Best Practices in Treatment Court Evaluation

• Published in: Federal Probation Vol. 82; no. 3; pp. 21 - 44
• Main Authors: Rodi, Michael S, Zil, Charlene, Carey, Shannon M
• Format: Trade Publication Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington Administrative Office of the United States Courts 01.12.2018
• Subjects: Accountability; Alternative sentencing; Community; Cost control; Criminal law; Criminology; Data collection; Domestic violence; Drug courts; Family law; Feedback; Focus groups; Handbooks; Imprisonment; Information sharing; Probation officers; Recidivism; Substance abuse treatment; Oregon; New York; United States > US
• ISSN: 0014-9128; 1555-0303

[...]most obviously, program evaluation feedback may help identify places for program improvement or enhancement, and bolster practices and policies to address them. [...]inprogram outcomes do not entirely account for the cyclical, multi-system impact of long-term outcomes, such as criminal recidivism (discussed below). Depending on the availability of data, evaluators may measure recidivism in terms of new arrests, convictions, or incarceration (or all three) within the 2- to 5-year period following program entry. Because of the different social and fiscal costs associated with different crimes, offenses should be disaggregated by severity (i.e., felony vs. misdemeanor, or summary offense) and type (e.g., person, property, drug). [...]while this article focuses on adult treatment drug courts, generally, other treatment court programs (such as family courts, mental health courts, etc.) should define recidivism both in terms of criminal justice recidivism and according to the specific goals of those programs and ensure that observation periods match those measures.