Effects of admission and treatment strategies of DWI courts on offender outcomes

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to classify DWI courts on the basis of the mix of difficult cases participating in the court (casemix severity) and the amount of involvement between the court and participant (service intensity). Using our classification typology, we assess how casemix severity and service intensity are associated with program outcomes. We expected that holding other factors constant, greater service intensity would improve program outcomes while a relatively severe casemix would result in worse program outcomes. Methods The study used data from 8 DWI courts, 7 from Michigan and 1 from North Carolina. Using a 2-way classification system based on court casemix severity and program intensity, we selected participants in 1 of the courts, and alternatively 2 courts as reference groups. Reference group courts had relatively severe casemixes and high service intensity. We used propensity score matching to match participants in the other courts to participants in the reference group court programs. Program outcome measures were the probabilities of participants’: failing to complete the court’s program; increasing educational attainment; participants improving employment from time of program enrollment; and re-arrest. Results For most outcomes, our main finding was that higher service intensity is associated with better outcomes for court participants, as anticipated, but a court’s casemix severity was unrelated to study outcomes. Conclusions Our results imply that devoting more resources to increasing duration of treatment is productive in terms of better outcomes, irrespective of the mix of participants in the court’s program

Drinking and Driving

“…Using data from six Michigan courts and one North Carolina court, Sloan et al (2013b) found that higher service intensity of the court programs led to better outcomes, a result inconsistent with second conclusion about alcohol treatment in general that greater service intensity does not lead to better outcomes. In a non-DWI court study with Canadian data that used indexes reflective of alcohol problems and future arrests for DWI and RDD, Flam-Zalcman et al (2013) observed substantial reductions in alcohol use during the 6-month follow-up at the point in which the point score led to assignment of 16-h versus an 8-h brief treatment intervention.…”

Does the probability of DWI arrest fall following participation in DWI and hybrid drug treatment court programs?

“…Such strategies involve a combination of deterrence and incapacitation using license revocation, jail terms, and fines to reduce car crashes and personal injuries. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is hampered because most individuals who disobey substance use and driving laws will not be caught and will not be exposed to the relevant sanctions (Sloan et al 2013). For example, North Carolina mandates that a driver’s license be revoked for a minimum of one year following a DWI conviction.…”

“…Sloan et al (2013) analyzed data from eight DWI courts–seven from Michigan and one from North Carolina. A general finding was that higher service intensity (more services provided per participant per time period) was associated with better outcomes such as the probability of participants completing the court program, whether or not educational attainment increased post- versus pre-enrollment, and whether or no the participants employment status improved post- versus pre- enrollment.…”

The effects of participation level on recidivism: a study of drug treatment courts using propensity score matching

“…Simply being referred to or enrolling in a DTC program may prevent future criminal activity by exposing the prosecuted or convicted person to available community resources for individuals with addictions. This is particularly relevant since far greater numbers of persons are referred to DTCs than who actually enroll, and many more persons enroll without completing [ 22 ]. Yet, existing studies have tended to compare those who completed a DTC program (or graduates) with those who dropped out of a program [ 11 , 23 , 24 ].…”