April 18, 2003
Principal Investigator:
Tessa De Long
Graduate Student
Masters of Public Administration
University of Alaska Anchorage
Faculty Adviser:
Sharman Haley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Public Policy
Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage
Executive Summary
The purpose of this research was to conduct a program evaluation of the Anchorage Wellness Court, measuring the effects of the Court’s treatment modalities on program participants. The research methodology focused on evaluating and measuring how recidivism rates of Wellness Court participants and non-participants compare. Additionally, the methodology attempted to measure the cost-savings of the Anchorage Wellness Court for the general public. The research was primarily quantitative, but also included qualitative analysis. The quantitative data for this analysis was collected from information and records made available by the Alaska Judicial Council, Alaska Court System, Alaska Department of Corrections, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, ASAP Misdemeanor Services and the Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Law, Prosecutor’s Office (collectively “Wellness Court sources”).
The project took 13 weeks and approximately 450 graduate student hours to complete. Final conclusions are provided in this report, and will also be summarized in an oral presentation to the University of Alaska, Anchorage Masters of Public Administration Capstone class participants on April 18, 2003.
The primary conclusions of the program evaluation are as follows:
1. The Anchorage Wellness Court is helping program participants to overcome their life-long addiction to alcohol and providing them with the skills and therapies necessary to become active citizens in their communities.
2. The analysis of Anchorage Wellness Court participants in 2001 and 2002 indicates that graduates are benefiting, at least in the short term, from the positive components of the Wellness Court treatment methodology.
3. Graduates and Wellness Court participants have lower incidences of recidivism in comparison to individuals who were eligible for, but declined entrance to, the Wellness Court program and national recidivism averages.
4. The costs associated with the Anchorage Wellness Court are markedly lower than those for traditional incarceration.
The primary recommendations of the program evaluation are as follows:
1. Partners for Progress should develop a program database to track program participants and compile necessary data for further review and analysis.
2. A more detailed evaluation of the Anchorage Wellness Court should be conducted. This analysis should include the complete prior history of all participants, including any offenses committed and time served in other states, and attempt to find the correlation between Wellness Court enrollment and successful completion and demographic variables such as age, race, and gender.
Statement of Work
There is a great deal of information about therapeutic justice and drug courts and their role in larger court system. There is also a wide array of literature and academic research on the effects that alcohol and drug abuse have on the economy both nationally and regionally.
In Alaska, a comprehensive study of the costs associated with alcohol and other drug abuse was prepared for the Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Social Services. The study, “Economic Costs of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse in Alaska, Phase Two,” was conducted by the McDowell Group in November 2001. The study claims that 9.7% of Alaska’s population is alcohol dependent. The cost of this alcohol dependency to the Alaska economy is estimated to be $453 million during 1999[1]. The study also claims that 17,100 arrests in 1999 were attributed to alcohol or other drug abuse. Costs attributed to crime-related alcohol and other drug abuse in the state was $102 million.
While there is a great deal of information and evaluation at the local and state level, the Anchorage Wellness Court is relatively new and has only been partially evaluated. Complete data on program participants has only recently been collected (data is available for calendar year 2001, 2002 and year-to-date for 2003).
An initial analysis in 2001 suggested that Wellness Court participants who graduated from the program were less likely to re-offend than individuals who chose to opt-out of the program. This analysis was somewhat inconclusive because it was conducted on a very small population, and lacked a comparison group. What is not yet known about the Wellness Court, and what this project seeks to determine, is whether the initial findings indicating a causative relation between the Wellness Court experience and reduction in recidivism is supported by an additional year of data and by data from a comparable group of offenders who did not participate in Wellness Court. As a result, the research question guiding this program evaluation is:
Does an individual’s participation in the Anchorage Wellness Court increase his/her chances of maintaining sobriety, reduce recidivism rates and reduce the public costs?
Existing Information
The data for this analysis was collected from information and records made available by the Alaska Judicial Council, Alaska Court System, Alaska Department of Corrections, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, ASAP Misdemeanor Services and the Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Law, Prosecutor’s Office (collectively “Wellness Court sources”). Both demographic and offense history information was collected. The Department of Corrections data contains all previous history (within the state of Alaska only), current Wellness Court charge and any recidivism occurrences. There is an abundance of robust data, however it has not been holistically analyzed and compared in previous evaluations.
New information was generated in the following categories:
1) Wellness Court participants, graduates and opt-out demographics
2) Comparison group demographics. The comparison group was made up of individuals who were eligible for Wellness Court and were given the option of opting into the Wellness Court, but chose not to enter the program.
3) 2 year comparison of Wellness Court participants and graduates with the comparison group
4) Comparison of total costs associated with Wellness Court participants, graduates and opt-outs and the comparison group
Scope of Work
The following tasks were completed in the course of this program evaluation:
1) Met with Partners for Progress Executive Director, Robyn Johnson, and Center for Therapeutic Justice Program Manager, Jill McLeod, to refine the research question and reach a written agreement on the program evaluation approach
2) Obtained necessary data from Department of Corrections and Wellness Court sources
3) Analyzed data
4) Wrote and submitted a final program evaluation report
Wellness Court Program – History in Brief
In 1999 Partners for Progress, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission is “to assist alcoholics and alcoholic misdemeanants in making changes needed to achieve a better life,”[2] assisted Judge James N. Wannamaker in starting the Wellness Court as a pilot project.
The Wellness Court is for municipal misdemeanor defendants who are addicted to alcohol and want to overcome their addiction. The purpose of the Wellness Court is to assist alcoholic offenders in overcoming their addiction and maintain sobriety. A defendant is eligible to participate in the Wellness Court program if he/she has been charged with an alcohol-motivated misdemeanor offense and is an alcoholic. Admission to the Wellness Court is not automatic. Cases are reviewed on an individual basis, and some people are refused admission because of a record of violence or factors indicating lack of motivation to change. Participation in the Wellness Court is voluntary.
Once a defendant has successfully “opted-in” to the Wellness Court he/she follows the basic structure of the Court Treatment Plan[3]:
After four years of apparent successes in treating alcoholic misdemeanants, Partners for Progress desired to know if the Anchorage Wellness Court had actually caused participants and graduates to reduce their recidivism rates and maintain sobriety.
Statistical Analysis
Wellness Court
Participants
Wellness Court participants and members of the comparison group are predominantly middle-aged males. A majority of the participants have a history of dropping out of treatment, or failing prior treatment.[4] The following table provides demographic details on the 2001 and 2002 Wellness Court participants, as well as the comparison group. Figure 1 details the number of percentage of opt-outs, graduates and enrolled participants in 2001, 2002 and cumulatively (2002 participant group includes 21 individuals who “carried-over” from 2001).
|
|
2001 Wellness Court |
2002 Wellness Court* |
Comparison Group |
|
Total participants |
34 |
45 |
30 |
|
Gender |
11 female (32%) 23 male (68%) |
15 female (33%) 30 male (67%) |
5 female (17%) 25 male (83%) |
|
Average Age of all
participants |
41 |
43 |
40 |
|
Average Age of male
participants |
42 |
43 |
39 |
|
Average age of
female participants |
39 |
42 |
46 |
|
Total Graduates |
8 (24%) |
4 (9%) |
N/A |
|
Total Opt-Outs |
5 (15%) |
11 (24%) |
N/A |
|
Total retained
participants |
21 (61%) |
30 (67%) |
N/A |
*2002 participant total includes 21 individuals who were carried over from 2001. There were 24 new participants in 2002.
Total = 45 Total = 34 Wellness Court Participants: 2001, 2002 & Cumulative 8 4 12 5 11 16 21 30 40 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2001 2002 Cumulative Calendar Year Percentage Enrolled Opt-Outs Graduates Total = 68 Data as of 2/03
The ethnicity[5] of Wellness Court participants in 2001 and 2002 was predominantly Alaska Native and Caucasian. Ethnicity data was not available for the comparison group participants. Figures 2 and 3 provide ethnicity data on Wellness Court participants.
data as of 2/03 data as of 2/03 2002 Wellness Court Participant Ethnicity 60% 29% 9% 2% AK Native Caucasian Black Hispanic
Figure 2 Figure 3
Partners for Progress have received several questions regarding the ethnicity of their graduates. The Wellness Court was not developed to be culturally relevant to any particular ethnicity. Some individuals may suggest that because of that, it may not work as effectively for individuals of a particular cultural background e.g. Native Alaskan heritage. Initial findings from this report refute such an assumption that Alaska Natives might not succeed. While the number of graduates is arguably small, Figure 4 demonstrates that Native Alaskans have succeeded at a higher rate then other ethnic groups in the Wellness Court program.
data as of 2/03 Ethnicity
of Wellness Court Graduates 67% 25% 8% AK Native Caucasian Hispanic
Figure 4
The majority of Wellness Court participants lack financial resources to hire their own attorneys and are represented by the municipal public defender firm.
Approximately 80% of Wellness Court participants and comparison group members enter Court on a DUI/DWI charge. Others are charged with assault, disorderly conduct, domestic violence and child abuse (neglect). The majority of participants, in each of the three groups, have extensive records of alcohol-related crime, ranging upwards of 55 prior convictions. Cumulatively, the 2001 and 2002 participants had spent approximately 116 years in jail before they entered Wellness Court. In today’s dollars, that amount of jail time cost the public approximately $4.8 million in direct jail costs. The comparison group participants had spent approximately 50 years in jail before they were eligible to enroll in Wellness Court. In today’s dollars, that amount of jail time cost the public approximately $2 million in direct jail costs. Neither of the estimated figures for Wellness Court participants or comparison group participants includes all associated costs of court and police time, failed treatment, health care, lost wages, property damage, and societal and family harm.
Jail Days/Prior
Offenses
Figure 5 depicts the number of jail days, both prior and post, for 2001 and 2002 Wellness Court participants and comparison group members.
15679 1430 26804 993 18125 2239 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Days of Incarceration 2001 Participants 2002 Participants Comparison Group Total Jail Days: Prior and Post Wellness Court Total Prior Days Total Post Days data as of 2/03
Figure 5
Prior DUIs and prior “other” offenses were calculated and compared for each of the three groups. Prior DUIs are of particular interest to Partners for Progress, as a majority of Wellness Court participants enter Wellness Court on a DUI or DUI-related charge.
For the 2001 Wellness Court group 30 (94%) individuals had a total of 102 DUIs, and averaged 3.4 DUIs per individual. For the 2002 Wellness Court group 41 (91%) had a total of 168 DUIs, and averaged 4 DUIs per individual. For the comparison group 25 (83%) individuals had a total of 56 DUIs, and averaged 1 DUI per individual. The comparison group has far fewer total and average DUIs than both the 2001 and 2002 Wellness Court participant groups. These findings may suggest that individuals who have committed more DUI offenses, and are faced with more lengthy incarceration sentences are more likely to opt-in to Wellness Court, than first time DUI offenders.
Figure 6 details the prior offense history for all three groups including both DUI and prior “other” offenses.
327 102 412 168