT1 • How many times have you appeared in court since your last interview?

_COURT2 o (If R appeared in court since last interview and if [R was under supervision
OR participated in drug court at any point since last interview]) How many
of these appearances were for regularly scheduled monitoring or status
hearings?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 227

Final Version

_COURT3 o If R appeared in court since last interview and if [R was under supervision
OR participated in drug court at any point since last interview]) How many
of these appearances were violation hearings? In a violation hearing, the
judge considers whether to formally violate someone's supervision because
the offender did not follow the terms or conditions of supervision.

_COURT4 • (If one or more appearances were violation hearings) Were you
picked up on a warrant for any of these violation hearings? (Yes,
No)

_COURT5 o (If appeared in court in the past month) How many of these appearances
were for arrests on new offenses?

_COURT6 o (If appeared in court in the past month) How many of these appearances
were for other matters, such as family court hearings or other criminal cases?

Judge contacts
Baseline

BCOURT7 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you had contact with the judge
assigned to your case?

6 month/18 month

_COURT7 • Since your last interview, how many times have you had contact with the judge
assigned to your case?

Prosecutor contacts
Baseline

BCOURT8 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you spoken face-to-face with a
prosecutor assigned to your case?

6 month/18 month

_COURT8 • Since your last interview, how many times have you spoken face-to-face with a
prosecutor assigned to your case?

Defense Attorney contacts

Baseline

BCOURT9 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you spoken face-to-face with a
defense attorney assigned to your case or that you hired?

6 month/18 month

_COURT9 • Since your last interview, how many times have you spoken face-to-face with a
defense attorney assigned to your case or that you hired?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 228

Final Version

Perceptions of Fairness

Attitude toward supervision officer

Baseline/6 month/18 month

For baseline, the Q’s are only asked if R was under any supervision during the past 6
months or was preloaded as drug court. For 6/18 month interviews, the Q’s are only
asked if R was under any supervision since the last interview or self-reported drug court
participation in the baseline interview.

Please indicate how you feel about the following statements about your {supervision
officer}.

_FAIR1 • Your {supervision officer} is knowledgeable about your case. (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR2 • Your {supervision officer} knows you by name. Do you…? (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR3 • Your {supervision officer} helps you to succeed. (Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR4 • Your {supervision officer} emphasizes the importance of drug and alcohol treatment.
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR5 • Your {supervision officer} gives you a chance to tell your side of your story.
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR6 • Your {supervision officer} can be trusted to treat you fairly. (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR7 • Your {supervision officer} treats you with respect. (Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

Attitude toward judge

Baseline/6 month/18 month

R is asked to indicate how s/he feels about the judge that (for drug court participants) is
part of R’s drug court program or (for comparison group) presided over R’s case related
to the arrest and charge that led to supervision.

_FAIR8 • The judge is knowledgeable about your case. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither
disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR9 • The judge knows you by name. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor
agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR10 • The judge helps you to succeed. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 229

Final Version

agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR11 • The judge emphasizes the importance of drug and alcohol treatment. (Strongly
disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR12 • The judge is intimidating or unapproachable. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither

disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR13 • The judge remembers your situations and needs from hearing to hearing. (Strongly
disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR14 • The judge gives you a chance to tell your side of your story. (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR15 • The judge can be trusted to treat you fairly. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither
disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR16 • The judge treats you with respect. (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor
agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

Perceived fairness of sanctions

Baseline

For baseline, the Q’s are only asked if R was under any supervision during the past 6
months or was preloaded as drug court.

BFAIR17 • During the past 30 days, in general did you understand what behaviors would result
in sanctions? (Yes, No)

BFAIR18 • Based on your previous answers, you have received {the total number of sanctions
indicated by respondent in Sanctions Domain} sanctions during the past 30 days.

BFAIR19 • (If total number of sanctions is greater than zero) Did any sanction you received in
the past 30 days come as a surprise to you? (Yes, No)

BFAIR20 • (If total number of sanctions is greater than zero) Did you think any sanction you
received in the past 30 days was unfair? (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

For 6/18 month interviews, the Q’s are only asked if R was under any supervision since
the last interview or self-reported drug court participation in the baseline interview.

_FAIR17 • Since your last interview, in general did you understand what behaviors would result
in sanctions? (Yes, No)

_FAIR18 • Based on your previous answers, you have received {the total number of sanctions
indicated by respondent in Sanctions Domain} sanctions since your last interview.

_FAIR19 • (If total number of sanctions is greater than zero) Did any sanction you received

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 230

Final Version

since your last interview come as a surprise to you? (Yes, No)

_FAIR20 • (If total number of sanctions is greater than zero) Did you think any sanction you
received since your last interview was unfair? (Yes, No)

Perceived procedural justice

Baseline/6 month/18 month

Note: In the 6/18 month interviews, this set of Q’s is preceded by _FAIR21a: Since your
last interview, have you been involved in court room proceedings related to {your drug
court participation/the case that was started by the arrest that took place on (arrest date)}?
(Yes, No) Only R’s who answer yes receive the questions below.

What happened when you went to court during your most recent case? (R’s preloaded as
drug court, fill: we are referring to your last court appearance before the judge; nondrug
court, fill: the case we are referring to is the one related to the arrest and charge we have
been talking about—the arrest that took place on {arrest date}.

_FAIR21 • You felt you had the opportunity to express your views in the court. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

BFAIR21A/ • All sides had a fair chance to bring out the facts in the court. Do you..? (Strongly
SFAIR212/ disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)
NFAIR212

_FAIR21B • You felt you had enough control over the way things were run in the court. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21C • You felt too intimidated or scared to say what you really felt in the court. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21D • You felt pushed around in the court case by people with more power than you. Do
you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly
agree)

_FAIR21E • People in the court spoke up on your behalf. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21F • The court took account of what you said in deciding what should be done. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21G • During the court you felt pushed into things you did not agree with. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21H • You felt that people who committed the same offense were treated the same way by
courts. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree,
Strongly agree)

_FAIR21I • You were disadvantaged in the court because of your age, income, sex, race, or some
other reason. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree,

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 231

Final Version

Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21J • The court got the facts wrong. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither
disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21J1 o (If R agreed or strongly agreed) When the court got the facts wrong, you
were able to get the facts corrected. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21K • You were treated unfairly by the court or the police. Do you..? (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21K1 o (If R agreed or strongly agreed) You got your complaint about being treated
unfairly heard. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor
agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21L • People were polite to you in court. Do you..? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither
disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21M • You understood what was going on in the court. Do you..? (Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21N • You understood what your rights were during the processing of the case. Do you..?
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21O • You feel that you were treated with respect in the court. Do you..? (Strongly
disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree)

_FAIR21P • How much influence did you have over the agreement reached in the court? Would
you say…? (None at all, Not much, Some, A lot)

_FAIR21Q • How much did you feel the court respected your rights? Would you say…? (None at
all, Not much, Somewhat, A lot)

Perceived distributive justice

Baseline/6 month/18 month

In the 6/18 month interviews, the Q’s are only asked of R’s who experienced court room
proceedings related to drug court or their arrest that led to participation in the study.

_FAIR22 • Overall, how do you rate the fairness of the outcome you received in the case {that
got you into the drug program/related to the arrest and charge we have been talking
about—the arrest that took place on (arrest date)}.Would you say.. (Very fair,
Somewhat fair, Somewhat unfair, Very unfair)

_FAIR23 • Overall, how do you rate the fairness of the court in using penalties for using drugs,
skipping drug tests, or skipping drug treatment? (Very fair, Somewhat fair,
Somewhat unfair, Very unfair)

Perceived helpfulness

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 232

Final Version

Baseline

Only asked for R’s preloaded as drug court participants.

BFAIR24 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you heard a formal speech from drug
court graduates?

BFAIR24A o (If R heard formal speech from drug court graduates in the past 30 days)
Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to
you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BFAIR25 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you spoken to drug court graduates
informally?

BFAIR25A o (If R has spoken to drug court graduates informally in the past 30 days) Was
having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you?
(Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BFAIR26 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you watched people graduate from
drug court?

BFAIR26A o (If R has watched people graduate from drug court in the past 30 days) Was
having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you?
(Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

BFAIR27 • During the past 30 days, how many times have you had the courtroom applaud you?

BFAIR27A o (If R has had the courtroom applaud in the past 30 days) Was having this
happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you? (Very
helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

6 month/18 month

Only asked for R’s who self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current
interview.

_FAIR24 • Since your last interview, how many times have you: Heard a formal speech from
drug court graduates?

_FAIR24A o (If R heard formal speech from drug court graduates since last interview)
Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to
you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

_FAIR25 • Since your last interview, how many times have you spoken to drug court graduates
informally?

_FAIR25A o (If R has spoken to drug court graduates informally since last interview)
Was having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to
you? (Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 233

Final Version

_FAIR26 • Since your last interview, how many times have you watched people graduate from
drug court?

_FAIR26A o (If R has watched people graduate from drug court since last interview) Was
having this happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you?
(Very helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

_FAIR27 • Since your last interview , how many times have you had the courtroom applaud
you?

_FAIR27A o (If R has had the courtroom applaud since last interview) Was having this
happen very helpful, helpful, or not particularly helpful to you? (Very
helpful, Helpful, Not particularly helpful)

Perceived deterrence
Baseline

Note: The items below are asked of all baseline respondents.

How bad would it be to have the court do the following things to you?

BFAIR32 • Put you on house arrest or community control. Would that be…(Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR33 • Put you on electronic monitoring. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad,
Not bad at all)

BFAIR34 • Make you do community service. Would that be…?(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad,
Not bad at all)

BFAIR35 • Make you take drug tests more often. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR36 • (If R preloaded or self-reported drug court participation) Make you sit in the jury
box to observe drug court proceedings. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR37 • (If R preloaded or self-reported drug court participation) Demote you to a previous
phase of drug court. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at
all)

BFAIR38 • Put you in jail for one to three consecutive nights. Would that be…? (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR39 • Put you in jail for four or more consecutive nights. Would that be…? (Extremely
bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR40 • Increase the time you spend in drug or alcohol treatment. Would that be…?
(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 234

Final Version

BFAIR41 • Increase the number of AA/NA meetings you are required to attend. Would that
be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR42 • Give you a warning form your {supervision officer}. Would that be…? (Extremely
bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR43 • Give you a warning from the judge. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR44 • (If under supervision or preloaded as drug court) Charge you with a violation of
your release, probation, or parole conditions. Would that be…? (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR45 • (If R preloaded or self-reported drug court participation) Kick you out of drug court.
Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

BFAIR46 • Arrest you for a new charge. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not
bad at all)

6 month/18 month

Only asked of R’s who experienced court room proceedings related to drug court or their
arrest that led to participation in the study.

How bad would it be to have the court do the following things to you?

_FAIR32 • Put you on house arrest or community control. Would that be…(Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR33 • Put you on electronic monitoring. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad,
Not bad at all)

_FAIR34 • Make you do community service. Would that be…?(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad,
Not bad at all)

_FAIR35 • Make you take drug tests more often. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR36 • (If R self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current interview)
Make you sit in the jury box to observe drug court proceedings. Would that be…?
(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR37 • (If R self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current interview)
Demote you to a previous phase of drug court. Would that be…? (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR38 • Put you in jail for one to three consecutive nights. Would that be…? (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 235

Final Version

_FAIR39 • Put you in jail for four or more consecutive nights. Would that be…? (Extremely
bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR40 • Increase the time you spend in drug or alcohol treatment. Would that be…?
(Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR41 • Increase the number of AA/NA meetings you are required to attend. Would that
be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR42 • Give you a warning form your {supervision officer}. Would that be…? (Extremely
bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR43 • Give you a warning from the judge. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat
bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR44 • (If R has been under supervision since last interview) Charge you with a violation of
your release, probation, or parole conditions. Would that be…? (Extremely bad,
Somewhat bad, Not bad at all)

_FAIR45 • (If R self-reported drug court participation at the baseline or current interview) Kick
you out of drug court. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not bad at
all)

_FAIR46 • Arrest you for a new charge. Would that be…? (Extremely bad, Somewhat bad, Not
bad at all)
Victimization
6 month49/18 month

Now let’s talk about things that have happened to you in the past year, that is since {fill}.

_FAIR47 • During the past year, how often did someone push, slap, or grab; you; twist your
arm, pull your hair; restrain or shove you; or throw something at you that could hurt
you? (Never in the past year, Once in the past year, Twice in the past year, 3-5 times
in the past year, 6-10 times in the past year, More than 10 times in the past year)

_FAIR48 • During the past year, how often did someone punch or hit you with something that
could hurt, kick you, slam you against a hard surface, beat you up, choke, strangle,
burn or scald you on purpose, or use a knife or gun on you? (Never in the past year,
Once in the past year, Twice in the past year, 3-5 times in the past year, 6-10 times in
the past year, More than 10 times in the past year)

_FAIR49 • During the past year, how often did someone verbally insist that you have sex,
including oral, anal, or vaginal sex when you didn’t want to, or insist that you have
sex without a condom? (Never in the past year, Once in the past year, Twice in the
past year, 3-5 times in the past year, 6-10 times in the past year, More than 10 times
in the past year)

49
In the 6 month interview, the questions were not added until February 2006 (1/3 of the way through the 6 month
interviews).

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 236

Final Version

_FAIR50 • During the past year, how often did someone physically force you—by hitting,
holding you down, or using a weapon—to have oral sex, anal sex, or vaginal sex?
(Never in the past year, Once in the past year, Twice in the past year, 3-5 times in the
past year, 6-10 times in the past year, More than 10 times in the past year)

_FAIR51 • During the past year, how often did someone make harassing phone calls to you,
keep you from spending time or talking with your friends, stop you from going some
place you wanted to go, insult you, swear at you, humiliate you, put you down, or
make you feel worthless? (Never in the past year, Once in the past year, Twice in the
past year, 3-5 times in the past year, 6-10 times in the past year, More than 10 times
in the past year)

Family

Family members’ criminal/drug behavior

Baseline

BFAM1 • Have any of your blood relatives ever been convicted of a crime? (Yes, No)

BFAM1A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives has ever been convicted of a crime?
(Biological mother or father, Biological brother or sister, Biological aunt or
uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

BFAM7 • Have any of your other relatives or friends ever been convicted of a crime? (Yes,
No)

BFAM7A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends has ever been convicted of a
crime? (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or stepfather, Stepsister or
stepbrother, Friends)

BFAM13 • Have any of your blood relatives ever been in jail or prison? (Yes, No)

BFAM 13A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives have ever been in jail or prison?
(Biological mother or father, Biological brother or sister, Biological aunt or
uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

BFAM19 • Have any of your other relatives or friends ever been in jail or prison? (Yes, No)

BFAM19A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends has ever been in jail or
prison? (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or stepfather, Stepsister or
stepbrother, Friends

BFAM25 • Have any of your blood relatives ever had problems with drugs or alcohol? (Yes, No)

BFAM25A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives has ever had problems with drugs or
alcohol? (Biological mother or father, Biological brother or sister, Biological
aunt or uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 237

Final Version

BFAM31 • Have any of your other relatives or friends ever had problems with drugs or alcohol?
(Yes, No)

BFAM31A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends has ever had a problem with
drugs or alcohol? (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or stepfather,
Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends

BFAM37 • Have any of your blood relatives ever been in treatment for problems with drugs or
alcohol? (Yes, No)

BFAM37A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives has ever been in treatment for
problems with drugs or alcohol? (Biological mother or father, Biological
brother or sister, Biological aunt or uncle, Biological cousin, Biological
grandparent)

BFAM43 • Have any of your other relatives or friends ever been in treatment for problems with
drugs or alcohol? Do not count the friends you met in treatment this time. (Yes, No)

BFAM43A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends has ever been in treatment
for problems with drugs or alcohol? Do not count the friends you met in
treatment this time. (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or stepfather,
Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends)

6 month/18 month

_FAM1 • Have any of your blood relatives been convicted of a crime since your last
interview? (Yes, No)

_FAM1A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives have been convicted of a crime since
your last interview? (Biological mother or father, Biological brother or
sister, Biological aunt or uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

_FAM7 • Have any of your other relatives or friends been convicted of a crime since your last
interview? (Yes, No)

_FAM7A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends have been convicted of a
crime since your last interview? (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or
stepfather, Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends)

_FAM13 • Have any of your blood relatives been put in jail or prison since your last interview?
(Yes, No)

_FAM 13A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives have been in jail or prison since your
last interview? (Biological mother or father, Biological brother or sister,
Biological aunt or uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

_FAM19 • Have any of your other relatives or friends been put in jail or prison since your last
interview? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 238

Final Version

_FAM19A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends have been in jail or prison
since your last interview? (Spouse or romantic partner, Stepmother or
stepfather, Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends

_FAM25 • Have any of your blood relatives had problems with drugs or alcohol since your last
interview? (Yes, No)

_FAM25A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives has ever had problems with drugs or
alcohol? (Biological mother or father, Biological brother or sister, Biological
aunt or uncle, Biological cousin, Biological grandparent)

_FAM31 • Have any of your other relatives or friends had problems with drugs or alcohol since
your last interview? (Yes, No)

_FAM31A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends has had a problem with
drugs or alcohol since your last interview? (Spouse or romantic partner,
Stepmother or stepfather, Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends

_FAM37 • Have any of your blood relatives been in treatment for problems with drugs or
alcohol since your last interview? (Yes, No)

_FAM37A o (If yes) Which of your blood relatives have been in treatment for problems
with drugs or alcohol since your last interview? (Biological mother or father,
Biological brother or sister, Biological aunt or uncle, Biological cousin,
Biological grandparent)

_FAM43 • Have any of your other relatives or friends been in treatment for problems with drugs
or alcohol since your last interview? Do not count the friends you met in treatment
this time. (Yes, No)

_FAM43A o (If yes) Which of your other relatives or friends have been in treatment for
problems with drugs or alcohol since your last interview? Do not count the
friends you met in treatment this time. (Spouse or romantic partner,
Stepmother or stepfather, Stepsister or stepbrother, Friends)

Family conflict
Baseline

BFAM49 • In the past 30 days, how many times have you had serious conflicts with your
family? By 'serious conflicts' we mean both verbal and physical conflicts.

The following statements describe how you may feel about your relationships with your
family in the past 30 days. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree with the following statements:

BFAM50C • You fight a lot with your family members. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50D • You often feel like you disappoint your family. Do you…? (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 239

Final Version

BFAM50E • You are criticized a lot by your family. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

6 month/18 month

_FAM49 • Since your last interview, how many times have you had serious conflicts with your
family? By 'serious conflicts' we mean both verbal and physical conflicts.

The following statements describe how you may feel about your relationships with your
family since your last interview. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree with the following statements:

_FAM50C • You fight a lot with your family members. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50D • You often feel like you disappoint your family. Do you…? (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50E • You are criticized a lot by your family. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

Family emotional support

Baseline

BFAM50 • You feel close to your family. (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50A • You want your family to be involved in your life. Do you…? (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50B • You consider yourself a source of emotional support for your family. Do you…?
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50F • You have someone in your family to talk with about your interests or your problems.
Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or
strongly agree)

BFAM50G • You have someone in your family to turn to for suggestions about how to deal with a
personal problem. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50H • You have someone in your family who understands your problems. Do you…?
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM50I • You have someone in your family to love you and make you feel wanted. Do you…?

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 240

Final Version

(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

6 month/18 month

_FAM50 • You feel close to your family. (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50A • You want your family to be involved in your life. Do you…? (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50B • You consider yourself a source of emotional support for your family. Do you…?
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50F • You have someone in your family to talk with about your interests or your problems.
Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or
strongly agree)

_FAM50G • You have someone in your family to turn to for suggestions about how to deal with a
personal problem. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50H • You have someone in your family who understands your problems. Do you…?
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM50I • You have someone in your family to love you and make you feel wanted. Do you…?
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

Family instrumental support

Baseline

The following statements describe how you may feel about your relationships with your
family in the past 30 days. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
or strongly agree with the following statements:

BFAM51 • You have someone in your family who would provide help or advice on finding a
place to live. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree,
agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM51A • You have someone in your family who would provide help or advice on finding a
job. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or
strongly agree)

BFAM51B • You have someone in your family who would provide support for dealing with a
substance abuse problem. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree
nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 241

Final Version

BFAM51C • You have someone in your family who would provide transportation to work or other
appointments if needed. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

BFAM51D • You have someone in your family who would provide you with financial support. Do
you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly
agree)

6 month/18 month

The following statements describe how you may feel about your relationships with your
family since your last interview. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree,
agree, or strongly agree with the following statements:

_FAM51 • You have someone in your family who would provide help or advice on finding a
place to live. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree,
agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM51A • You have someone in your family who would provide help or advice on finding a
job. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or
strongly agree)

_FAM51B • You have someone in your family who would provide support for dealing with a
substance abuse problem. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree
nor agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM51C • You have someone in your family who would provide transportation to work or other
appointments if needed. Do you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree)

_FAM51D • You have someone in your family who would provide you with financial support. Do
you…? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly
agree)

Physical Health

Physical health status

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_HEALTH1 • Do you have any chronic medical problems which continue to interfere in your life?
A chronic medical condition is a serious physical condition that persists for several
months and requires regular care, such as medications or dietary restrictions, and
prevents you from using all of your abilities. (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 242

Final Version

Mental Health

Mental health status

Baseline/6 month/18 month

_MENHE1 • In general, would you say your current emotional or mental health
is…(Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor)

Anti-social personality disorder

Baseline

BMENHE2 • Before you were 15, did you bully or threaten other kids? (Yes, No)

BMENHE3 • Before you were 15, did you start fights? (Yes, No)

BMENHE4 • Before you were 15, did you hurt or threaten someone with a weapon like a bat,
brick, broken bottle, a knife, or gun? (Yes, No)

BMENHE5 • Before you were 15, did you deliberately torture someone or cause someone physical
pain or suffering? (Yes, No)

BMENHE6 • Before you were 15, did you torture or hurt animals on purpose? (Yes, No)

BMENHE7 • Before you were 15, did you mug, rob, or forcibly take something from someone by
threatening him or her? (Yes, No)

BMENHE8 • Before you were 15, did you force someone to have sex with you, get undressed, or
touch you sexually? (Yes, No)

BMENHE9 • Before you were 15, did you set fires? (Yes, No)

BMENHE10 • Before you were 15, did you deliberately destroy things that weren't yours? (Yes,
No)

BMENHE11 • Before you were 15, did you lie a lot? (Yes, No)

BMENHE12 • Before you were 15, did you steal or commit forgery on more than one occasion? By
stealing we mean taking property when the owner was not present. (Yes, No)

BMENHE13 • Before you were 15, did you break into houses, other buildings, or cars? (Yes, No)

BMENHE14 • Before you were 15, did you lie a lot or con other people? (Yes, No)

BMENHE15 • Before you were 15, did you sometimes steal or shoplift things or forge someone's
signature? (Yes, No)

BMENHE16 • Before you were 15, did you run away and stay away overnight either permanently

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 243

Final Version

or more than once? (Yes, No)

BMENHE17 • Before you were 13, did you often stay out very late, long after the time you were
supposed to be home? (Yes, No)

BMENHE18 • Before you were 13, did you often skip school? (Yes, No)

BMENHE19 • The next two questions are about right now. Do you often find that you have to lie to
get what you want? (Yes, No)

BMENHE20 • Do you often do things on the spur of the moment without thinking about how it will
affect you or other people? (Yes, No)

BMENHE21 • Was there ever a time when you had no regular place to live? (Yes, No)

BMENHE22 • Since you were 15 have you been in more than one fight? (Yes, No)

BMENHE23 • Since you were 15 have you hit or thrown something at your spouse or partner?
(Yes, No)

BMENHE24 • Since you were 15 have you physically threatened or hurt anyone else? (Yes, No)

BMENHE25 • Have you gotten more than two speeding tickets ever in your life? (Yes, No)

BMENHE26 • Have you been in more than two car accidents ever in your life? (Yes, No)

BMENHE29 • In the past 5 years have you been unemployed for 6 months or more when you were
expected to work and work was available or have you been out of school for 6
months or more when you were expected to be attending an academic program?
(Yes, No) (include academic behavior if person is a student)

BMENHE30 • In the past 5 years, when you were working, did you have frequent absences that
were not the result of your or your family's illness? (Yes, No)

BMENHE31 • In the past 5 years, have you walked off more than one job without having another
one to go to? (Yes, No)

BMENHE32 • In the past 5 years, have you owed people money and not paid them back? (Yes, No)

BMENHE33 • (If R has children) In the past 5 years, have you failed to pay child support, or give
money to children who depended on you? (Yes, No)

BMENHE34 • The next set of questions refer to the present time. Do you feel that any of the things
that you have done are wrong in any way? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 244

Final Version

Narcissism
Baseline

BMENHE35 • When you are criticized do you often feel very angry, ashamed, or put down for
hours or even days? (Yes, No)

BMENHE36 • Have you sometimes had to use or sweet talk other people to get what you wanted?
(Yes, No)

BMENHE37 • Do you feel you are a person with special talents or abilities? (Yes, No)

BMENHE38 • Have people told you that you have too high an opinion of yourself? (Yes, No)

BMENHE39 • When you have a problem do you almost always insist on seeing the top person?
(Yes, No)

BMENHE40 • Do you often daydream about achieving great things, being famous, or having a
perfect romance? (Yes, No)

BMENHE41 • Do you think that it’s not necessary to follow certain rules or social conventions
when they get in your way? (Yes, No)

BMENHE42 • Is it very important to you that people pay attention to you or admire you in some
way? (Yes, No)

BMENHE43 • Have people said that you are not sympathetic or understanding about their
problems? (Yes, No)

BMENHE44 • Are you often envious of other people? (Yes, No)

Depression
Baseline/6 month/18 month

Next I will ask you about the ways you may have recently felt or behaved in the past 7
days.

_MENHE45A • You were bothered by things that don't usually bother you (Never in the past 7 days,
Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days,
Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45B • You had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing. (Never in the past 7
days, Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7
days, Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45C • You felt depressed. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes
in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45D • You felt like everything you did was an effort. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in
the past 7 days, Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 245

Final Version

past 7 days)

_MENHE45E • You felt hopeful about the future. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7
days, Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7
days)

_MENHE46F • You felt fearful. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes in
the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45G • Your sleep was restless. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days,
Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45H • You were happy. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes in
the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

_MENHE45I • You felt lonely. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days, Sometimes in
the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

BMENHE45J • You could not get going. (Never in the past 7 days, Rarely in the past 7 days,
Sometimes in the past 7 days, Often in the past 7 days, Always in the past 7 days)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 246

Final Version

Income

Income
Baseline/6 month/18 month

This section skipped in the 6/18 month interviews for R’s who were incarcerated the
entire time since the previous interview.

_INC1 • How do you currently support yourself? Please tell us all the ways you support
yourself. (A Job, Support from your family, Support from your friends, Disability, A
government program, Illegal income, Some other type of support)

_INC2A • (If R currently supports self with a job) What was your total monthly income from
your job(s) last month? Would you say…? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to
$499, $500 to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to
$4,999, $5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2B • (If R currently supports self with support from family) How much money did your
family provide for you last month? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to $499,
$500 to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to
$4,999, $5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2C • (If R currently supports self with support from friends) How much money did your
friends provide for you last month? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to $499,
$500 to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to
$4,999, $5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2D • (If R currently supports self with disability) How much money did you receive from
disability last month? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to $499, $500 to $999,
$1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to $4,999, $5,000 to
$10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2E • (If R currently supports self with money from a government program) How much
money did you receive from a government program last month? (Less than $100,
$100 to $299, $300 to $499, $500 to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999,
$3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to $4,999, $5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2F • (If R currently supports self with illegal income) How much money did you receive
from illegal income last month? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to $499, $500
to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to $4,999,
$5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC2G • (If R currently supports self with money from other sources) How much money did
you receive from other sources last month? (Less than $100, $100 to $299, $300 to
$499, $500 to $999, $1,000 to $1,999, $2,000 to $2,999, $3,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to
$4,999, $5,000 to $10,000, Over $10,000)

_INC4 • What kinds of health insurance or health care coverage do you have? (Employer-

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 247

Final Version

provided health insurance, Private health insurance plan purchased directly, Private
health insurance plan through a State or local government program or community
program, Medicare, -Gap, Medicaid, Military health care/VA, CHAMPUS/
TRICARE/CHAMP-VA, Indian Health Service, State-sponsored health plan
[specified in _INC4SP1], Other government program [specified in _INC4SP2]. No
insurance, some other kind of health care coverage [specified in _INC4SP3])

Other Support Services

Entitlement services (e.g., cash assistance, Medicaid)

Baseline

BSUPSER1 • During the past 30 days, have you received financial assistance, including short-term
loans or housing deposits? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER1A • During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help getting financial
assistance, including short-term loans or housing deposits? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER2 • During the past 30 days, have you received public financial assistance, such as
disability benefits or welfare? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER2A • During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help getting public
financial assistance, such as disability benefits or welfare? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER3 • During the past 30 days, have you received public healthcare assistance, such as
Medicare or Medicaid? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER3A • During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help getting public
healthcare assistance, such as Medicare or Medicaid? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER4 • During the past 30 days, have you received legal assistance? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER4A • During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help getting legal
assistance? (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

_SUPSER1 • Since your last interview, have you received financial assistance, including short-
term loans or housing deposits? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER1A • Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help getting financial
assistance, including short-term loans or housing deposits? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER2 • Since your last interview, have you received public financial assistance, such as
disability benefits or welfare? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER2A • Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help getting public

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 248

Final Version

financial assistance, such as disability benefits or welfare? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER3 • Since your last interview, have you received public healthcare assistance, such as
Medicare or Medicaid? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER3A • Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help getting public
healthcare assistance, such as Medicare or Medicaid? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER4 • Since your last interview, have you received legal assistance? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER4A • Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help getting legal
assistance? (Yes, No)

Obligation services (e.g., child support payments, restitution)

Baseline

BSUPSER5 • (If R is currently required by a court to pay child support for any children under the
age of 18) During the past 30 days, have you received help with modifying a child
support debt you owe? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER5A • (If R is currently required by a court to pay child support for any children under the
age of 18) During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with
modifying a child support debt you owe? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER6 • (If R has children under 18) During the past 30 days, have you received help with
getting child support payments? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER6A • (If R has children under 18) During the past 30 days, did you want or think you
needed help with getting child support payments? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER7 • (If R does not have primary care responsibilities for any of R’s own children under
the age of 18) During the past 30 days, have you received help with regaining
custody of children? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER7A • (If R does not have primary care responsibilities for any of R’s own children under
the age of 18) During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with
regaining custody of children? (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

_SUPSER5 • (If R is currently required by a court to pay child support for any children under the
age of 18) Since your last interview, have you received help with modifying a child
support debt you owe? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER5A • (If R is currently required by a court to pay child support for any children under the
age of 18) Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with
modifying a child support debt you owe? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER6 • (If R has children under 18) Since your last interview, have you received help with
getting child support payments? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 249

Final Version

_SUPSER6A • (If R has children under 18) Since your last interview, did you want or think you
needed help with getting child support payments? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER7 • (If R does not have primary care responsibilities for any of R’s own children under
the age of 18) Since your last interview, have you received help with regaining
custody of children? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER7A • (If R does not have primary care responsibilities for any of R’s own children under
the age of 18) Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with
regaining custody of children? (Yes, No)

Other services (e.g., employment services, anger management classes)

Baseline

BSUPSER8 During the past 30 days, have you received any employment services or help with
finding a job? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER8A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed any employment services or
help with finding a job? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER9 During the past 30 days, have you received help obtaining documents necessary for
employment, such as your birth certificate, social security card, and photo identification?
(Yes, No)

BSUPSER9A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help obtaining documents
necessary for employment, such as your birth certificate, social security card, and photo
identification? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER10 During the past 30 days, have you received help with money management? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER10A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with money
management? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER11 During the past 30 days, have you received help with other life skills? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER11A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with other life skills?
(Yes, No)

BSUPSER12 During the past 30 days, have you participated in any anger management programs?
(Yes, No)

BSUPSER12A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with anger management?
(Yes, No)

BSUPSER13 During the past 30 days, have you received any educational services, such as GED or
adult basic education classes? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER13A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed any educational services, such
as GED or adult basic education classes? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 250

Final Version

BSUPSER14 During the past 30 days, have you received help with finding transportation? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER14A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with finding
transportation? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER15 During the past 30 days, have you received help with finding or keeping a place to live?
(Yes, No)

BSUPSER15A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed help with finding or keeping a
place to live? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER16 During the past 30 days, have you participated in a batterer intervention program? (Yes,
No)

BSUPSER16A During the past 30 days, did you want or think you needed to participate in a batterer
intervention program? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER17 During the past 30 days, have your family or household members received help
understanding your substance abuse problems and how to help you avoid relapse or
remain sober? (Yes, No)

BSUPSER17A During the past 30 days, did your family or household members want or think they
needed help understanding your substance abuse problems and how to help you avoid
relapse or remain sober? (Yes, No)

6 month/18 month

_SUPSER8 Since your last interview, have you received any employment services or help with
finding a job? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER8A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed any employment services or
help with finding a job? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER9 Since your last interview, have you received help obtaining documents necessary for
employment, such as your birth certificate, social security card, and photo identification?
(Yes, No)

_SUPSER9A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help obtaining documents
necessary for employment, such as your birth certificate, social security card, and photo
identification? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER10 Since your last interview, have you received help with money management? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER10A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with money
management? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER11 Since your last interview, have you received help with other life skills? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER11A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with other life skills?
(Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 251

Final Version

_SUPSER12 Since your last interview, have you participated in any anger management programs?
(Yes, No)

_SUPSER12A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with anger
management? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER13 Since your last interview, have you received any educational services, such as GED or
adult basic education classes? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER13A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed any educational services,
such as GED or adult basic education classes? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER14 Since your last interview, have you received help with finding transportation? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER14A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with finding
transportation? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER15 Since your last interview, have you received help with finding or keeping a place to live?
(Yes, No)

_SUPSER15A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed help with finding or keeping
a place to live? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER16 Since your last interview, have you participated in a batterer intervention program? (Yes,
No)

_SUPSER16A Since your last interview, did you want or think you needed to participate in a batterer
intervention program? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER17 Since your last interview, have your family or household members received help
understanding your substance abuse problems and how to help you avoid relapse or
remain sober? (Yes, No)

_SUPSER17A Since your last interview, did your family or household members want or think they
needed help understanding your substance abuse problems and how to help you avoid
relapse or remain sober? (Yes, No)

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix A 252

Final Version

Appendix B. Core Administrative Data Elements

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix B 259

Final Version

Multi‐Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation

Criminal History Information Request Details

OVERVIEW

The data the Urban Institute is requesting includes:

• Sealed cases;
• State-level data (rather than county or agency level) – e.g., state-wide arrest data;
• The variables listed below, specifically ARREST, COURT, and CUSTODY data, as well as any
other data available.

DATA LIST

I. PERSONAL DATA (IDENTIFIERS)50

• Name
• Criminal ID number (or State ID number)
• Case ID number(s)
• Social Security Number
• Date of Birth
• Sex
• Race
• Aliases
• Research I.D. – assigned by the researcher for the purpose of the study

II. ARREST DATA – for each arrest event:

• Arrest date(s)
• Top arrest charge name(s)
• Top arrest charge classification (felony/misdemeanor/violation)
• Arrest jurisdiction (city, county)
• Arraignment date for each case filled
• Charge information at filing, including
Number of charges at filing
Top charge (offense) at filing
Top charge classification/severity (felony/misdemeanor) at filing
• Disposition date(s)
• Top disposition charge severity (felony/misdemeanor)
• Final disposition (convicted, dismissed, etc.)
• Sentence information for each case, including
Sentencing date
Sentence type (prison, jail, probation, conditional discharge, fine, etc.)
Sentence length

III. INCARCERATION (PRISON OR JAIL) DATA – for each period in custody:

50
UI will be able to provide agencies with the following identifiers for matching purposes: Name (first, last and
middle initial), Date of Birth, Race, Sex, Social Security Number, Aliases, and in some instances State I.D. number
or Department of Corrections I.D. number.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix B 260

Final Version

• Date(s) of entry/intake (booked into jail/prison)

• Date(s) of release
• Type of release (i.e., if prison release: parole, supervised release, unconditional release; if jail
release: Pretrial, ROR, sentenced, bond, bail, time served)
• Probation information (if applicable) for each period of supervision:
Probation start date
Probation end date
Probation violations including the date and nature of each
Probation revocations including the date and nature of each
• Parole information (if applicable) for each period of supervision:
Parole start date
Parole end date
Parole violations including the date and nature of each
Parole revocations including the date and nature of each

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix B 261

Final Version

Appendix C. NIBRS Offense Structure

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix C 262

Final Version

NIBRS Crime Classifications (plus Traffic Violations)

MAIN CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY OFFENSE TYPE CODE
Person Assault Offenses Aggravated Assault 13A
Simple Assault 13B
Intimidation 13C
Homicide Offenses Murder & Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A
Negligent Manslaughter 09B
Kidnapping/Abduction 100
Sex Offenses, Forcible Forcible Rape 11A
Forcible Sodomy 11B
Sexual Assault with an Object 11C
Forcible Fondling 11D
Sex Offenses, Non-forcible Incest 36A
Statutory Rape 36B
Society Drug/Narcotic Offenses Drug/Narcotic Violations 35A
Drug Equipment Violations 35B
Gambling Offenses Betting/Wagering 39A
Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling 39B
Gambling Equipment Violations 39C
Sports Tampering 39D
Prostitution Offenses Prostitution 40A
Assisting/Promoting Prostitution 40B
Pornography/Obscene Material 370
Peeping Tom 90H
Weapons Law Violations 520
Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy 90B
Disorderly Conduct 90C
Driving Under the Influence 90D
Drunkenness 90E
Family Offenses, Non-violent 90F
Liquor Law Violations 90G
Trespassing 90J
Property Arson 200
Bad Checks 90A
Bribery 510
Burglary/Breaking and Entering 220
Counterfeiting/Forgery 250
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property 290
Embezzlement 270
Extortion/Blackmail 210
Fraud Offenses False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game 26A
Credit Card/ATM Fraud 26B
Impersonation 26C
Welfare Fraud 26D
Wire Fraud 26E
Larceny/Theft Offenses Pocket Picking 23A
Purse Snatching 23B
Shoplifting 23C
Theft from Building 23D
Theft from Coin-Operated Machines 23E
Theft from Motor Vehicle 23F
Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G
All Other Larceny 23H
Motor Vehicle Theft 240
Robbery 120
Stolen Property Offenses 280
Traffic Traffic Violations (except DUI/DWI, hit & run, vehicular homicide per NIBRS guidelines) TRF
Other All Other Offenses (includes conspiracy, solicitation, facilitation, false statements/reports, eavesdropping) 90Z
Not A Crime Justifiable Homicide 09C
Runaway 90I
All Other Non-Offenses NOT

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix C 263

Final Version

Appendix D. Constructing the Net Benefits Variable

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 264

Final Version

Constructing the Net Benefits Variable

As discussed in the Methods section (Chapter 3), our goal is to create a single measure of social
impacts, termed net benefits to society, to conduct multilevel analyses to determine the effects of
drug court on social welfare. This Appendix discusses the creation of that individual-level
variable. For further details on the analysis, we refer the reader to Chapter 3.

To structure the analysis, individuals’ impacts on society were divided into the following
categories and sub-categories. This stratification is only a conceptual tool—since prices and
quantities will be aggregated across all components to determine each individual’s total impacts
on society, it is unimportant whether a particular item is improperly categorized. Table 1-D.1
displays all categories, sub-categories, and the impacts considered. Each is discussed in turn. We
note again that all of the calculations described below were performed for all observations in our
sample; thus, the net benefits for the drug court group and the comparison group were calculated
in an identical manner.

Table 1-D.1. Components of Net Benefits

Category Sub-Category Impacts

Social Productivity

1A. Employment/Earnings

Several survey variables ask about employment and we used these variables to estimate earnings.
The foundational question is: “Have you been employed the whole time since the last

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 265

Final Version

interview?” If the answer is “yes,” we simply multiplied last month’s earnings, obtained from
another question, by the number of months since the last interview.

When the answer was “no,” we measured how many weeks the respondent reported working
since the last interview. If this answer is not zero, indicating that the respondent had worked
some, but not all of the time since the last interview, an assumption must be made as to whether
(1) finding employment took the respondent some time since the last interview, but once
employment was secured, it was steady; or (2) the respondent has been continuously, but
inconsistently employed since the last interview. To inform this assumption, we examined the
individual’s response to the prior survey wave to determine whether the respondent reported
being employed at that time.

If the respondent was not employed at the time, but has been employed since, we assume that
last month’s earnings, reported in the survey, are typical of earnings during months when the
respondent worked. Last month’s earnings are divided by 4.3 to determine weekly earnings, and
then those earnings are multiplied by the number of weeks the respondent reported working since
the last interview.

If the respondent was employed at the time of the last interview, but had not been employed the
entire time since, we checked whether the respondent reported any earnings in the last month. If
they did, we assumed that it was a typical month, and multiplied earnings by the number of
months since the last interview. Thus, we assume that the last month’s work patterns were the
same as previous months.51 If there were no earnings last month, or the respondent reported no
longer being employed, then we cannot assume that last month was typical, as we know that the
respondent had worked some since the last interview. In this case, we used the number of weeks
reported working and the number of hours worked in a typical week to develop the number of
hours worked since the last interview. We used two methods for valuing these hours (that is, two
methods of estimating wages), and conducted an analysis to determine how sensitive our results
were to the method.

First, we obtained the effective minimum wage from each state during each year that the survey
was conducted.52 These figures were obtained from a historical table on state wage laws
compiled by the Wage and Hour Division of the US Department of Labor. As an alternative, we
obtained data from the US Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationally
representative survey conducted each month.53 Using data from each month during which the
survey was conducted, we constructed a dataset of all employees paid hourly who reported their
wages (N=296,076). Because of the large volume of the data, we were able to divide the full

51
This is not the same as the previous assumption that the respondent was employed all of the prior month. That
assumption led us to calculate weekly earnings, and multiply that figure by weeks of employment. This method, on
the other hand, assumes that the respondent was not employed all of last month, so last month cannot be used to
calculated weekly earnings. Instead, we must assume that last month’s patchy earnings were the same as in previous
months. The second assumption will necessarily lead to higher estimates than the first.
52
The effective minimum wage refers to the higher of two applicable minimum wages: that of the state and the
federal minimum wage.
53
All CPS data was accessed through Data Ferret, a free program available on the Census Bureau’s website.

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 266

Final Version

sample into a subsample for each site.54 Then, for each site, we regressed the real wage, adjusted
to 2008 dollars, on age,55 race and ethnicity, gender, and level of education—variables that we
were able to match to our survey data.

The results of the regression are displayed in Table 1-D.2, below. Together, the coefficients
make an equation to predict an hourly employee’s average wage, given his or her age, race and
ethnicity, gender, and education. To determine the wage of our respondents, we simply put their
information into the equation, and generated their expected labor market wage.

The minimum wage is probably an underestimate of earnings, given that only 2.2 percent of
hourly workers earn the federal minimum wage (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007). The average
wage is likely an overestimate, given our sample’s history of crime and drug use, which cannot
be controlled for using the CPS data. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using average wage as
an upper bound and minimum wage as a lower bound and report the entire confidence interval.

1B. Education
An extensive review of the economics of education literature by Lange and Topel (2006)
indicates that there is no strong evidence for social benefits of education itself. Instead,
educational benefits tend to manifest in the form of reduced crime and improved employment
outcomes. Since we explicitly account for these outcomes, including them in a valuation of
education would be double counting. Wider benefits to aggregate economic growth, national
output, or income distribution have not been sufficiently demonstrated. Thus, we chose to
exclude educational outcomes from the cost-benefit calculation.

1C. Service and Support Provided

The service and support provided sub-category included community service and child support
payments. We also considered court fees and fines; however, the data were not adequate to
responsibly estimate these.

Community Service

Survey data indicated how many times each individual was assigned to do community service.
To determine the amount of community service performed, we turned to the CPS data, and made
use of the Annual Volunteering Supplement. Using all available data, 2002-2008, we restricted
our focus to those who were ordered by the court to volunteer (N=230). Unfortunately, our
survey contains data on the number of times individuals volunteer, while the CPS data contains
the number of volunteering hours per volunteering week. We therefore assumed that most
individuals court ordered to volunteer do so only once per week. If individuals volunteered

54
Sites with larger populations had more responses. In all sites, enough observations were available for reliable
estimates. N ranged from 5,350 in Chicago to 177 in Olympia. The average N was 1,655. The sample size was less
than 400 in only two sites.
55
Following the standard practice in labor economics, we used a linear and a quadratic term for age. This allowed
the data to conform to the well-documented pattern where wages rise with age before peaking and eventually falling.
In all sites, our estimated coefficients conformed to this expectation.

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 267

Final Version

Table 1-D.2. Estimation of Average Wage

Race Highest Attained Level of Education

Inter- HS Some
cept Age 6 or Grad or College Assoc Bach Advanced
Site Term Male Age Squared White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Less 7–9 10–12 GED No Deg Deg Deg Deg
Osceola County 0.20 1.64 0.577 -0.0060 0.00 -1.25 -0.80 -0.27 -0.97 -1.50 -0.65 -0.97 0.00 1.48 2.51 2.94 9.81
Drug Court
Volusia County -2.38 2.01 0.682 -0.0071 0.00 -4.04 -4.04 -0.50 -1.75 -0.07 0.37 -0.80 0.00 0.95 3.66 6.83 4.58
Adult Drug Court
Program
Fulton County 0.67 2.17 0.584 -0.0059 0.00 -1.74 0.78 -3.43 -2.53 -1.86 -1.36 -1.85 0.00 0.64 2.18 4.15 10.71
Hall County Drug -0.28 2.60 0.581 -0.0056 0.00 -2.00 -2.07 -4.39 -1.70 -2.51 -2.77 -1.95 0.00 0.61 1.45 5.90 8.72
Court
Rehabilitation -3.88 2.97 0.800 -0.0080 0.00 -2.39 0.67 -1.35 -1.53 -3.52 -3.09 -1.22 0.00 1.48 1.04 3.56 8.64
Alternative Program
(R.A.P.)
Kane County -3.88 2.97 0.800 -0.0080 0.00 -2.39 0.67 -1.35 -1.53 -3.52 -3.09 -1.22 0.00 1.48 1.04 3.56 8.64
Rehabilitation Court
Auburn Drug and -2.96 3.10 0.639 -0.0064 0.00 0.36 0.80 -2.31 1.05 -0.59 -1.79 -0.60 0.00 1.38 3.06 2.98 7.60
Alcohol Treatment
Court
Lackawanna City -2.96 3.10 0.639 -0.0064 0.00 0.36 0.80 -2.31 1.05 -0.59 -1.79 -0.60 0.00 1.38 3.06 2.98 7.60
Drug Court
Batavia City Drug -2.96 3.10 0.639 -0.0064 0.00 0.36 0.80 -2.31 1.05 -0.59 -1.79 -0.60 0.00 1.38 3.06 2.98 7.60
Treatment Court
City of Niagara -7.12 1.95 0.938 -0.0097 0.00 -2.59 1.88 -4.76 -2.15 -3.73 -1.73 -0.87 0.00 1.03 1.59 3.31 8.47
Falls Drug
Treatment Court
Syracuse -2.96 3.10 0.639 -0.0064 0.00 0.36 0.80 -2.31 1.05 -0.59 -1.79 -0.60 0.00 1.38 3.06 2.98 7.60
Community
Treatment Court
Finger Lakes Drug -3.98 1.35 0.817 -0.0083 0.00 -1.43 -3.28 -2.34 -1.47 -3.19 -0.87 -1.86 0.00 0.55 1.80 3.31 11.27
Court
Finger Lakes Drug -3.98 1.35 0.817 -0.0083 0.00 -1.43 -3.28 -2.34 -1.47 -3.19 -0.87 -1.86 0.00 0.55 1.80 3.31 11.27
Court, felony
division

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 268

Final Version

Wayne County -3.98 1.35 0.817 -0.0083 0.00 -1.43 -3.28 -2.34 -1.47 -3.19 -0.87 -1.86 0.00 0.55 1.80 3.31 11.27
Drug Treatment
Court
Chester County -3.23 2.66 0.801 -0.0081 0.00 -2.26 -0.32 -0.99 -1.62 -3.60 -2.48 -2.29 0.00 1.02 2.04 5.84 8.70
Drug Court
Program
Philadelphia -3.23 2.66 0.801 -0.0081 0.00 -2.26 -0.32 -0.99 -1.62 -3.60 -2.48 -2.29 0.00 1.02 2.04 5.84 8.70
Treatment Court
York County Drug -2.04 2.56 0.705 -0.0072 0.00 -1.93 -2.66 -0.36 -1.19 -2.89 -2.06 -1.37 0.00 0.30 2.76 4.32 11.05
Treatment Court
Seattle Drug Court -7.33 2.96 1.043 -0.0109 0.00 -2.41 -0.47 -1.86 -0.83 -6.87 -1.15 -0.46 0.00 0.80 2.48 5.60 7.70
Kitsap County -5.78 3.25 0.870 -0.0088 0.00 -1.52 -0.61 -4.09 3.24 0.00 0.25 -0.47 0.00 1.70 2.79 7.95 4.28
Adult Drug Court
Pierce Felony Drug -7.33 2.96 1.043 -0.0109 0.00 -2.41 -0.47 -1.86 -0.83 -6.87 -1.15 -0.46 0.00 0.80 2.48 5.60 7.70
Court
CHART Court -5.78 3.25 0.870 -0.0088 0.00 -1.52 -0.61 -4.09 3.24 0.00 0.25 -0.47 0.00 1.70 2.79 7.95 4.28
Thurston County -6.36 2.84 0.915 -0.0088 0.00 -2.58 -2.81 -1.73 -0.34 0.00 2.01 1.73 0.00 0.98 -0.97 4.30 11.43
Drug Court
King County Drug -7.33 2.96 1.043 -0.0109 0.00 -2.41 -0.47 -1.86 -0.83 -6.87 -1.15 -0.46 0.00 0.80 2.48 5.60 7.70
Court
H.S.A 0.20 1.64 0.577 -0.0060 0.00 -1.25 -0.80 -0.27 -0.97 -1.50 -0.65 -0.97 0.00 1.48 2.51 2.94 9.81
Stewart Marchman -2.38 2.01 0.682 -0.0071 0.00 -4.04 -4.04 -0.50 -1.75 -0.07 0.37 -0.80 0.00 0.95 3.66 6.83 4.58
IL TASC -3.88 2.97 0.800 -0.0080 0.00 -2.39 0.67 -1.35 -1.53 -3.52 -3.09 -1.22 0.00 1.48 1.04 3.56 8.64
NC Probation -2.40 2.14 0.761 -0.0081 0.00 -1.96 2.00 2.80 -1.54 -2.92 -3.09 -2.81 0.00 0.43 2.98 4.21 13.79
Pierce County -7.33 2.96 1.043 -0.0109 0.00 -2.41 -0.47 -1.86 -0.83 -6.87 -1.15 -0.46 0.00 0.80 2.48 5.60 7.70
TASC/ DOSA–
Breaking The Cycle

MADCE Volume 1: Appendix D 269

Final Version

multiple times per week, hours per volunteering session will be biased upward. To better account
for this assumption, we eliminated from the CPS sample individuals who volunteered more than
24 hours (obviously more than one session), and used the median number of hours, rather than
the mean. We estimated that each court-ordered volunteering session lasts seven hours.

To determine the extent to which volunteer work comprises a social contribution, we follow the
method used by Jastrzab, Masker, et al. (1996) to estimate the costs and benefits of the American
Conservation and Youth Service Corps. Using surveys of organizations that use volunteer
services, they found that 24.6 percent of project sponsors reported that none of the work would
have been done without those particular volunteers. Another 55.9 percent reported that only
some of the work would have been done. We assume that for these cases, half the work would
have been done, and thus, volunteers increase total production by 24.6 + (0.5)(55.9) = 47.6
percent of the work that they do, with the remaining 52.4 percent being work that would have
been completed by other volunteers.

Using the market analogy method, well accepted in cost-benefit analysis, we value this
production at each individual’s calculated wage rate, following classic economic theory that an
individual’s wage reflects how productive an individual is in the market place. We assume that
organizations using volunteers appropriately take advantage of their skills, making them equally
productive in volunteering as they are in the private market.

Wages were calculated by dividing earnings, computed in 1C, by the number of reported weeks
since the last interview, and the number of reported hours worked in a typical week. For
individuals who had no earnings, we used the minimum wage to value community service.

Child Support Payments

Child support payments constitute a transfer of wealth and should not always be counted.
However, given that our standing excluded the offender, they are appropriate here. The survey
collected data whether the respondent was required to pay child support and the amount, if any,
of back child support that the individual owed. We did not, however, have data on the amount of
required child support payments.

To compute these values, we obtained child support schedules from each state in our sample. In
all states but Florida, only the most recent schedule was available, while in Florida we were able
to obtain the schedule in effect in 2006, the middle of our surveyed years. We do not expect this
incongruence to bias our estimates. In Illinois and New York, child support payments are based
on a flat rate of payer’s monthly income, 20 and 17 percent, respectively. In the other five states,
child support payments were established in a way that there was a fixed payment established for
each level of monthly income, in intervals of $50.

To simplify the analysis, we elected not to match each individually reported income from the
surveys with a corresponding payment amount. Instead, we developed an equation to determine
payment amount from monthly income. All states have a minimum income threshold below
which child support payments are a fixed amount, and a maximum threshold above which
payment amounts no longer increase with income. To develop the equations, we truncated each

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 270

Final Version

state’s data at its respective minimum and maximum thresholds, restricting our focus only to the
portion where payment amount increases with income.

Then, for each of the six states with a fixed payment schedule,56 we regressed payment amount
on income, logged income, and squared income, to allow the equation to fit the data well. All
values of R-squared were 0.997 or above, indicating that each state’s equation is a sufficient
substitute for the actual figures. For each of these six states, if the respondent’s income is below
the minimum or above the maximum threshold, we used the minimum or maximum payment,
respectively. If income lies between the two, we use the equation. The equation and threshold
values are displayed in Table 1-D.3.

Table 1-D.3. Estimation of Child Support Obligations

Minimum
Threshold and Maximum Threshold
Payment and Payment Regression Results for Other Payment
Min. Min. Max. Max. Squared Log
State Income Pay Income Pay Constant Income Income Income
Florida 650 74 10,000 1,437 -260.455 0.238 -1.04E-05 36.414
Georgia 850 197 30,000 2,236 -1362.12 0.069 -8.43E-07 222.701
Pennsylvania 850 50 20,000 2,301 -3105.48 -0.026 2.88E-06 482.582
North and South
Carolina 1,000 50 25,000 1,819 -2374.28 0.01 4.62E-07 363.764
Note: All payment amounts are based on net monthly income. In the analysis, participants’ reported income was adjusted to net
income using the Federal Income Tax Brackets.

Criminal Justice

2A. Monitoring
The survey asked about several types of monitoring. Monitoring can broadly be thought of as
supervision requiring reporting to persons. Individuals under supervision were asked whether the
main person to whom they report is a parole or probation officer, a pretrial supervision officer, or
a drug court case manager. This section considers the services of only the parole or probation
officers and the pretrial supervision officers, as drug court case managers are discussed in section
2E, below.

Primary Supervision

The survey asked how many times since the last interview respondents met face-to-face or had
phone contact with their primary supervision officer. Unfortunately, we do not know how long
each meeting was. Following the convention in the criminal justice literature, we estimated each
in-person and phone meeting to be 20 minutes in length. Estimated wages for these supervision

56
South Carolina also had a fixed payment schedule; however, it was available only through an online calculator
that required detailed input about parent characteristics. As this was not practical, we assumed that South Carolina’s
child support payments follow the same trend as North Carolina’s, an imperfect assumption, but likely one with little
substantive effect.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 271

Final Version

officers were obtained directly from the sites, where possible, through the aforementioned
secondary set of interviews (Bhati, Roman, and Chalfin 2008).57

The salaries of probation or parole officers were unknown in a number of sites. To impute these
salaries, we used a method for adjusting site-specific wages to drug court-relevant price
structures. We did so using the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) maintained by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2009). Every 6 months, the BLS surveys about 200,000
employers from 450 different industries about the number and wages of employees falling into
800 different occupational categories. The resulting OES estimates are available for very specific
occupational classifications and geographic regions.

For each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in our sample, we obtained the median wage of
“Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists.” Then, to account for the possibility
that probation and parole officers involved in drug courts may earn different wages than general
probation or parole officers, for all sites that reported their probation and parole officers’ wages
in the phone interview, we computed the ratio of the wage of drug court probation officers at that
site to the median wage of all probation officers in that MSA. We took the average of this ratio
across all available sites, and used the average ratio of drug court wages to median wages to
scale the median wages by site.

This process was followed for a number of occupations discussed later. We see strong
advantages to using site-specific wages, and when sites are unable to provide this information
directly, we believe that adjusting wages using the average relationship between drug court
wages and aggregate regional wages is a suitable approximation. To enable other researchers to
use this technique, Table 1-D.4 displays the average ratio of drug court wages to all wages, for a
variety of different types of employees. Future researchers can obtain site-specific wages through
the OES, and use these values to scale the site-specific wages accordingly to estimate site-
specific drug court wages.

Secondary Supervision

We were not able to directly observe how often participants reported to other supervision
officers. Unfortunately, the survey only specifies whether respondents were supposed to meet
with another type of supervision officer, not the number of meetings. We assumed that the
frequency of meetings with a secondary supervision officer was half of that with the primary
supervision officer. This ratio is arbitrary; however, preliminary investigation found that the
results were not sensitive to the assumption. Meetings with a secondary supervision officer were
valued in the same way as those with the primary supervision officer.

57
We were concerned that this is only a reflection of average costs, rather than marginal costs upon which cost-
benefit theory is built. However, the extensively well-documented caseload overburden faced by supervision officers
indicates that additional cases force officers to either compromise the quality of other cases or devote additional
time, beyond full-time employment, to cases. In either situation, these costs should be valued, so in this context,
average costs are an accurate representation of marginal costs.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 272

Final Version

Table 1-D.4. Ratio of Drug Court Wages to Local Wages

Estimate Based on Standard Error of

Position N Sites Mean Ratio Mean Ratio
Prosecutors 14 0.668 0.15
Defense attorneys 10 0.622 0.214
Judges 10 1.082 0.312
Rehabilitation counselors 4 1.56 0.301
Substance abuse social workers 5 1.099 0.469
Probation officers 4 0.840 0.132
Court reporters 4 0.887 0.323
Law clerks 8 1.045 .403
Bailiffs 2 0.968 0.336

Electronic Monitoring

Other questions in the survey regarding criminal justice monitoring relate to drug tests (discussed
below) and electronic monitoring. Estimating costs for both of these measures was fairly
straightforward. Regarding electronic monitoring, only North Carolina has publicly available
estimates of the cost of house arrest, so its estimate does not vary across sites. However, since
the cost is nearly trivial, $7.74 per day after adjusting for inflation, this is unimportant.

Drug Tests
Estimates of the costs of drug tests were obtained from the aforementioned phone interview of
drug courts in the study.58 The survey of individuals asked only how many times the individual
was tested for drugs, not what type of test was conducted. However, in order to further specify
our estimates, we used responses from the MADCE Adult Drug Court Survey (see Volume 2 of
this report), which asked drug court administrators what type of tests they used, choosing from
saliva, urine, hair, and patch tests. For each individual in our sample, we assumed that all tests
were of the type their drug court reported using. When the drug court reported using multiple
types, we assumed that the drug tests the individual reported taking were evenly distributed
across the multiple types the individual’s court reported using.

For sites that did not have drug courts, we have no response to the MADCE Adult Drug Court
Survey with which to estimate what type of tests those individuals took. We assumed that non-
drug courts have the same preferences for drug test type as drug courts, and used the total
responses from the Drug Court Survey to predict that 13.8 percent of courts test saliva, 96.3
percent test urine, 8.2 percent test hair, and 14.6 percent use patch tests. Thus, for each
individual, whether in the drug court or not, we have reported number of drug tests taken and
estimated number of each of these four types taken.

We compiled drug test cost estimates from multiple sources. Patch test costs, $32.49 in 2008
dollars, were directly laid out in Henry and Clark (1999). Other cost estimates were made
58
In addition to drug testing, the survey also asked about the number of times respondents received a breathalyzer
test, but because breathalyzer systems carry only fixed costs and no marginal costs, they were excluded from this
analysis.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 273

Final Version

indirectly. Henry and Clark estimate most drug tests cost $10-$20 each. DuPont, Campbell, and
Shea (2003) evaluated eight school-based drug testing programs, and reported median costs per
test to be $19. Finally, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP 2002), also
discussing school-based drug testing, estimated that most drug tests cost $10-$30 each, with hair
tests being somewhat higher. Therefore, we estimated the cost of a hair test, also described as
more expensive by Henry and Clark, to be the higher end of this range: $30 in 2002 dollars or
$35.90 after inflation adjustment. Saliva tests, supposedly more expensive than urine tests but
less expensive than hair tests, were assumed to lie in the middle of the ONDCP range, which
happens to match the DuPont et al. median at $20 ($23.94 after inflation adjustment). Finally, the
cost of a urine test, reported by all three sources to be less expensive than other tests, was
available directly from the sites themselves. Several sites reported this cost during the phone
interview. We used each site’s self-reported cost where possible, and where this wasn’t possible,
we used the average of the self-reported costs, $4.21.

2B. Police

Police costs, based on number of arrests, were estimated from official arrest records. An
important shortcoming of the criminal justice cost-benefit analysis literature is the lack of
estimates pertaining to police costs. Virtually all studies use estimates from Miller, Cohen, and
Rossman (1994), whether they cite the work directly or indirectly, through a later paper which
uses those estimates. Investigation, arrest, and processing costs, or the components which make
up those costs, such as time use, are almost nonexistent. A major priority for the research should
be updating these costs, currently based on 20 year old data.

That said, we did little to correct this omission. We did make some effort to make estimates more
site-specific. We assumed that 75 percent of investigation, arrest, and processing costs are labor
costs. We then customized inflation adjusted cost estimates from Miller et al. (1994) using the
above mentioned Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) maintained by the BLS (2009).
For each site, we obtained median wages of Police and Sherriff’s Department Officers from that
site’s MSA for 2008. We then compared these median wages to national median wages, to
develop a ratio of site-specific labor costs to national labor costs. We weighted the costs of arrest
as follows:
Costi = 0.25 * CostN + (Wagei/WageN) * 0.75 * CostN

where Costi and CostN are the costs of an arrested for site i and the nation as a whole,
respectively, and Wagei and WageN are the median police officer wages for site i and the nation
as a whole, respectively. Wages of police officers, along with those of many other relevant
criminal justice employees, are displayed in Table 1-D.5.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 274

Final Version

Table 1-D.5. Wages of Relevant Criminal Justice Employees

Parole & Case

Probation Man- Prose- Defense Police
Site Officers agers Judges cutors Attorneys Officers
Osceola County Drug Court 23.62 21.10 85.62 40.41 35.43 22.2
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program 26.70 25.60 86.77 45.68 40.05 18.14
Fulton County 19.85 23.36 85.03 57.98 50.83 19.75
Hall County Drug Court 17.64 25.60 42.99 28.50 24.99 15.06
Rehabilitation Alternative Program (R.A.P.) 29.91 25.60 103.74 62.44 54.74 34.89
Kane County Rehabilitation Court 24.65 39.54 93.45 57.39 50.32 34.89
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court 34.14 13.35 78.72 102.32 89.71 20.9
Lackawanna City Drug Court 27.90 25.60 86.55 45.40 39.81 20.9
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court 27.90 24.08 86.55 45.40 39.81 20.9
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment Court 29.52 25.60 83.87 42.19 36.99 27.9
Syracuse Community Treatment Court 32.60 27.39 91.29 44.62 39.12 23.51
Finger Lakes Drug Court 28.09 27.98 58.78 33.47 29.35 25.18
Finger Lakes Drug Court, felony division 31.58 25.60 54.43 23.42 20.54 25.18
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court 32.09 25.60 77.02 36.60 32.09 25.18
Chester County Drug Court Program 32.16 35.32 96.69 57.48 50.40 29.69
Philadelphia Treatment Court 29.52 25.60 98.03 56.66 49.68 29.51
York County Drug Treatment Court 20.04 21.23 77.02 51.24 44.93 20.78
Seattle Drug Court 26.67 25.60 73.00 50.66 44.42 32.36
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court 25.50 25.60 70.27 31.70 27.79 28.35
Pierce Felony Drug Court 23.80 25.60 67.54 41.70 36.56 29.86
CHART Court 26.67 25.60 70.27 50.66 44.42 32.36
Thurston County Drug Court 25.32 25.60 82.85 73.35 64.31 31.41
King County Drug Court 26.67 25.60 73.00 50.66 44.42 32.36
H.S.A 23.62 25.60 85.62 50.75 44.50 22.2
Stewart Marchman 26.70 25.60 86.77 33.71 29.56 18.14
IL TASC 29.91 25.60 103.74 62.44 54.74 34.89
NC Probation 20.13 25.60 80.26 49.58 43.47 15.73
Pierce County TASC/ DOSA– Breaking The
Cycle 23.80 25.60 67.54 41.70 36.56 29.86

2C. Courts
The survey asked respondents how many times they were in court for any type of hearing, and
how frequently they met with the judge or a lawyer outside of hearings. The information needed
to value these occasions was drawn primarily from the phone interview of drug courts included
in the study. Because the interview included only treatment sites and not every court responded
or provided all necessary information, we imputed missing values for each court. We took all
possible measures to ensure that imputed values were empirically driven and as site-specific as
possible. We used a multi-tiered approach.

When needed data were missing from the phone interview, we first turned to the process
evaluation, where estimates were observed during a visit by the research team. This is less

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 275

Final Version

preferable because the interview asked about typical operations, whereas the process evaluation
is based on observations from a single point in time.

When information, such as salaries, was not included in the process evaluation, we turned to the
aforementioned OES database. We used the same process explained above to adjust site specific
median wages to wages relative to drug court. Again, see Table 1-D.4 for the ratio of drug court
wages to median wages for various positions.

When salary information was not available through the OES, we assumed that relative salaries
tend to cluster by court. For the positions of bailiff, clerk, court reporter, and court officer, we
calculated the average salary from all reporting sites. For each site, we then computed the
deviation of each of these positions’ salaries from the mean. We created an index value for each
site reflecting the average deviation from the mean of that site’s non-legal courtroom positions.
For example, suppose a site reported employing a bailiff, clerk, and court reporter, but provided
salary information for only the bailiff and the court reporter. Suppose the bailiff is paid 10
percent more than the average bailiff from our sample, and the court reporter is paid 15 percent
more than the respective average. We assumed that the clerk is paid 12.5 percent more than the
average clerk in our sample, and estimated the salary accordingly.

Our final recourse, when none of these methods were viable, was to use a simple average of
comparable estimates. For example, labor loading rates were used to obtain the true value of
each individual’s work. When labor loading rates were not available for a specific site, we
calculated them as the average labor loading rate for the same position in other sites.59 The same
procedure was used to impute missing attendance rates at court hearings for various positions.

The survey also asked how often respondents met outside of court with the prosecutor, their
defense attorney, and the judge. With insufficient data on the length of these meetings, we
assumed that each lasted approximately five minutes. Wages of relevant parties specific to each
site are presented along with those of law enforcement officers in Table 1-D.5.

2D. Corrections

The individual survey asked respondents how many days they were in jail or prison since the last
interview, using the calendaring method to improve memory recall. However, self-reported
responses are notoriously unreliable, due to both poor recall and dishonesty. Thus, we used
official records for how many days the respondent was in jail and prison. We valued days in
prison using financial records from each state’s Department of Corrections. We used the Bureau
of Justice Statistics’ 2006 Census of Jail Facilities (BJS 2006), available through ICPSR, to
calculate daily jail costs specific to each MSA.60 Table 1-D.6 displays each site’s daily prison
and jail costs.

59
Our initial expectation was that labor loading rates would cluster in sites, not positions, but informal inspection of
the data indicated that the opposite was true. Thus, looking at loading rates for the same position at other sites is
more appropriate than looking at loading rates for other positions at the same site.
60
Per diem, per capita costs are not available through the Census of Jail Facilities. We calculated them as the sum of
annual wage costs, operating expenses, and capital expenses divided by the average daily population divided by 365.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 276

Final Version

For sites where official records did not include brief jail stays used as sanctions, we
supplemented the administrative data with data from the individual survey questions: “How
many times have you received one to three consecutive nights in jail since your last interview?”
and “How many times have you received four or more consecutive nights in jail since your last
interview?” Since these questions explicitly referred to court sanctions and were separate from
questions about incarceration for a new offense, we did not feel that they were double counting
official incarceration records. We assumed that each stay of the first type lasted 2.5 days and
each stay of the second type lasted 7 days.

2E. Drug Court

The survey asked two questions specific to drug court participation and services. Because the
survey asked only about “regularly scheduled” court hearings, all drug court hearings are
included in section 2C. The survey did, however, importantly ask in how many months since the
last interview the respondent had participated in drug court (if any). The administrative costs for
nearly all sites were obtained through the aforementioned phone interview. Nearly every site
reported employees, even when salaries were not reported, so we could make very accurate
approximations about how many full-time employees oversaw drug court administration. When
salaries, details of staff meetings, and other employees were not reported, we used the techniques
described above to impute this information. Administrative drug court costs are presented with
daily jail and prison costs in Table 1-D.6.

The survey also asked about meetings with a drug court case manager. These questions mirrored
those about supervision officers discussed in section 2A, and the same protocol was used to
estimate case manager meeting time and wage, both when the case manager was the primary
person to whom the respondent reported and when reporting to the case manager was assigned as
a secondary responsibility. Estimated salaries of case managers are reported in Table 1-D.5.

Crime and Victimization

3A. Number of Crimes

An important impact to measure is the crimes committed by participants and the effects they
have on victims. We used official data on arrests to estimate the number of crimes committed.
Because we do not expect that respondents were arrested for every crime they commit, we scaled
this figure up using national clearance rates (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2008).61

For sites whose jails did not report information for the Census, we used the daily jail cost for the geographically
closest county in the same state that did report to the Census.
61
Clearance rates are the proportion of crimes reported that end in arrest. This process has been used in past criminal
justice literature (Roman 2009) and specifically in drug court cost-benefit analyses (WSIPP 2003).

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 277

Final Version

Table 1-D.6. Costs of Incarceration and Administrative Costs of Drug Court

Drug Court Costs Per Hearing62

Daily Daily Monthly Regularly
Cost of Cost of Administrative Scheduled Other
Site Jail Prison Costs per Enrollee Hearings Hearings
Osceola County Drug Court 69.50 55.09 30.04 11.23 8.12
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program 52.78 55.09 60.64 24.95 26.98
Fulton County 62.29 48.05 143.92 17.88 8.95
Hall County Drug Court 45.80 48.05 108.57 3.15 4.36
Rehabilitation Alternative Program 88.27 64.97 33.59 14.56 10.18
(R.A.P.)
Kane County Rehabilitation Court 88.27 64.97 63.03 26.96 24.89
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court 112.01 95.45 94.86 16.23 14.37
Lackawanna City Drug Court 112.01 95.45 11.76 9.69 9.35
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court 84.93 95.45 13.40 4.04 4.54
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment 84.93 95.45 3.48 3.01 4.46
Court
Syracuse Community Treatment Court 119.21 95.45 39.37 2.99 5.66
Finger Lakes Drug Court 103.04 95.45 191.65 6.36 8.89
Finger Lakes Drug Court, felony division 103.04 95.45 229.07 15.41 6.83
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court 133.12 95.45 237.30 14.16 9.33
Chester County Drug Court Program 67.05 85.93 35.84 48.52 36.56
Philadelphia Treatment Court 97.44 91.77 22.14 10.48 7.13
York County Drug Treatment Court 24.83 44.34 166.60 4.45 10.42
Seattle Drug Court 79.88 97.30 18.27 14.03 17.63
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court 75.20 97.30 88.70 13.21 11.86
Pierce Felony Drug Court 88.76 97.30 17.55 17.66 25.13
CHART Court 86.77 97.30 62.52 1.15 2.53
Thurston County Drug Court 141.46 97.30 177.51 21.89 18.84
King County Drug Court 79.88 97.30 1.84 29.05 28.73
H.S.A 69.50 55.09 30.04 8.12 8.12
Stewart Marchman 52.78 55.09 60.64 26.98 26.98
IL TASC 88.27 64.97 48.31 17.53 17.53
NC Probation 95.58 73.10 166.60 10.42 10.42
Pierce County TASC/ DOSA– Breaking 88.76 97.30 17.55 25.13 25.13
The Cycle

3B. Price of Crime

Robust estimates of the price of criminal victimization, measured as the costs of crime to
victims, inform a broad range of policy analysis and are widely applied. However, the most
commonly cited studies are constrained by limited data and cannot directly estimate prices; thus,
62
Costs per hearing primarily depend on who attends the hearing. At times, drug court hearings cost more than other
hearings. This is because many individuals, whose time must be valued, attend these drug court hearings who would
not attend other hearings. These might include treatment providers or case managers. On the other hand, sometimes
the cost of a drug court hearing is lower. This is because in some sites, prosecutors and other employees do not
attend drug court hearings, but do attend other hearings. We found wide variation across sites in terms of the types
of employees who attended hearings, and this accounts for wide variation in hearing costs.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 278

Final Version

the studies cannot correct for sampling bias and do not report estimated variance in prices. A
recent study (Roman 2009) combines individual and aggregate data, and analyzes individual-
level data from two sources: (1) jury award and injury data from the RAND Institute of Civil
Justice and (2) crime and injury data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS). Propensity score weights were developed to account for heterogeneity in jury awards
with respect to legal claims. Data from the jury awards are interpolated onto the NIBRS data
using combinations of all attributes observable in both data sets. From the combined data,
estimates are developed of the price of crime to victims for 31 crime categories, and these prices
of crime are used in this research. For each type of crime, we used both the mean cost and the
median cost to determine the extent to which our results were sensitive to this choice.

Service Use

4A. Drug Treatment

The MADCE survey includes many drug treatment questions. From the survey, we are able to
determine the number of days each month (since the last interview) that the respondent:

Received inpatient drug or alcohol detoxification at a hospital.

Was treated for drugs or alcohol in the emergency room.
Participated in a residential drug treatment program.
Received medicinal treatment (such as methadone, Naltrexone, or Buprenorphine).
Participated in outpatient group therapy.
Received outpatient individual counseling.

These services were valued using a number of extant sources, displayed along with the estimates
of prices for each modality in Table 1-D.7. Several sites reported costs in responding to the
aforementioned phone interview. For these sites, we used their self-reported costs. For the rest,
however, we chose to rely on national estimates since they were invariably based on a much
larger sample size than we had available from the interview.

Emergency room and hospital detoxification were valued using publicly available data from
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) conducted by the US Department of Health and
Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The HCUP combines data from
state, public, and private databases into a large, nationwide dataset. From HCUPnet,63 we
obtained data on emergency room visits and inpatient hospital stays for which the primary
diagnosis was drugs or alcohol, where averages were reported for drugs separately from those for
alcohol. We computed average daily cost for each as the mean cost divided by mean length of
stay. For each individual who reported either emergency room treatment or hospital
detoxification, we determined whether to use the value for a drug or an alcohol diagnosis by
referring to the individual interview, which asked the primary drug of choice. If the response was
alcohol, we assumed the visit was for alcohol. If they responded with a drug, we assumed the
visit was drug-related. Lastly, if they responded that they are not currently using drugs, we
valued the reported visit as the average between a drug and an alcohol visit.
63
Available online at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 279

Final Version

Table 1-D.7. Drug Treatment Costs and Sources

Data Sample
Treatment Type Source Year Size Cost Per
Emergency room (drug) HCUP 2006 All 3,340 Day
Hospitals
Emergency room (alcohol) HCUP 2006 All 4,102 Day
Hospitals
Hospital detox (drug) HCUP 2006 All 2,713 Day
Hospitals
Hospital detox (alcohol) HCUP 2006 All 2,901 Day
Hospitals
Residential drug treatment SAMHSA 1997– 48 82 Day
1999
Medicinal treatment SAMHSA 1997– 44 19 Visit
1999
Outpatient group counseling SAMHSA 1997– 215 10 Session
1999
Outpatient individual SAMHSA 1997– 215 100 Session
counseling 1999
In-prison therapeutic Roebuck et 1993– 8 8.43 Day
community al. 2002

We valued the daily cost of residential drug treatment, outpatient medicinal treatment, outpatient
group counseling, and outpatient individual counseling using figures reported in the Drug and
Alcohol Services Study (ADSS) carried out by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Agency (SAMHSA 2003). Phase II of ADSS was a cost analysis derived from interviews with
directors of 280 treatment programs around the country. To approximate medicinal treatment
costs, we used methadone treatment costs (methadone being the most commonly used medicinal
treatment). Because methadone treatment is outpatient, we used estimates per visit, and matched
these costs to the number of days respondents reported receiving the service. We also assume,
based on the ADSS study’s recommendation, that each individual and group counseling session
lasts one hour, allowing us to match ADSS hourly counseling estimates with survey responses on
number of days receiving counseling.

Finally, the survey allowed respondents to specify whether treatment was received “on the
street” or while incarcerated. To our knowledge, the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis
Program (DATCAP) is the only source that reports the costs of in-prison drug treatment services
(Roebuck, French, and McClellan 2003). The eight in-prison treatment programs from which this
average cost estimate is derived are all considered group-based residential treatment. This cost
estimate is, therefore, directly used as the cost of in-prison group counseling and in-prison
residential treatment. To adjust for prison cost structure, while still trying to obtain the most
specific estimates possible, two cost ratios were calculated: (1) the ratio of outpatient individual
counseling to outpatient group counseling and (2) the ratio of outpatient medicinal treatment to

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 280

Final Version

outpatient group counseling. Each ratio was multiplied by the cost of in-prison treatment to
obtain cost estimates for in-prison individual counseling and in-prison medicinal treatment,
respectively.

For individuals who reported that any particular month’s treatment was received both on the
street and while incarcerated, we took the total number of days in the month that the individual
was incarcerated divided by 30 (days in a month) and used that to weight estimates. For example,
if an individual specifies that the treatment they received in August was received both on the
street and during incarceration, and this individual was incarcerated for 10 days during August,
we weight the in-prison cost estimates by one-third and the “on the street” cost estimates by two-
thirds and average the two.

4B. Medical Treatment

The MADCE survey also asked about overnight hospital and emergency room visits that were
not for drug treatment. To value these, we again returned to the HCUP data, obtaining 2006 data
on mean cost and mean length of stay for all hospital stays. We obtain average daily cost by
dividing average cost by average length of stay to calculate average cost per day of overnight
hospital stays.64 Because the HCUP data are so rich, we are able to develop more specific
average daily costs based jointly on whether the individual is over or under 45 and what type of
health insurance, if any, the individual has.65 The individual interview collected age and
insurance information, allowing us to match these estimates of cost per day, given age and
insurance, to the reported number of days spent in the hospital for non-drug related reasons.
These figures are displayed in Table 1-D.8.

Table 1-D.8. Costs of Overnight Hospital Stays by Age and Insurer

Age 18–45 Age 46+

Medicare 1,560.46 1,929.11
Medicaid 1,554.18 1,872.39
Private 1,964.40 2,665.61
No insurance 1,854.12 2,109.36
Other 2,041.10 2,430.52

64
We acknowledge that some debate exists surrounding the choice of median versus mean hospital costs, as medical
expenses vary wildly and mean costs are likely much higher than typical costs. We believe that this problem is
addressed when dividing mean costs by mean length of stay, as anomalously high hospital stays likely bias both the
numerator and the denominator proportionally. More generally, we feel that mean values are advantageous to
policy-makers, as they take into account the small probability of extremely expensive stays, where these stays would
be disregarded altogether when using median costs.
65
Because only two-way tables were available, we were only able to simultaneously use two controls. We selected
these two because they exhibited the greatest variation across groups.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 281

Final Version

4C. Mental Health Treatment

Another survey question asked respondents how many days were spent in residential mental
health treatment not related to drug or alcohol use. Because of the decentralization of the mental
health system in the United States, estimates comparable to the medical care figures obtained
through HCUP are not available (US Surgeon General 1999). In fact, few studies have surveyed
a wide range of mental health treatment providers to develop cost estimates for the sector as a
whole.

We turned to research from the Veterans Affairs Health Economics Resource Center (Barnett
and Berger 2003). Using two comprehensive national databases maintained by the US
Department of Veterans Affairs and a survey of hospital directors, the authors obtained direct
costs (staff and supplies) and estimate indirect costs (including administrative, facilities, and
general operating costs). Because this study drew research from hospitals around the country,
albeit only VA Hospitals, we determined that it was the ideal source of estimates for the present
analysis.66 We used reported estimates of total direct and indirect costs. Of the available
estimates, we selected those that excluded research and teaching expenses, because we believe
that these expenses are unique to VA Hospitals, and not incurred by typical facilities. Our
estimated cost of a single day in residential mental health treatment was $175.06.67

4D. Other Service Use

The key additional services used are services related to housing provision. The individual survey
asked respondents to choose from a list of places where they had lived since the last interview. It
then asks them to indicate in which of the selected choices they mostly lived. The survey does
not specify what portion of the time since the last interview was spent in each place. We
weighted responses as conservatively as was reasonable. If an individual reported living in a total
of k different locations since the last interview, we assumed that the respondent spent 1/(k+1) of
the time in each location, except that s/he spent 2/(k+1) of the time in the primary location
reported in the next question. Thus, we assume that the respondent lived twice as long in the
place they lived “most of the time” than any other place.

Three of the seven responses are important for the cost-benefit analysis: halfway houses,
homeless shelters, and public housing (or section 8 housing). Each was valued using extant
literature, from a variety of sources. To estimate the daily cost of halfway houses, we used
figures reported in Klein-Saffran’s (1995) summary of her dissertation. Adjusted for inflation,
this daily cost is $49.75.

Cost estimates for homeless shelters were not as simple. We obtained estimated daily shelter
costs for North Carolina from three reports submitted to the National Alliance to End
Homelessness (NAEH) as 10-Year Plans to End Homelessness (Durham County, Raleigh and

66
Most other studies we were able to locate were evaluations of specific hospitals or programs and relied on small
samples. The VA is one of the largest providers of mental health services in the country, and so Barnett and Berger
were able to use a much larger sample.
67
Again, in several cases, sites reported their own residential mental health facility costs. We used these when
available, but used national estimates otherwise, because of the excellent sample size on which estimates are based.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 282

Final Version

Wake County, and Asheville and Buncombe County). These reports are available through the
online publication library of the NAEH. Although most sites in our sample had submitted 10-
Year Plans to End Homelessness, few of them had cost estimates, and most were not as thorough
as those from North Carolina. Therefore, we turned to a report compiled by the Lewin Group
(2004) for the Corporation for Supportive Housing that provided cost estimates from nine major
cities, several of which were included in our sample. Finally, we obtained an estimate of the
daily shelter costs in New York City (Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley 2002).

Thus, in all, cost estimates were available for 13 different locations, including 3 of the 17 cities
and 5 of the 8 states in our sample. Through the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) selection of online datasets, we then obtained data on median rent values
for every MSA in the country, and restricted the dataset to only MSAs in which there was an
MADCE site or for which we had a homeless shelter cost estimate. Assuming that homeless
shelter costs would vary proportionally with rent values, for each site for which we did not have
a specific estimate, we assumed that daily homeless shelter costs were the same as those of the
site with the most similar rent values. Our results using this method are displayed in Table 1-D.9.

Finally, the individual survey allowed respondents to specify that they lived in public housing
and Section 8 housing.68 This could be done in one of two ways. Individuals could report either
living mostly in their own home or mostly living in another person’s home, and two following
questions would ask if this was Public Housing or Section 8 housing. We chose to value only
those who lived in their own home, as we presumed that others who allowed the respondent to
live with them would have received subsidized housing regardless, so the individual carries no
marginal cost. To value subsidized housing, we returned to HUD. Using the dataset “A Picture of
Subsidized Households—2000,” the most recent year publicly available free of charge, we
obtained the average monthly cost per unit of Public Housing and Section 8 housing for each
state in our sample. These results, too, are displayed in Table 1-D.9.

Financial Support Use

5A. Government Financial Support

Valuing government financial support is not necessary when the standing includes the offender,
as it is merely a transfer. However, since our standing did not include the offender, it was
appropriate to include and was fairly straightforward to value. The survey asked how much
money respondents received from disability or another government program in the prior month.
For each individual, we looked back at how much they reported receiving from disability or
government programs in the month prior to the previous survey. We then estimated that each
month’s financial support was a linear progression from the previous survey to the current one.
If an individual received the same amount of financial support each month until the last month,
when the amount declined or the individual stopped receiving support altogether, we will be
underestimating government support. If, on the other hand, the individual received a given
amount or no financial support during each month from the last interview to the final month,
68
Some would argue that Section 8 housing would be more appropriately classified as financial support; however,
due to the organization of the survey, it was easier to group with services used. Again, this misclassification is
trivial, as all costs and benefits across all categories are aggregated to form total net benefits.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 283

Final Version

then the individual started receiving more support, our method will overestimate financial
support. With no recourse, we accept this imprecision.

Table 1-D.9. Costs of Other Service Use

Monthly
Daily Costs of Costs of Monthly Costs
Homeless Public of Section 8
Site Shelter Housing Housing
Osceola County Drug Court $25.90 $354 $442
Volusia County Adult Drug Court Program 25.38 354 442
Fulton County 12.54 325 404
Hall County Drug Court 12.54 325 404
Rehabilitation Alternative Program (R.A.P.) 25.07 686 476
Kane County Rehabilitation Court 25.07 686 476
Auburn Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court 25.38 545 527
Lackawanna City Drug Court 25.38 545 527
Batavia City Drug Treatment Court 25.38 545 527
City of Niagara Falls Drug Treatment Court 21.72 545 527
Syracuse Community Treatment Court 25.38 545 527
Finger Lakes Drug Court 25.38 545 527
Finger Lakes Drug Court, felony division 25.38 545 527
Wayne County Drug Treatment Court 25.38 545 527
Chester County Drug Court Program 28.08 595 361
Philadelphia Treatment Court 28.08 595 361
York County Drug Treatment Court 25.36 359 342
Seattle Drug Court 19.38 351 460
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court 19.38 351 460
Pierce Felony Drug Court 19.38 351 460
CHART Court 19.38 351 460
Thurston County Drug Court 19.38 351 460
King County Drug Court 19.38 351 460
H.S.A 25.90 354 442
Stewart Marchman 25.38 354 442
IL TASC 25.07 686 476
NC Probation 25.36 359 342
Pierce County TASC/ DOSA– Breaking The Cycle 19.38 351 460

5B. Other Financial Support

The survey also asked whether the individual received financial support from friends or family.
Again, when the unit of standing includes the respondent, this transfer is not counted. We
estimated other financial support using the same method, to which the same caveat applies, as we
did for government financial support.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 284

Final Version

References
Barnett P.G. and M. Berger. (2003). Indirect Costs of Specialized VA Inpatient Mental Health Treatment.
Veteran’s Affairs Health Economics Resource Center Technical Report #6.

Bhati A.S., J.K. Roman, and A. Chalfin. (2008). To Treat or Not to Treat: Evidence on the Prospect of
Expanding Treatment to Drug Involved Offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (BJS 2006). Census of Jail Facilities: 2006. Obtained through the Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS 2007). Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2006. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2006.htm. Accessed 26 February 2010.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS 2009). Occupational Employment Statistics. Available at

<http://www.bls.gov/oes>. Accessed 26 February 2010.

Culhane D.P., S. Metraux, and T. Hadley. (2002). Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement
of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing. Housing Policy Debate, 13:
107-163.

Dupont R.L, T.G. Campbell, and C.L. Shea. (2003). Preliminary Study: Elements of a Successful School-
Based Drug Testing Program. Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (FBI 2008). Crime in the United States: 2008. Clearance Rate Tables 25-
28. Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008. Accessed 26 February 2010.

Henry D.A. and J. Clark. (1999). Pretrial Drug Testing: An Overview of Issues and Practices. Bureau of
Justice Assistance Bulletin.

Jastrzab J., J. Masker, J. Blomquist, and L. Orr. (1996). Evaluation of National and Community Service
Programs – Impacts of Service: Final Report on the Evaluation of American Conservation and Youth
Service Corps. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.

Klein-Saffran J. (1995). Electronic Monitoring vs. House Arrest: A Study of Federal Offenders.
Alternatives to Incarceration: 24-28.

Lange, F. and R. Topel. (2006). The Social Benefits of Education. In E. Hanushek and F. Welch (eds.),
Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishers.

Lewin Group. (2004). Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities: Chart Book. Oakland, CA:
Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Miller T., M. Cohen, and S.B. Rossman. (1994). The Costs and Consequences of Violent Behavior in the
United States. In J. Roth and A. Reiss (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences
and Control (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (ONDCP 2002). What You Need to Know about Drug Testing in
Schools. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 285

Final Version

Roebuck M.C., M.T. French, and A.T. McClellan. (2003). DATStats: Results from 85 Studies Using the
Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP). Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
25: 51-57.

Roman J.K. (2009). What is the Price of Crime? New Estimates of the Costs of Criminal Victimization.
Dissertation available through UMI Dissertation Publishing.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (SAMSHA 2003). The ADSS Cost Study:
Costs of Substance Abuse Treatment in the Specialty Sector. Rockville, MD: SAMSHA Office of
Applied Studies.

US Surgeon General. (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute
of Mental Health.

MADCE Volume 1. Appendix D 286

Final Version

About the Authors

Editors

Shelli B. Rossman, M.A., is a Senior Fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where her
research has focused on both criminal justice and public safety, including reentry, problem-solving courts,
community-based and correctional supervision, case management and comprehensive service delivery for
offender populations, delinquency prevention and intervention, and victimization; and public health,
focused on substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and reproductive health issues. In addition to serving as Principal
Investigator for NIJ’s MADCE study, she directed the NIJ-funded evaluation of the Opportunity to
Succeed (OPTS) project, the first and only multi-site randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a prisoner reentry
model. She has authored or collaborated on several articles and book chapters, in addition to authoring
numerous technical reports.

John K. Roman, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute where his
research focuses on evaluations of innovative crime control policies and justice programs. Dr. Roman also
serves as the Executive Director of the Washington, DC, Crime Policy Institute. He directs several studies
funded by the National Institute of Justice, including two RCTs of the use of DNA in burglary and motor
vehicle theft investigations, an evaluation of post-conviction DNA evidence testing to estimate rates of
wrongful conviction, and a study developing a blueprint for the use of forensic evidence by law
enforcement. He is the co-editor of Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse and the author of
numerous articles and book chapters

Janine M. Zweig, Ph.D., a Senior Research Associate in Urban Institute’s Justice policy Center, has
research and evaluation experience addressing issues relating to vulnerable populations, including both
victims of violence and offenders. In addition to being part of the team studying adult drug courts, her
projects have examined sexual violence in prison systems in the U.S.; the effectiveness of victim service,
criminal justice, and welfare agency responses to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence; the co-
occurrence of health risk behaviors during adolescence (including substance use, sexual activity, suicide,
and violence); and the effectiveness of employment programs for individuals leaving prison and returning
to communities. She received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies from the
Pennsylvania State University.

Michael Rempel, M.A, is Research Director at the Center for Court Innovation, overseeing all research
conducted at the agency. He is actively involved in projects concerning drug courts, offender reentry,
violence against women, and applications of problem-solving techniques within traditional
court settings.

Christine H. Lindquist, Ph.D., received her doctorate in Medical Sociology from the University of
Alabama at Birmingham. She is currently a Senior Research Sociologist in the Crime, Violence, and
Justice research program at RTI International. Her research interests and areas of expertise include
prisoner reentry, families and incarceration, and violence against women.

Authors 287
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

Authors

Avinash S. Bhati, Ph.D., is President of Maxarth LLC. Dr. Avinash Bhati formerly was a Senior
Research Associate for The Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. He supervised research activities that
included primary data collection efforts, data organization and synthesis, data checking, data analysis,
report writing, and dissemination. Research projects Dr. Bhati participated in or led covered such topics
as the evaluation of programs aimed at reducing crime; analysis of sentencing outcomes; spatial analysis
of crime; understanding supervision failure, modeling individual offending patterns; and the development
of innovative analytical methods for analyzing crime and justice related issues

P. Mitchell Downey, M.A., is a Research Associate II in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.
He has conducted quantitative analysis for multiple projects, using such methods as time-series analysis,
Bayesian methods, random effects and hierarchical models, latent class growth modeling, meta-analysis,
spatio-temporal analysis, Heckman error correction, and others. He also has conducted cost-benefit
analyses for diverse projects, including drug courts and other problem-solving courts, use of DNA in
criminal investigations, jail sexual assault prevention programs, applications to meta-analytic results, and
others. Mr. Downey earned his degree in Economics from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Kristine Fahrney is a Survey Director who has been with RTI since 1999. During this time, she has led
data collection efforts for a number of studies involving research subjects who are incarcerated or
otherwise involved with the criminal justice system including the Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation; the
Study of Development Across the Lifecycle; and the Evaluation of the Administration of Children and
Families Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Re-
entering Fathers and Their Partners. Prior to coming to RTI, Ms. Fahrney was involved in several other
data collection efforts involving similar populations including: Evaluation of Offenders in Lockup Status
in the Iowa State Penitentiary, Women Offenders Treatment Program Year 1 Evaluation, and Sex
Offender Treatment Program Ongoing Evaluation.

Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D., is a Statistician with the Prosecutions and Adjudications Unit at the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. His research interests include justice system responses to
intimate partner violence, recidivism, and pro se litigants in criminal and civil litigation. Prior to joining
the BJS, he conducted research and evaluation on drug courts and other innovative justice system
programs at the Center for Court Innovation. He also has published research on state appellate courts,
including a book and several articles in professional journals. Dr. Farole received his Ph.D. from Indiana
University.

Mia Green, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Court Innovation. Ms. Green’s prior
research has included studying the effects of reentry of formerly incarcerated women and pretrial release
conditions on misdemeanor and felony defendants. Ms. Green received a Master’s in Education from San
Francisco State University and a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York.

Kelli Henry, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Court Innovation. She has done
research on drug courts, juvenile mental health programs for justice-system involved youth, and
community courts. Prior to joining the Center, Dr. Henry worked as Europe Editor at the
Economist Intelligence Unit and taught college courses in social science research methods. Dr. Henry
earned her Ph.D. in Sociology from New York University.

Dana Kralstein, M.P.P., the Associate Director of Research at the Center for Court Innovation, is
currently participating in an evaluation of the Bronx Family Treatment Court, as well as a study of child
protective cases in New York State’s Family Court. She is the author of an evaluation of the Suffolk

Authors 288
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Final Version

County Juvenile Drug Court, a study of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative, a community court
evaluation literature review, and is a co-author of the New York Statewide Adult Drug Court Evaluation.
Ms. Kralstein attended the University of Rochester as an undergraduate, and received her Master’s in
Public Policy from the Ford School at the University of Michigan, with a concentration in social policy.
Ms. Kralstein is currently working towards a Ph.D. in Political Science at the Graduate Center at the City
University of New York.

Erica Lagerson was formerly a Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute,
where she contributed to research projects through quantitative and qualitative data collection and
analysis.

Joshua A. Markman is a Research Associate II with the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. He is
currently the Policy Area Manager for the District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute (DCPI), where he
is responsible for day-to-day project activities. Mr. Markman has also managed several projects, primarily
those relating to the evaluation of DNA and its use by various criminal justice actors. Before coming to
the Justice Policy Center, Mr. Markman studied Criminology and Sociology at the University of
Pennsylvania.

Courtney Schafer was formerly a Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute,
where she contributed to research projects through quantitative and qualitative data collection and
analysis.

Janeen Buck Willison, M.S. J., is a Senior Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute. She has more than a decade of experience managing and directing complex experimental and
quasi-experimental multi-site fieldwork studies of youth and adult populations. Her research focuses on
diverse juvenile and criminal justice issues, including specialized courts, delinquency prevention, mental
health interventions for offenders, faith-based re-entry programs, and the link between substance abuse
and crime. She serves as Principal Investigator for the NIJ-sponsored study of faith-based reentry
programs, Co-Principal Investigator for the process evaluation of the Transition from Prison to
Community (TPC) Initiative; and was Project Director for the recently completed Assessing Policy
Options (APO) project, and Project Manager for the national evaluation of the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation’s Reclaiming Futures initiative.

Jennifer Yahner (nee Castro) is a Research Associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. She
has been conducting criminal justice research for more than a decade and has experience in issues
surrounding prisoner reentry, court-ordered supervision, intimate partner violence, and high-risk youth
program evaluation. She is skilled in large-scale data management and statistical analysis using a variety
of quantitative methodologies. Her responsibilities on projects such as the Returning Home studies and
the Transitional Jobs for Ex-Offenders and Judicial Oversight Demonstration evaluations have included
data acquisition, management, scale construction, statistical analysis (e.g., attrition/sample
representativeness, structural equation modeling, social network, cost analysis), and reporting.

Authors 289

00016-Drug Court Eval Exec Sum
No ratings yet
00016-Drug Court Eval Exec Sum
8 pages
DA - Court Clog - Michigan Starter Packet
No ratings yet
DA - Court Clog - Michigan Starter Packet
17 pages
20240811200042assignment 1 Full Paper
No ratings yet
20240811200042assignment 1 Full Paper
6 pages
Wet 28436
No ratings yet
Wet 28436
6 pages
ModelStateDCLegislation
No ratings yet
ModelStateDCLegislation
104 pages
Drug Treatment in Criminal Justice
No ratings yet
Drug Treatment in Criminal Justice
72 pages
Integrated Case Study
100% (1)
Integrated Case Study
16 pages
Psychopathology Discussion Assignment-2
No ratings yet
Psychopathology Discussion Assignment-2
5 pages
Criminal Justice
No ratings yet
Criminal Justice
7 pages
Evaluation of The Lexington Fayette County Kentucky Juvenile Drug Court Program
No ratings yet
Evaluation of The Lexington Fayette County Kentucky Juvenile Drug Court Program
26 pages
Legal Initiatives
No ratings yet
Legal Initiatives
5 pages
Drug Court Success and Impact
No ratings yet
Drug Court Success and Impact
2 pages
National Institute of Justice: Drug Courts and The Role of Graduated Sanctions
No ratings yet
National Institute of Justice: Drug Courts and The Role of Graduated Sanctions
4 pages
191201
No ratings yet
191201
230 pages
Criminal Justice Sequestration Sign-On Letter - 12-10-12 - Final With Signatures
No ratings yet
Criminal Justice Sequestration Sign-On Letter - 12-10-12 - Final With Signatures
51 pages
Should Drug Offenders Be Imprisoned?
No ratings yet
Should Drug Offenders Be Imprisoned?
12 pages
Specialty Courts and The Special Problems They Pose
No ratings yet
Specialty Courts and The Special Problems They Pose
4 pages
Wisconsin Sentencing Reform Plan
No ratings yet
Wisconsin Sentencing Reform Plan
94 pages
Date Received: August 8, 2001
No ratings yet
Date Received: August 8, 2001
82 pages
208126
No ratings yet
208126
53 pages
Criminal Justice Paper
No ratings yet
Criminal Justice Paper
5 pages
Report To Congressional Committees: United States Government Accountability Office
No ratings yet
Report To Congressional Committees: United States Government Accountability Office
86 pages
Issue Exploratory Paper - Rough Draft
No ratings yet
Issue Exploratory Paper - Rough Draft
8 pages
Report To The Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and The Committee On The Judiciary, House of Representatives
No ratings yet
Report To The Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and The Committee On The Judiciary, House of Representatives
179 pages
Community Based Treatment For Offenders
No ratings yet
Community Based Treatment For Offenders
12 pages
Cjhs 300 WK 4 Ip
No ratings yet
Cjhs 300 WK 4 Ip
7 pages
Monograph118 PDF
No ratings yet
Monograph118 PDF
308 pages
IntJournalofDrugPolicy EvanAnderson
No ratings yet
IntJournalofDrugPolicy EvanAnderson
8 pages
Problem
No ratings yet
Problem
2 pages
2015pr-Us Programs Justice Fund Reducing U.S. Incarcerated Populations May 21 2015-Usp JF Incarceration PRD 5.21.2015
No ratings yet
2015pr-Us Programs Justice Fund Reducing U.S. Incarcerated Populations May 21 2015-Usp JF Incarceration PRD 5.21.2015
26 pages
Crime Prevention: What Works?
100% (1)
Crime Prevention: What Works?
633 pages
194124
No ratings yet
194124
403 pages
Drug Treatment Services For Adult Offenders - The State of The State
No ratings yet
Drug Treatment Services For Adult Offenders - The State of The State
16 pages
Violation Probation
No ratings yet
Violation Probation
105 pages
Reforming America S Criminal Justice System Refocusing On Delivering Results Aligning With Our Values and Reducing The Burden On Taxpayers
No ratings yet
Reforming America S Criminal Justice System Refocusing On Delivering Results Aligning With Our Values and Reducing The Burden On Taxpayers
16 pages
Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in The United States PDF Ebook With Full Chapters
100% (16)
Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in The United States PDF Ebook With Full Chapters
15 pages
Sen. Webb'S National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010
No ratings yet
Sen. Webb'S National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010
4 pages
Reforming America's Criminal Justice System: Refocusing On Delivering Results, Aligning With Our Values, and Reducing The Burden On Taxpayers
100% (1)
Reforming America's Criminal Justice System: Refocusing On Delivering Results, Aligning With Our Values, and Reducing The Burden On Taxpayers
16 pages
Oakland County Justice System Programs
No ratings yet
Oakland County Justice System Programs
3 pages
Journal Assignment
No ratings yet
Journal Assignment
7 pages
Corrections System in Rhode Island
No ratings yet
Corrections System in Rhode Island
10 pages
A Case Study of The Akron Mental Health Court: Office of Criminal Justice Services
No ratings yet
A Case Study of The Akron Mental Health Court: Office of Criminal Justice Services
18 pages
Strategies for Substance Abuse Reduction
No ratings yet
Strategies for Substance Abuse Reduction
90 pages
Essay 1 JP
No ratings yet
Essay 1 JP
7 pages
The Effects of Drug Court
No ratings yet
The Effects of Drug Court
6 pages
Justice Response to Domestic Violence
No ratings yet
Justice Response to Domestic Violence
252 pages
Alabama Prison Crisis: The Drug Policy Alliance
No ratings yet
Alabama Prison Crisis: The Drug Policy Alliance
39 pages
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options To Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State
No ratings yet
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options To Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State
27 pages
ICJCAdult Alternativeto Incarcerating Report
No ratings yet
ICJCAdult Alternativeto Incarcerating Report
80 pages
Drug Treatment Courts: Background
No ratings yet
Drug Treatment Courts: Background
2 pages
RECIDIVISM
No ratings yet
RECIDIVISM
15 pages
Kansas Drug Court
No ratings yet
Kansas Drug Court
55 pages
The Road Back From America's Incarceration Epidemic Revised
No ratings yet
The Road Back From America's Incarceration Epidemic Revised
9 pages
Connecticut Guide To Diversionary Programs
100% (1)
Connecticut Guide To Diversionary Programs
24 pages
Case Study 1
No ratings yet
Case Study 1
12 pages
46895NCJRS Promising Strategies in Probation and Parole PDF
No ratings yet
46895NCJRS Promising Strategies in Probation and Parole PDF
146 pages
Date Received: August 8, 2002
100% (1)
Date Received: August 8, 2002
123 pages
English Exam 2018-2019: Stress & Correction
No ratings yet
English Exam 2018-2019: Stress & Correction
5 pages
The Adventure of The Speckled Band
No ratings yet
The Adventure of The Speckled Band
22 pages
Cyber Forensics: Importance & Process
No ratings yet
Cyber Forensics: Importance & Process
50 pages
Mks CPSB Job Application Form 2022
No ratings yet
Mks CPSB Job Application Form 2022
3 pages
Criminology Comprehensive Examination Set B
100% (1)
Criminology Comprehensive Examination Set B
9 pages
Introduction to Crime Mapping
No ratings yet
Introduction to Crime Mapping
22 pages
Legal Evidence: Character Analysis
No ratings yet
Legal Evidence: Character Analysis
15 pages
People vs. Umali
No ratings yet
People vs. Umali
9 pages
Bùi Thị Thuỳ Trang 2
No ratings yet
Bùi Thị Thuỳ Trang 2
2 pages
Murder Case Review: Self-Defense Claim
No ratings yet
Murder Case Review: Self-Defense Claim
12 pages
Warhammer 40k Chaos Quote
No ratings yet
Warhammer 40k Chaos Quote
121 pages
Englishville
No ratings yet
Englishville
1 page
2022-2023 Report On Compliance Monitoring Re Vawc
No ratings yet
2022-2023 Report On Compliance Monitoring Re Vawc
2 pages
Comissão Europeia Declaração Imprensa Legislação E-Evidence
No ratings yet
Comissão Europeia Declaração Imprensa Legislação E-Evidence
2 pages
Sentence Transformation 1 - UPPER Matura
No ratings yet
Sentence Transformation 1 - UPPER Matura
2 pages
Topic II Extradition 2
No ratings yet
Topic II Extradition 2
14 pages
McLaughlin 2007 - The New Policing
No ratings yet
McLaughlin 2007 - The New Policing
154 pages
2020 Eugene Police Annual Report
100% (1)
2020 Eugene Police Annual Report
41 pages
National High School XI - Empowerment Technologies Fourth Quarter
No ratings yet
National High School XI - Empowerment Technologies Fourth Quarter
1 page
Writ Good No Zucker
No ratings yet
Writ Good No Zucker
3 pages
People V Tica, G.R. No. 222561
No ratings yet
People V Tica, G.R. No. 222561
2 pages
CLJ 3 Criminal Law Book 1 1
100% (1)
CLJ 3 Criminal Law Book 1 1
14 pages
Christie Agatha After The Funeral-22-30
No ratings yet
Christie Agatha After The Funeral-22-30
9 pages
Safe City Concept and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Cpted) For Urban Sustainability in Malaysia Cities
No ratings yet
Safe City Concept and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Cpted) For Urban Sustainability in Malaysia Cities
14 pages
c2 Print
No ratings yet
c2 Print
11 pages
Ankul Sir English Classes: English For Everyone and Everything
No ratings yet
Ankul Sir English Classes: English For Everyone and Everything
3 pages
Bodyguard Manual
97% (100)
Bodyguard Manual
285 pages
Criminology 21 Handouts For Semi Final
No ratings yet
Criminology 21 Handouts For Semi Final
27 pages
Thesis Statement For A Research Paper On The Death Penalty
100% (2)
Thesis Statement For A Research Paper On The Death Penalty
5 pages
Advance - Rage-Baiting - Why Anger Drives Social Media Views SB
No ratings yet
Advance - Rage-Baiting - Why Anger Drives Social Media Views SB
2 pages