Evaluation of Nebraska's Problem-Solving Courts

Evaluation of Nebraska’s

Problem-Solving Courts

March 31, 2012

Prepared by:

The Public Policy Center

University of Nebraska

215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 401

Lincoln, NE 68588 – 0228

Phone: 402 – 472 – 5678

FAX: 402 – 472 – 5679

Email: ppc@nebraska.edu

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

The University of Nebraska Public Policy Center provides assistance to

policymakers in all three branches of government and researchers on a wide

range of public policy issues. The mission of the PPC is to actively inform

public policy by facilitating, developing, and making available objective

research and analyses of issues for elected and appointed officials; state and

local agency staff; the public at large; and others who represent policy

interests.

215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 401, Lincoln, NE 68588-0228

Ph: 402-472-5678 | Fax: 402-472-5679

www.ppc.nebraska.edu

The University of Nebraska does not discriminate based on gender, age, disability, race,

color, religion, marital status, veteran’s status, national or ethnic origin, or sexual

orientation.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

Contents

................................................................................................. 1

........................................................................................ 3

....................... 4

..................................................... 5

................................................................................. 19

........................................................................................................................................... 24

.................................................................................................................... 32

...................... 45

...................................................................................................................... 108

................... 127

...................................................................................................................... 151

........... 175

...................................................................................................................... 178

................................................................................................................. 205

................................................................................................................ 234

............................................................................ 245

...................................................... 335

.................. 342

................................................................. 352

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

1 | P a g e

From March 2010 through December 2011, the University of Nebraska Public Policy

Center conducted an evaluation of Nebraska’s problem solving courts. Main findings

include the following:

 Nebraska’s problem solving courts are effectively operated, following the ten key

components for drug courts, thereby reducing crime and addiction and improving

the lives of participants

 Graduation rates for Nebraska drug courts match or exceed national drug court

rates

 Costs for Nebraska programs are comparable to costs for drug courts across the

country

 Nebraska drug court programs are cost efficient, saving between $2,609,235 and

$9,722,920 in tax dollars per year

 Problem solving courts in Nebraska are serving moderate to high need offenders,

the type of offenders most appropriate for drug court services

 Nebraska drug courts are serving a diversity of offenders, with few disparities

based on race, ethnicity, and gender

 Education and employment skills are emphasized in problem solving courts,

which lead to successful outcomes for participants

 Although the evaluation found Nebraska problem solving courts are operating

effectively and efficiently, there are areas that can be improved:

 Participants with higher criminal history risk could be accepted and

effectively served in drug courts

 Increased training in the 10 key drug court components and the

Standardized Model for Delivery of Substance Abuse Services could

benefit problem solving courts, particularly family drug courts

 Review of admissions procedures for select courts could identify causes

for racial/ethnic disparities; culturally competent approaches could

improve services

 Improvements could be made by ensuring full participation of county

attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, and treatment

provides in problem solving court teams

 Drug court teams could benefit from additional training and team building

 Additional funding would enhance key supports for drug courts including

participant incentives, access to day reporting centers, and enhanced

treatment

 Programs could be improved through standardized procedures for

reporting treatment progress and fidelity to evidence based practices

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

2 | P a g e

 Time between arrest and drug court admission could be reduced, thereby

improving outcomes for participants

 The quality of problem solving courts could be improved through ongoing

program evaluation

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

3 | P a g e

The program evaluation was conducted by the University of Nebraska Public Policy

Center under a contract with the state of Nebraska. There are 22 problem solving courts

in Nebraska (10 adult courts, five juvenile courts, five family courts, one young adult

court, and one Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court).

The purposes of the study included the following:

 Understand what is working well and what can be improved in Nebraska’s

problem solving courts

 Understand who is being served through problem solving courts

 Understand how problem solving courts operate

 Understand what problem solving courts cost

 Understand how effective problem solving courts are in Nebraska and what

factors are associated with positive outcomes

 Understand how problem solving courts can continuously evaluate and improve

their services

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

4 | P a g e

The evaluation focused on offenders who were

served in Nebraska problem solving courts from

January 2007 through April 2011. During this time

period, at least 1862 individuals were served by

Nebraska problems solving courts. About 80%

were served in adult drug courts. Only one of the

family dependency drug courts reported numbers

served. As of July 30, 2011, 726 participants had

graduated from drug court, 609 participants had

been terminated, and 527 were currently active. The

average age for adult drug court participants is 30.3

years of age, and the average for juveniles is 16.6.

The average age for the young adult drug court is

19.7 years.

Participants in Nebraska’s problem solving

courts are predominately male: 63% of

adult drug court participants and nearly

80% of juvenile court participants are male.

Participants in the young adult court (65%)

and DUI court (78.3%) are also mostly

male, while participants in family court are

mostly female (97%).

Most participants were white, although there were substantial racial/ethnic differences

across courts, reflecting unique demographics across Nebraska communities. A

comparison of drug court participants to probation participants revealed few racial/ethnic

disparities, although one adult drug court included fewer racial minorities than

anticipated. Nearly all juvenile and

young adult court participants were

single. Most adult court participants

were also single (64%), while 14% were

divorced, 12% were married, 7% were

separated, 4% were cohabitating, and

9% were widowed. Most adult drug

court participants were charged with a

class 2 through 4 felony, while the

majority of juvenile drug court

participants were charged with juvenile

offenses. Cannabis was the most

common primary drug of choice for participants in both adult and juvenile drug courts.

Number of Participants by Court

Type Jan 2007 – April 2011

Type of Court

Adult Drug

Courts

1482

Juvenile Drug

Courts

292

Lancaster Family

Court

Young Adult

Court

DUI Court

Total

1862

Male

63%

Female

37%

Adult Drug Court

Participants by Gender

White

73%

Black

17%

Hispanic

Other

Race Ethnicity of

Participants

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

5 | P a g e

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Reduce Crime, Addiction and Costs

In this evaluation, we found Nebraska problem

solving courts are following best practices for drug

courts. National research has shown programs using

best practices are effective in reducing recidivism

and the effects of addiction for participants.

Rigorous studies have clearly demonstrated the

effectiveness of adult drug courts in reducing crime

and alcohol/drug use and in improving the lives of

drug court participants (e.g., Lowenkamp,

Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005). Preliminary findings also suggest juvenile drug courts and

family dependency drug courts that adhere to best practices are likely effective in

preventing recidivism (e.g., Boles, Young, Moore, & DiPirro-Beard, 2007; Henggeler, et.

al, 2006).

In this evaluation we reviewed the operations of problem solving courts in Nebraska and

found courts are following best practice standards and principles for drug courts, thereby

operating effectively.

 Problem solving courts have regular, often interdisciplinary team meetings in

which cases are reviewed, determinations are made about sanctions, incentives, or

graduations, and new applications are reviewed. Team meetings regularly

comprise prosecuting and defense attorneys, treatment representatives, law

enforcement, the program coordinator and supervisors, and the judge. The judge

usually presides over and manages all team meetings as the leader, but there were

exceptions in some programs.

 During team meetings, judges showed an understanding and appreciation of

treatment considerations for participants. Although judges may not have formal

training in behavioral health or drug/alcohol treatment, they did show a significant

understanding of the treatment process and valued the input of treatment

professionals.

 Judges play the central role in hearings procedures. The judges discuss the

progress of each participant on a one-on-one basis and with attorneys. The judges

direct sanctions or incentives to individuals, and showed a good understanding of

the importance of providing both positive and negative feedback to participants.

Direct interaction during hearings with participants ranged from a few minutes

per participant in some of the larger courts, to up to ten or more minutes in

smaller programs; research indicates the more time judges interact with

participants, the better the outcomes. In the juvenile court programs, judges also

interacted with parents on a regular basis.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

6 | P a g e

 Both case supervisors/probation officers and representatives from treatment

providers play a critical role in team meetings by informing the rest of the team of

the day to day progress of program participants. In all the team meetings

observed, the judge and attorneys listened carefully to what supervisors and

treatment representatives had to say about individual cases.

 Prosecuting attorneys were present in all hearings observed, and played a regular

role in discussing the case progress of individual participants during actual

hearings. Public defenders were not regularly present in hearings. In roughly half

of the site visits we conducted, public defenders were not present during hearings.

 Interviews conducted with program coordinators indicated that most programs

were aware of the ten key components of drug courts, and actively striving to

incorporate those principles into regular activities. In practice, program

coordinators indicated that structural issues sometimes impeded full

implementation of all components. For example, a number of programs indicated

that they needed more support and knowledge with evaluation (Key Component 8

- Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and

gauge effectiveness).

 Most programs were in compliance with the Standardized Model for Delivery of

Substance Abuse. A small minority of programs indicated they were unaware of

specifics regarding this requirement.

Although Nebraska program are generally operating according to the ten key

components, there are opportunities for improvement:

 Problem solving courts across the state vary considerably in terms of team

dynamics, judicial interaction styles, the use of incentives and sanctions, and

program admission characteristics. However, all programs adhere to core

principles of problem solving courts. There is a balance that needs to be

maintained between preserving the local characteristics of individual courts to

ensure buy-in and participation by judges, attorneys, and communities; versus the

importance of mandating a foundation of common principles and operational

processes across all problem solving programs in Nebraska.

 There are a number of practices that have been found to improve outcomes for

problem solving court participants. These practices include the amount of time the

judge spends talking to each participant (outcomes are improved if the judge

spends at least three minutes with each participant), the length of time participants

spend in the problem solving court program (outcomes are improved if

participants spend at least 12 months in problem solving court and have at least 90

days of clean drug tests before graduation), and the types of individuals on the

problem solving court team (outcomes are improved if teams include law

enforcement and treatment providers) (Carey, Finigan, & Mackin, 2011).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

7 | P a g e

Ongoing evaluation can help assure Nebraska problem solving courts adhere to

these evidence based practices.

 Efforts should be made to re-orient problem solving court team members to the

requirements of the Standardized Model for Delivery of Substance Abuse

Services, particularly with the family drug programs.

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Yield Effective Outcomes

The evaluation examined graduation rates and recidivism rates for Nebraska’s problem

solving courts. The rates for Nebraska programs meet or exceed national averages. Apart

from one rural drug court with no graduations during the study period, Nebraska adult

court graduation rates range from 42.3% to 78.9%. Nationally, graduation rates range

from about 40% to 65%, with an average rate of 57% (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011).

Graduation rates for Nebraska juvenile drug courts are lower than for adult drug courts,

ranging from 18.2% to 57.6%, consistent with national averages. There were significant

differences in graduation rates across courts; these graduation rate differences are likely

due to differences in participant level of risk accepted by the programs rather than an

indicator of quality.

78.90%

76.60%

76.00%

67.60%

64.90%

58.80%

56.90%

42.90%

42.30%

0.00%

Court 1

Court 2

Court 3

Court 4

Court 5

Court 6

Court 7

Court 8

Court 9

Court 10

Adult Court Graduation Rates

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

8 | P a g e

Nebraska problem solving courts also have a relatively low rate of recidivism. As shown

in the table below, the recidivism rate for adult drug court graduates is 4.5%. Problem

solving court graduates are significantly less likely to recidivate than participants who do

not complete the program, indicating drug courts are working in Nebraska.

Recidivism* Rates for Graduated

and Terminated Participants in

Nebraska Adult Drug Courts

Adult Drug Courts

Successful Completion

(Graduated)

Unsuccessful Completion

(Terminated)

Recidivated

4.5%

7.3%

Did Not Recidivate

577

95.5%

417

92.7%

Sample Size

604

450

* For adult courts, post-program recidivism is defined as an arrest that occurs after program exit for a new

offense if, and only if, that arrest eventually results in a conviction for a felony, drug/alcohol-related

misdemeanor, or DUI offense (excluding traffic offenses other than DUI). Participants were tracked for

one year after drug court.

57.60%

55.60%

38.10%

26.00%

18.20%

Court 1

Court 2

Court 3

Court 4

Court 5

Juvenile Court Graduation Rates

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

9 | P a g e

Adult Drug Courts save

between $2,609,235 and

$9,722,920 in tax dollars

per year in Nebraska.

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Save Tax Dollars

The study included an estimate of costs for each

problem solving court. For each program, we obtained

costs for salaries, benefits and operations for the

program, estimates of costs for judges and attorneys

who participate in problem solving courts, program

costs associated with client fees, treatment costs, and

cost for time participants spent incarcerated. The

average estimated per day cost for each drug court

participant (including case management, treatment, fees and jail/detention) ranged from

$12.08 to $45.81 for adult courts and from $37.19 to $88.19 for juvenile courts. The per

participant average cost (per day cost multiplied by Average Length of Service in the

program (ALOS)) ranges from $7,707 to $25,643 for adult drug courts and from $15,545

to $45,082 for juvenile courts.

It is difficult to meaningfully compare costs for Nebraska problem solving courts to

national averages because of different methodologies used in different studies. Many of

the national studies exclude treatment costs and the costs associated with judges and

attorneys. However, relative to other studies using comparable methods and study

parameters, Nebraska’s problem solving courts were either similar in cost or less costly

that programs in other jurisdictions (Carey & Finigan, 2003; Carey et al., 2009; Mackin

et al., 2009).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

10 | P a g e

Average Costs for Adult Drug Courts

(including DUI and Young Adult Courts)

Per day

ALOS

Per Person Cost

Court 1

$12.08

638

$7,707.04

Court 2

$18.30

536

$9,808.80

Court 3

$20.56

830

$17,064.80

Court 4

$21.48

661

$14,198.28

Court 5

$21.97

N/A

N/A*

Court 6

$23.22

665

$15,441.30

Court 7

$23.72

765

$18,145.80

Court 8

$27.26

572

$15,592.72

Court 9

$30.34

790

$23,968.60

Court

$39.26

628

$24,655.28

Court

$40.13

639

$25,643.07

Court

$45.81

476

$21,805.56

Average Costs for Juvenile Drug Courts

Per

Day

ALOS

Per Person

Cost

Court 1

$37.19

418

$15,545.42

Court 2

$42.11

394

$16,591.34

Court 3

$85.06

530

$45,081.80

Court 4

$88.19

378

$33,335.82

Although the costs for Nebraska problem solving courts are estimates, these approximate

costs can be used to provide a general idea of cost savings produced through these

programs. For the 10 adult drug courts, the one young adult problem solving court and

the DUI court, the estimated costs for one year are $4,201,740. For the types of

participants served through problem solving courts, the alternative if these programs were

not available would be jail or prison. The estimate for serving the same number of

individuals for one year in jail is $6,810,975 (based on $45/day) and the estimate for

serving them in prison is $13,924,660 (based on $92/day). Hence, it is reasonable to

estimate these 12 problem solving courts save between $2,609,235 and $9,722,920 per

year. These are likely conservative estimates since the jail costs may not include ancillary

costs such as treatment services. In addition, these savings estimates do not account for

the reduction in future victim and societal costs resulting from lower recidivism rates.

While the cost study provided some general estimates for cost savings, we believe more

thorough cost benefit and cost effectiveness studies could be conducted if better data

collection processes were in place. A major challenge in collecting cost information is the

lack of financial data maintained and reported by treatment providers. Many providers

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

11 | P a g e

had difficulty matching cost to individual drug court participants. A standardized,

ongoing process for collecting this information would ensure a better understanding of

the complete costs of problem solving courts and allow an evaluation of how cost are

related to outcomes. The minimum financial data that should be collected for each

problem solving court includes the following:

1. Operations costs including salaries and benefits of staff, rent/utilities,

supplies/equipment, travel, training, and other operational costs

2. Costs of incentives and sanctions including costs of incarceration when used as a

sanction

3. A systematic method to document the amount and cost of time dedicated by drug

court team members who are not funded through the operational budget (e.g.,

judges, attorneys, law enforcement)

4. Costs of treatment and support services including substance abuse and mental

health treatment, employment training services, educational services, parent

training services, etc.

5. We recommend that costs be collected by funding source for each of the above

categories.

Nebraska problem solving courts are a valuable resource in Nebraska that lead to

improved outcomes and reduced criminal and juvenile justice costs. Additional funding

could be used to enhance programs across the state by training new team members; often

federal grant resources allowed initial team members to be trained, but as the original

team members left, new team members have not had the same opportunities. Additional

funding could also be used for incentives for problem solving court participants. In many

programs, the judge or coordinator use their personal resources to purchase incentives.

Day reporting centers are considered an important resource that improves drug court

outcomes; however, in rural areas, these centers are lacking. In addition, treatment

resources are lacking, particularly in rural areas; additional resources would provide for

an increase in availability and accessibility of services. As shown in the cost analysis,

investments in problem solving courts save resources over time.

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Serve High Risk Offenders

There is an emerging national consensus that

problem solving courts should be serving

high risk/high need offenders. If drug courts

are considered a scarce resource, they

should be used for those offenders who

receive the most benefit and produce the

most cost savings. Cost effectiveness studies

have shown these are offenders who have

high need for substance abuse intervention

and are at high risk for reoffending.

“Research has clearly demonstrated that

intensive treatment services should be

reserved for individuals with the most severe

drug use problems. Providing intensive

services to those with less severe problems is

not only a waste of valuable resources

(particularly since these individuals tend to do

as well with less intensive intervention), but

may actually make their drug use problem

worse.”

- Knight et al. (2008)

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

12 | P a g e

Nebraska problem solving courts are serving a high risk population. For example, adult

drug courts are serving high to very high risk population based on the Alcohol/Drug

Abuse Subscale of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), and

juvenile drug courts serve participants with a moderate to high level of risk based on the

Youth Level of Risk/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI).

*Adult Alcohol/Drug Problem scores range from 1-8 with 1=very low and 7-8= very high. Juvenile

Substance Abuse scores range from 0-5 with 0=low, 1-2=moderate, and 5= high.

6.14

6.72

6.37

6.91

6.41

6.13

5.92

5.85

6.31

Central Nebraska

District 6

Douglas County

Lancaster County

Midwest Nebraska

North Central Nebraska

Northeast Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff County

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court LS/CMI

Alcohol/Substance Abuse Scores*

3.27

2.04

3.32

2.5

Douglas County

Lancaster County

Northeast Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff County

Juvenile Drug Court YLS/CMI

Substance Abuse Scores*

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

13 | P a g e

Although Nebraska problem solving courts generally serve high risk population based on

substance abuse risk, participants tend to score lower on criminal history risk. For

example, participants in adult drug courts tend to be low to medium risk on the LS/CMI

criminal history scale, and participants in juvenile drug courts tended to be in the low to

moderate range of the Prior Criminal Offenses Scale of the YLS/CMI.

YLS/CMI Prior

Criminal

Offense

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

0.81

0.85

2.14

0.88

1.75

Sample Size

A number of coordinators thought their courts could serve higher risk offenders, but often

other problem solving court team members were reluctant to serve offenders with high

risk levels. Some team members, particularly prosecutors and law enforcement, believe

the appropriate risk level for problem solving court is “moderate.” It would be useful to

develop briefing materials to share with team members regarding the risk level of

participants most appropriate for problem solving courts. Understanding that taking high

risk offenders is the most cost effective approach may help team members in selecting

participants. It may also be useful to administer screening tools prior to drug court

acceptance to more thoroughly understand the risk level of potential candidates.

Ct 1 Ct 2 Ct 3 Ct 4 Ct 5 Ct 6 Ct 7 Ct 8 Ct 9 Ct 10

Adult Court Criminal History Risk

8 = Very High

6-7 = High

4-5 = Medium

2-3 = Low

0-1 = Very Low

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

14 | P a g e

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Should Reduce the Length of Time

Between Arrest and Enrollment

One of the key components of problem solving courts is, “eligible participants are

identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.” Best practices suggest

that a shorter length of time between arrest and enrollment is important to ensure success

of participants, and research suggests the time between entering drug court and receiving

court-ordered services impacts graduation rates (Colorado Department of Public Safety,

1999; Meyer & Ritter, 2002).

Although there are differences across courts, the evaluation indicates participants have to

wait many months from the time they are arrested until they are enrolled in problem

solving courts. This is true for all types of problem solving courts. Likely reasons for this

delay include lack of resources for drug courts to accept all offenders who are eligible,

procedural issues that delay the time for a person to be referred to problem solving courts,

and trying alternative programs (e.g., probation, diversion) first before offenders are sent

to drug court.

It may be useful both at the state level and at the local court level to examine the

Nebraska juvenile and criminal justice processes to determine if there are ways to

decrease the time between arrest and enrollment.

Ct 1 Ct 2 Ct 3 Ct 4 Ct 5

Nebraska Juvenile Drug Courts:

Average Weeks from Arrest to

Participation

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

15 | P a g e

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Should Enhance Educational and

Employment Opportunities for Participants

Problem solving courts in Nebraska have emphasized the development of education and

employment skills for participants. Currently, Nebraska problem solving courts

emphasize education and employment skills for participants, and the evaluation confirms

the need to continue this focus. The evaluation revealed that persons who are employed

more hours and have higher levels of education tend to be more successful in problem

solving courts, and increases in level of education predict success. Individuals with less

26.72

23.19

26.18

32.04

16.65

38.9

19.84

24.89

35.32

37.89

Nebraska Adult Drug Courts: Average Weeks

from Arrest to Participation

Young Adult

DUI

Family

30.9

28.7

52.39

Other Problem Solving Courts: Average Weeks

from Arrest to Participation

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

16 | P a g e

education and who work fewer hours at entry into problem solving court, tend to be less

successful. These results suggest special emphasis is warranted to engage these types of

participants and to develop strategies to raise education levels and to create successful

employment experiences.

Adult Drug Court

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Education Level

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.152*

0.114*

10.750*

(Chi Square)

p-value

< .001

<.001

Sample size

1032

1006

945

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Should Enhance Drug and Alcohol

Treatment for Participants in Problem Solving Court

Treatment is an invaluable component to the drug court process. Based on the evaluation,

there are a number of ways to enhance substance abuse treatment for participants:

 We found the number of drugs participants used was a significant factor in

predicting graduation. It is important then for service providers to use evidence

based practices, particularly those practices shown to be effective in addressing

poly-drug use.

 Coordinators, particularly in rural parts of the state, identified the lack of service

providers as a major barrier to success for problem solving court participants. To

address this issue, it is important for programs to work with state partners to

increase the availability and accessibility of quality substance abuse services.

 A number of coordinators indicated that not all service providers were of the

same quality. Some also expressed frustration that some providers provided

minimal information about progress in treatment. It would be helpful to develop

guidelines for providers to clearly report what evidence based practices they are

using, why the practice is appropriate for the needs of particular individuals, how

they are monitoring fidelity to the practice, and what objective measures they are

using to track progress and improvement for participants.

 Most coordinators believe day reporting is a valuable component to participants;

however, some programs, particularly in rural areas, have less access to and

resources for, day reporting centers. As with many services in Nebraska, rural

areas often have fewer treatment or community services available. So it is not

surprising that rural problem solving courts have less access to day reporting

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

17 | P a g e

centers than urban courts. To enhance the availability of this important service, it

is important to develop funding strategies to enhance access to day reporting

centers.

Problem Solving Courts in Nebraska Should Develop Practices to

Enhance Services to Racial Minorities

For adult courts, African Americans and Native Americans were found less likely to

graduate than other populations. For juvenile courts, African Americans were also found

less likely to graduate than other groups. This finding is not unique to Nebraska and is

consistent with other studies indicating racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African

Americans, do less well in problems solving courts than white/Caucasians (see Finigan

(2009) for a summary of studies). Culturally competent approaches include matching

evidence based practices to populations being served, conducting training in cultural and

linguistic competence, and tailoring services and strategies to the unique cultural needs of

participants. Unique culturally competent approaches for Native Americans have been

developed that can be used as a resource (Tribal Law Institute, 2003). The evaluation also

revealed racial disparities in one adult drug court; efforts should be made to assess

systems and processes that may be contributing to this disparity.

Relationship of Race/Ethnicity to Graduation for Adult Drug Courts

Adult Drug Court

White/ Caucasian

Black/ African -

American

Hispanic

Other

Percent

Graduating

61.6%

40.9%

65.5%

44.9%

Group Size

760

193

F(3,1056) = 10.778, p < .001

Relationship of Race/Ethnicity to Graduation for Juvenile Drug Courts

Juvenile Drug

Court

White/ Caucasian

Black/ African -

American

Hispanic

Other

Percent

Graduating

45.7%

18.8%

23.5%

33.3%

Group Size

151

F(3,211) = 3.527, p = .016

Nebraska Problem Solving Courts Should Enhance Program Evaluation

Capacity and Quality Enhancement

We were able to access useful data for this evaluation, and we believe the analysis

provides important direction for Nebraska problem solving courts. However, enhancing

the program evaluation capacity will allow additional questions to be answered such as

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

18 | P a g e

the relationship between costs and outcomes and the effectiveness of family dependency

drug courts. Ongoing program evaluation allows programs to improve the quality of their

operations and to make informed policy and programmatic decisions leading to better

lives for participants.

Recommendations for increasing the evaluation capacity for problem solving courts

include the following:

 Implement periodic peer practice reviews and a formal process for ongoing

fidelity measurement and analysis

 Develop a data dictionary for the current Problem Solving Court Management

Information System (PSCMIS)

 Provide additional resources to enhance the PSCMIS such as building in

automated calculators and reports, adding fields to allow data collection over

time, and reducing the number of fields for text information, and developing

protocols to ensure the quality of data

 Work with family dependency drug courts to participate in the PSCMIS and to

enhance their operations

 Continue the valuable statewide collaboration of problem solving court

coordinators and increase training for local drug court teams and other

stakeholders

 Ensure judges, law enforcement, treatment providers, and other key participants

are actively involved on problem solving court teams

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

19 | P a g e

This evaluation is designed to examine problem solving courts in Nebraska. The

Nebraska Problem Solving Courts are shown in Figure 1.1.

Project Design and Implementation

The evaluation was conducted by the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center under

contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts. The Public Policy Center is a

nationally recognized unit that regularly works with the judicial system in Nebraska (e.g.,

since 2001 it has served as the research lead and coordinator of the state’s Minority

Justice initiative), collaborates with the National Center for State Courts (e.g., How the

Public Views the State Courts, 1999) and serves as national evaluator on such diverse

projects as the Centers for Disease Control’s Public Engagement Pilot Project on

Pandemic Influenza (2005, chap. 6). The evaluation included a participatory program

evaluation design, which is particularly useful for complex projects that are collaborative

in nature (Greene, 1988; Mark & Shotland, 1985). Participatory evaluations provide

stakeholders a greater role in the evaluation process, thus ensuring a greater

understanding of the benefits of evaluation in the early stages of implementation. In

addition, participation allows stakeholders to influence and share control over the

implementation by influencing the parameters that guide the processes, decisions, and

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

20 | P a g e

resources. Stakeholder participation helps with the interpretation of data in the context of

the system’s actual work, and may generate additional evaluation questions based on the

needs of the participating organizations. The Evaluation Team included problem solving

court coordinators, judges, court administrative personnel, and service providers. The

team assisted with development of protocols and selection of data collection procedures

that maximize the utility of the information collected while minimizing the burden of

data collection. The Evaluation Team also assisted in generating additional evaluation

questions and interpreting data.

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation was both formative – designed to examine and improve current practices,

and summative – designed to determine program outcomes. The evaluation attempted to

answer the following major questions:

Questions related to participant characteristics:

1. How do offender characteristics compare to admission criteria, sentencing

guidelines, and offenders not admitted to drug court (e.g., disparity in minority

access)?

2. What are the issues related to accessing drug courts/substance abuse services?

Questions related to program implementation:

3. What are the program components (e.g., types and amounts of

services/sanctions/court procedures) for each court, and how do they compare

across courts?

4. How does practice compare to designed procedures (fidelity) and best practices?

Questions related to outcomes:

5. How do participant outcomes (e.g., post-program recidivism) match up to

comparison group outcomes?

6. How are outcomes associated with client characteristics (e.g., severity of offense,

demographics, treatment needs, sentencing guidelines), program implementation

(e.g., treatment dosage), and costs?

Question related to evaluation capacity:

7. What is the increase in evaluation capacity at the state and local levels?

Evaluation Design

To answer these questions, we used a mixed methods design including qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Quantitative data was accessed through the Nebraska Problem

Solving Court Management Information System. All quantitative information was stored

and analyzed using SPSS, a statistical software package for the social sciences. The

evaluation also included qualitative information related to program access, process, and

perceived outcomes. Qualitative information included reviews of each court’s policies

and procedures, direct observation of drug court proceedings, and interviews or focus

groups with drug court coordinators. All tools and protocols (e.g., data collection,

analysis scripts, interview questions) are made available and accessible to local and state

court officials via inclusion in the evaluation report and through a toolkit developed as

part of the evaluation.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

21 | P a g e

Participant Information

The information examined pertaining to participants (and family members, where

relevant) included characteristics such as demographics, needs, criminal history,

eligibility factors, and risk factors. This information was acquired from the existing

PSCMIS. A discrepancy analysis was used to compare participant demographic

information (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, age,) with demographics of the comparison

group. This analysis was intended to identify whether racial/ethnic minorities and other

demographic groups are being differentially served by Nebraska drug courts. We also

examined education levels, employment levels, types of crimes committed, and types of

substances abused to better understand the populations served by problem solving courts

and to determine if there are differences across courts

Outcome Information

Criteria related to program success included number of participants successfully

completing drug court, employment status upon program completion, educational

attainment upon program completion, improvement in risk scores and post-program

recidivism. The evaluation will identify outcomes by program (e.g., graduation versus

termination) and conduct multivariate analyses to explore associations between outcomes

and participant characteristics (e.g., demographic information, criminal offenses, Level of

Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) information), and program

characteristics (e.g., number of sanctions number of court hearings). The outcome

analysis was conducted for graduates of drug courts, and for the comparison groups.

Program Information

Process variables that could be quantified include such factors as frequency of drug tests,

number of court hearings, number of incentives, and number of sanctions imposed.

Program information was compared across courts. Actual court practices were compared

to evidence-based or promising practices as they are articulated in available literature.

Qualitative data, including interviews with drug court participants, drug court staff, and

treatment professionals and drug court observations, were used to understand how the

processes function in the field. Interview questions and observation criteria were based

on the 10 key drug court components and best practice guidelines. The observations of

court proceedings and team meetings serve as a way to validate or explain court

functions.

Data Elements

The evaluation included a review of the completeness and quality of information in the

PSCMIS database. The primary focus of the quantitative analysis included the Statewide

Performance Measures which were in the PSCMIS system, data was complete, and

captured in a manner that allowed meaningful analysis. We worked with problem

solving court coordinators to understand what types of data they were entering in the data

fields and, in the absence of a standard statewide data dictionary, what definitions they

were using for the data.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

22 | P a g e

Through both examination of the database and discussions with PSC Coordinators, some

modifications were identified which could make future evaluation and ongoing tracking

of Statewide Performance Measures easier. Much of the data in the PSCMIS had to be

recoded to be of use in the analysis. Data for comparison groups was obtained from the

probation database. A summary of the data used in the quantitative analysis and a

description of the methodology can be found in Appendix 3. There are some caveats to

the data analysis. For some of the variables, the sample size was too low to analyze

statistically. In many of these cases, we included the data in the tables so the reader could

see the descriptive information; however, the these low number variables were not

included in the analysis. For all pairwise analyses, the level of significance we used is a p

value less or equal to .05.

Report Structure

Following are the evaluation questions and where to find the results pertaining to

those questions:

1. How do offender characteristics compare to admission criteria, sentencing

guidelines, and offenders not admitted to drug court (e.g., disparity in minority

access)?

2. What are the issues related to accessing drug courts/substance abuse services?

To understand the admission criteria of courts, we reviewed policies and procedures and

conducted site visits to each court (see Chapter 3). To help understand who Nebraska

problem solving courts are serving, we reviewed data pertaining to participant

characteristics from the Problem Solving Court Management Information System

((PSCMIS), comparing participant characteristics across courts, to the literature and to

admission criteria (see Chapter 4). To assess access to problem solving courts, we

conducted a disparity analysis to determine whether certain groups were under-

represented in each court (see Chapter 4), and examined length of time between arrest

and admission into problem solving courts (see Chapter 5).

3. What are the program components (e.g., types and amounts of

services/sanctions/court procedures) for each court, and how do they compare

across courts?

4. How does practice compare to designed procedures (fidelity) and best practices?

To understand the programs and their components, we reviewed policies and procedures

and conducted site visits for each court (see Chapter 1). To understand best practices, we

reviewed the problem solving court literature (see Chapter 2). To understand the

differences across courts, we used data from the PSCMIS to compare the different

programs (see Chapter 5).

5. How do participant outcomes (e.g., post-program recidivism) match up to

comparison group outcomes?

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

23 | P a g e

6. How are outcomes associated with client characteristics (e.g., severity of offense,

demographics, treatment needs, sentencing guidelines), program implementation

(e.g., treatment dosage), and costs?

To assess outcomes of problem solving court participants, we selected individuals who

had successfully graduated from programs across the state and worked with the Nebraska

Crime Commission to determine recidivism using a standard definition. We used a

matched comparison of individuals on probation and compared these two groups. The

data for this component of the evaluation are still being analyzed and will be reported

when the analysis is complete (see Chapter 8).

7. What is the increase in evaluation capacity at the state and local levels?

To assess and enhance evaluation capacity at the state and local levels, we conducted a

number of activities. During the site visits, we asked coordinators about their program

evaluation efforts to better understand their knowledge and capacity (see Appendix 1).

We also conducted two workshops on program evaluation, in which we examined a logic

model framework and discussed how the logic model could be applied to the evaluation

of individual problem solving courts in Nebraska. We reviewed the PSCMIS data system

through a program evaluation lens, and provided recommendations below for

enhancements that would improve the ability of the state and individual program to

conduct program evaluations. Also, to allow replication of the current evaluation, we

provide the evaluation tools (see Appendix 2) and a description of the methodology,

which can be used for future evaluations (see Appendix 3). Finally, we developed a

program evaluation tool kit which can be used by Nebraska problem solving courts (see

Appendix 4).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

24 | P a g e

Drug Courts and Best Practices

Since their inception, drug court programs have grown tremendously in the past two

decades, and there are now over 2,100 such programs currently operating in the nation

(Huddleston, Marlowe, & Casebolt, 2008). A number of studies have emerged indicating

that drug courts are an effective intervention to reduce crime and improve addiction and

substance abuse outcomes (Finigan, Carey, & Cox, 2007; GAO, 2005; Marlowe,

DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003). However, demonstrating the effectiveness of drug courts

has been a development in progress. Earlier studies that featured randomized treatment

and control groups were relatively rare (Whiteacre, 2004a). As more rigorous evaluation

methodology has been employed with greater frequency, evidence has grown from

randomized or quasi-experimental studies which does indicate the efficacy of drug court

programming (Breckenridge, Winfree, Maupin, & Clason, 2000; Gottfredson & Exum,

2002; Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003; Gottfredson, Najaka, Kearley, & Rocha,

2006; Perry et al., 2009). However, there are also experimental or quasi-experimental

studies which have shown no or minimal differences between treatment and control

groups in drug court programs (Hepburn & Harvey, 2007; MacDonald, Morral,

Raymond, & Eibner, 2007), and some commentators continue to question the

methodological soundness of drug court evaluations generally (Gutierrez & Bourgon,

2009; Merrall & Bird, 2009). Additionally, some drug court studies have found that

African Americans and other minorities, and certain types of drug users, are more likely

to experience negative outcomes or fail than others (Banks & Gottfredson, 2003; Hickert,

Boyle, & Tollefson, 2009; Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2003; Roll,

Prendergast, Richardson, Burdon, & Ramirez, 2005). Thus, although a significant weight

of research does support the notion that drug court programs can and do work, there are

at least areas for improvement in drug court programming, and a clear need to identify

best practices (Lutze & van Wormer, 2007).

Drug Courts: A Basic Review

Drug court programs operate by using a court’s legal authority to treat and change a

participant’s substance abuse behavior in exchange for dismissed or reduced criminal

charges or sentences. The basis for this approach is grounded in the belief that drug

and/or alcohol abuse is both a health and criminal justice problem, and that effective

treatment of an underlying drug/alcohol problem will or might reduce criminal behavior

(Lurigio, 2000; Vigdal, 1995). A typical drug court program involves the active

participation of a judge who regularly monitors a participant’s progress and dispenses

sanctions or rewards with input from a prosecutor, defense attorney, and probation

officials and treatment providers (GAO, 2005; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005;

NDCI & NCJFCJ, 2003). Although there is significant variation in drug court operations

by jurisdiction and target population, the success of drug court programs has led to the

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

25 | P a g e

standardization of operating principles across drug courts, and a call for the use of

evidence-based or evidence-informed practices in daily activities and provision of

treatment.

Significant variation and trial-and-error characterized the experiences of earlier drug

court programs. Courts experimented with drug case dockets in large cities starting in the

1950s, and limited forms of diversion programs or court processes existed, which

emphasized screening, expedited processing, and other practices which laid the

foundations for modern drug court programs (Belenko, 1998; Mahoney, 1994). In the

first wave of modern drug courts in the early 1990s, most programs were mainly

diversionary in nature, worked primarily with lower-level offenders in a pre-plea model,

and operated without the benefit of knowing long-term recidivism rates (Cooper &

Trotter, 1994; Huddleston, Marlowe, & Casebolt, 2008).

Since then, researchers have investigated programmatic components of drug courts to

determine which aspects of the drug court process are most responsible for disposition

and positive outcomes among participants. Studies have examined the role of the judge

and judicial hearings (Festinger et al., 2002; Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, & Lee, 2005;

Marlowe et al., 2003), drug or alcohol treatment (Banks & Gottfredson, 2003; Taxman &

Bouffard, 2003), employment or other social support factors (Leukefeld et al., 2003;

Mateyoke-Scrivner, Webster, Staton, & Leukefeld, 2004) and personal characteristics of

offenders (Garrity et al., 2008; Gray & Saum, 2005; Hartman, Listwan, & Shaffer, 2007;

Roll, Prendergast, Richardson, Burdon, & Ramirez, 2005). Research has arrived at mixed

results. Importantly, drug court professionals have begun moving towards developing

best practices based on both the research evidence as well as from general principles of

practice.

The Ten Key Components of Drug Courts

In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) established its

10 key components for drug courts, a move which drove national momentum towards

standardizing operational principles for drug courts across the country (NADCP, 1997).

The NADCP work identified the key components, their purposes, and a series of core

benchmarks for achieving each component.

Key Component #1: Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with

justice system case processing.

Key Component #2: Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel

promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.

Key Component #3: Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the

drug court program.

Key Component #4: Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and

other related treatment and rehabilitation services.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

26 | P a g e

Key Component #5: Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.

Key Component #6: A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’

compliance.

Key Component #7: Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is

essential.

Key Component #8: Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program

goals and gauge effectiveness.

Key Component #9: Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court

planning, implementation, and operations.

Key Component #10: Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and

community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program

effectiveness.

Generally, the components can be categorized as principles that address either drug court

team dynamics (components 2, 6, 9, 10) or offender identification and screening

processes (components 1, 3, 4, 5, 7) (Olson, Lurigio, & Albertson, 2001). Finally, there is

also a key component (8) which specifically calls for integrating monitoring and

evaluation mechanisms into overall court operations as well.

Case studies of the extent to which drug courts have effectively implemented the 10 key

components into daily practices are mixed but largely positive. Whereas sentencing and

other dispositional issues may have previously been determined by sentencing guidelines,

criminal history, and the nature of the offense, drug court program decisions are based on

a much larger scope of information. Drug court teams often review a wide range of

information, including the offender’s urine analysis results, treatment progress, mental

health status, housing or community environment, education and employment, and family

situation. This results in a greater amount of information that the team processes, and

increased amounts of time, communication, and coordination among all drug court team

members (Olson, Lurigio, & Albertson, 2001). Administering drug court programs are

demanding and complex, and fully implementing all key components to an ideal level is

often difficult to achieve. Challenges facing drug courts come from all directions. In a

five-state survey of drug court judges and administrators, Nored and colleagues found

that besides securing operating funds, the biggest perceived obstacles to administering

drug court programs were lack of belief in drug courts by both offenders and law

enforcement, lack of political support, and lack of interagency cooperation and

communication (Nored, Carlan, & Goodman, 2009).

Still, drug courts have achieved significant levels of success despite challenges. Carey,

Finigan, and Pukstas (2008) evaluated eighteen drug court programs and found that all 10

key components were implemented in some form in all programs. However, certain

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

27 | P a g e

specific forms of implementation were more common than others, and could thus be

considered core practices of operational drug court programs (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas,

2008). Other commentators have also identified core elements of drug court

programming and areas of variation across jurisdictions (Casey and Rottman, 2005),

prevalence and type of treatment services in drug courts (Taxman & Bouffard, 2002), and

key functions of case management within the drug court program environment

(Monchick, Scheyett, & Pfeifer, 2006).

Best Practices: Specific Areas

Overall Structural Administration of Programs

Because drug court programs span the criminal justice and health professions, finding

areas in which there is successful communication and shared assumptions and objectives

may be difficult to obtain in drug court programs (Olson, Lurigio, & Albertson, 2001).

Drug court team members need to speak a shared language that will help them identify

needs of offenders and coordinate effective strategies, and identify appropriate times to

meet on a regular basis. Best practices that can be particularly effective for streamlining

and improving team performance among drug court professionals include maintaining

high staff to participant ratios, maintaining small caseloads for staff members, providing

continual training and education for drug court personnel, and implementing

individualized case management and treatment (Peters & Osher, 2004). These standards

are, however, difficult to obtain and/or maintain in the context of most drug court

programs and associated service providers. Treatment staff are often over-worked,

underpaid, and experience high levels of stress and burn-out that can lead to high turn-

over rates (Gallon, Gabriel, & Knudsen, 2003; Woltmann et al., 2008). Drug court

program coordinators should be prepared to continually seek funding streams that support

a fully-functional program, and engage in ancillary activities that demonstrate program

efficacy to potential supporters in the policymaking and philanthropic arena.

A comprehensive screening system should be developed at the point of entry, followed

by continuing assessment and monitoring for participants. Principal screening criteria

should be for drug use severity, mental health problems, motivation for treatment, and

criminal thinking patterns (Knight, Flynn, & Simpson, 2008). Studies have indicated,

generally, that drug courts are more successful for some types of offenders over others –

with outcomes varying on criminal history, type and frequency of drug use, social and

demographic characteristics, and other factors (Butzin, Saum, & Scarpitti, 2002; Hartley

& Phillips, 2001; Schiff & Terry, 1997). Using standardized intake and assessment

mechanisms, a proper screening and assessment system will either divert-out offenders

who are likely to fail in drug court to more appropriate programs, or properly match

incoming offenders into the most suitable drug court treatment track after entry (Johnson,

Hubbard, & Latessa, 2000).

Cultural competency education should be integrated into trainings for drug court staff and

associated service providers. Program coordinators should regularly assess cultural

competency strengths and weaknesses. Although many drug court participants may share

some socio-economic characteristics such as low levels of education and poverty-related

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

28 | P a g e

circumstances, studies have shown that African Americans and other minorities may have

less positive drug court outcomes than whites (Brewster, 2001; Butzin, Saum, &

Scarpitti, 2002; Dannerbeck, Harris, Sundet, & Lloyd, 2006). Women and young

offenders also experience particular circumstances that might impose barriers to

successful drug court outcomes. Women offenders may be more likely than men to have

child care-taking responsibilities, less education, more employment problems, high rates

of mental health problems, and be victims of sustained physical, emotional, or sexual

abuse as adults or children (Dannerbeck, Sundet, & Lloyd, 2002; D’Angelo, & Wolf,

2002; Grella, 2008). Juvenile offenders may have motivational or anti-social problems

that impede willingness to follow drug court orders and work with staff (Lutze & van

Wormer, 2007; Whiteacre, 2004b; Winters, 1999). Drug court staff should regularly

assess how a participant’s cultural characteristics might impact their behavior and

performance in the program (Osborne, 2008). Additionally, drug court staff, including

judges, must be cognizant of the possibility that employing standard treatment regimens

across populations with varying characteristics and backgrounds may lead to disparate

results.

Role of the Judge and Issuing of Rewards/Sanctions

The judge plays a key role in drug court programming by regularly interacting with and

monitoring the offender through treatment progress and drug monitoring, and issuing the

applicable rewards or sanctions. Much research has been conducted on the importance of

the judge and judicial hearings on drug court outcomes. Findings have been mixed in

regards to the frequency with which judicial interaction or the number of judges involved

in a single offender’s case impacts outcomes (King & Pasquarella, 2009; National

Institute of Justice, 2006). Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that frequent and

regular involvement of a judge in monitoring offender progress and serving a leadership

position within drug court teams is essential to programming success (Marlowe,

Festinger, & Lee, 2004; Marlowe et al., 2003, 2008; National Institute of Justice, 2006).

As the most visible and powerful authority figure within the drug court setting, the judge

plays the critical role of issuing sanctions or rewards based upon the flow of information

provided by treatment providers, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Positive reinforcement offered by judges is an important counterforce to relapse. Judges

should strive to offer positive reinforcement when due, as well as recognize

unsatisfactory behavior and areas that need improvement in judicial hearings. Praise from

a judge can be particularly effective with individuals who have low self-esteem or have

experienced hardships in their lives, and serves as a model for the rest of the drug court

team (Stitzer, 2008). In addition, research indicates judicial involvement is particularly

important for high risk participants (Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004).

In issuing positive reinforcement, judges should clearly 1) identify target behaviors for

the offender in question (i.e., regularly attend treatment or UA appointments, refrain from

relapse, comply with probation orders); 2) identify reinforcements to incentivize

improvements or positive behavior (i.e. verbal praise, gift cards); and 3) escalate

schedules of incentives if warranted. Tangible incentives such as vouchers or prizes are

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

29 | P a g e

recommended and have been shown to support positive behavior change (Lussier, Heil,

Mongeon, Badger, & Higgins, 2006; Stitzer, 2008; Stitzer & Petry, 2006).

Judges should also be equally clear in the issuing of sanctions. A lack of clarity or

ambiguity in informing offenders about the consequences of negative behaviors in drug

court can lead to misinterpretation or frustration that might undermine program

objectives. Violations should be defined in as tangible a way as possible, such as in

positive UA results, non-attendance of appointments or treatment sessions, failure to

appear, etc. Clear notification of sanctions being issued for identified infractions will

serve as a guide for offenders to improve their behavior (Marlowe, 2008; Marlowe,

Festinger, Foltz, Lee, & Patapis, 2005; Marlowe & Kirby, 1999). Issuing of sanctions

must be immediate upon awareness of violations. Thus, it is incumbent upon drug court

staff to systematically monitor and document an offender’s behavior and communicate

progress to the rest of the drug court team. Regular UA procedures are essential for

monitoring substance abuse, and procedures should be created for both regular and

random, unexpected UA (Marlowe, 2008).

In the issuing of sanctions, it should be noted that offenders will react best when they

understand why sanctions were administered and that they were administered as part of a

fair process. Offenders should be treated with dignity, and given an opportunity to air

their voice in response (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006; Marlowe, 2008). This again

illustrates the importance with which interaction with a judge is a critical component of

the drug court process. Judges should be cognizant that some infractions may be

deliberate violations with court orders, whereas others may be related to poor treatment

progress. Judges should be prepared to make this distinction when considering sanctions

and how to best respond to program violations (Arabia, Fox, Caughie, Marlowe, &

Festinger, 2008; Marlowe, 2008).

Treatment

Drug courts should employ treatment programs known to have a theoretical and

evidence-based basis for effectiveness. The employment of cognitive-behavioral

approaches in treatment is one example of a treatment regimen commentators have

recommended for use in drug court programs (Johnson, Hubbard, & Latessa, 2000). The

National Institute of Justice specifically recognizes cognitive behavioral therapy as an

effective approach for use in drug court programs (National Institute of Justice, 2006).

Cognitive-behavioral approaches are widely varying and easily adaptable, and aim to

build an offender’s cognitive skills in areas that may contribute or lead to criminal or

substance abuse behavior (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007).

Studies have found that cognitive-behavioral strategies are effective in working with drug

and alcohol abusers (Bouffard & Taxman, 2004; Taxman, & Bouffard, 2003). A

particular variant – Relapse Prevention Therapy – is recommended as a theory-based

form of treatment that has been successfully employed among offender populations

(Marlatt, Parks, & Kelly, 2008; Porporino, Robinson, Millson, & Weekes, 2002).

Cognitive-behavioral approaches might be particularly effective for certain types of

populations, such as methamphetamine users (Lutze & van Wormer, 2007) and high-risk

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

30 | P a g e

offenders (Marlowe, D., 2003). They have also been shown to be generally effective in

reducing recidivism and anti-social behavior (Beck & Fernandez, 1998; Welsh &

Farrington, 2006). An NIJ assessment analyzing components of successful drug court

programming concluded that cognitive skills-based treatment should be employed, and

that programs which use incompatible forms of treatment, or a “scatter-shot” form of

treatment (e.g. combining a 12-step approach with cognitive behavioral therapy), without

a theoretical and evidence-based basis may be ineffective (National Institute of Justice,

2006).

Providing a continuum of care in court-ordered treatment is essential to drug court

programming success. Treatment should be integrated into court operations, and

treatment staff should consider providing training sessions to judges, prosecutors, public

defenders, and probation officers so they have an understanding of the treatment process.

Tying court room procedures to treatment outcomes is critical because program fidelity is

structured around progress in treatment and the subsequent issuing of court-ordered

rewards of sanctions (National Institute of Justice, 2006). Although flexibility should

exist for individual offenders, general principles and guidelines should exist on a formal

basis for courts to issue rewards or sanctions based on treatment outcomes. Formal

agreements between drug court programs, treatment providers, and providers of ancillary

services (vocational skills training, etc.) are helpful to institutionalize regular

communication and tracking of program participants through treatment (National

Institute of Justice, 2006).

Investigations into treatment efficacy continue. Henggeler and colleagues evaluated

outcomes among juvenile offenders in four randomly assigned conditions to assess the

effectiveness of evidence-based treatments: family court, drug court, drug court with

multi-systemic therapy (MST), and drug court with multi-systemic therapy combined

with contingency management (CM). They found that outcomes for criminal behavior

were mixed, but that the drug court treatments combined with the increased use of

evidence-based treatment regimens were most effective for reducing substance abuse. In

other words, drug court with MST and CM was most effective, followed by drug court

with MST, drug court, and finally, family court (Henggeler et al., 2006).

It should be noted that research does exist which supports the notion that gender-based

treatment approaches may be successful for women. Women offenders often have high

rates of co-occurring disorders, and/or have experienced significant levels of violence,

abuse, or other forms of trauma which contribute to substance abuse and criminal

behavior (Dannerbeck, Sundet, & Lloyd, 2002; D’Angelo, & Wolf, 2002; Grella, 2008).

Women-centered treatment programs need to integrate pregnancy and child-caring needs,

and address histories of trauma or abuse into programming and services. Additionally,

because women may often have less education or employment-related skills than men, it

is important that adequate educational and vocational skill trainings be integrated into

treatment programs for female offenders (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Fallot, &

Harris, 2002; Grella, 2008).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

31 | P a g e

Co-occurring disorders

Studies have indicated that individuals entering the criminal justice system have much

higher levels of co-occurring disorders than the general population, which in turn can

serve to inhibit compliance with legal orders, participation in treatment programs, and

successful re-entry into communities (Abrams, & Teplin, 1991; Chandler, Peters, Field,

& Juliano-Bult, 2004; Steadman et al., 1999). This heightens the importance with which

drug court teams are able to understand the complex, and often highly-individualized

relationships between an offender’s substance abuse behavior, mental or emotional health

state, criminal behavior or post-criminal behavior, and overall social situation (Peters &

Osher, 2004). As many as a third of drug court participants may have co-occurring

disorders (Peters, 2008).

Peters and Hills (1997) have suggested that screening for key mental health criteria are an

important first step for determining whether or not an offender with co-occurring

disorders should be admitted into a drug court program. Drug court programs may not be

appropriate for offenders with delusions or paranoia, suicidal thoughts, inability to

interact in group treatment environments, inability to comply with treatment regimens,

and inability to interact effectively with drug court team members. However, drug courts

can also be appropriate for some offenders with co-occurring disorders if the correct

resources exist for them (Peters & Hills, 1997). Peters and Bartoi (1997) suggest

bifurcating screening of participants into drug court programs and assessment after entry.

At the point of screening for entry, drug court personnel should consider an offender’s

type and severity of co-occurring disorders, severity of criminal charges and criminal

history, motivation for recovery and change, and availability of internal and external

resources that would assist an offender to participate effectively in a drug court program,

such as access to mental health services, case management, material needs, and social

support (Peters & Bartoi, 1997; Peters & Osher, 2004). Continual assessment after entry

gauges an offender’s abilities to effectively participate in drug court programming, and

what special needs or services are or are not required. Peters (2008) has recommended

specific evidence-based instruments for both screening and assessment of co-occurring

disorders for drug court participants.

Although individuals with co-occurring disorders may pose extra challenges for drug

courts, drug court programs may be optimal environments for some offenders with co-

occurring disorders, and many such offenders have successfully graduated from drug

court programs (Peters, 2008). Drug courts should expect offenders with co-occurring

disorders to form a significant portion of their program population, and adopt suitable

guidelines and practices for them. Drug court programming has been established for such

offenders (Redlich, Steadman, Monahan, Robbins, & Petrila, 2006; Sage, Judkins, &

O’Keefe, 2004). Recommendations for drug courts include specialty training and

education about mental health and co-occurring disorders to all staff; establishing

communications with community mental health practitioners, agencies, and emergency or

transitional housing agencies that work with mentally ill offenders; and a willingness to

allow flexibility in the application of sanctions and rewards to individuals with co-

occurring disorders.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

32 | P a g e

An Overview of Problem-Solving Courts in Nebraska

Methods for approaching program review

The evaluation team conducted individual reviews of all operational problem solving

court programs in Nebraska from October 2010 to February 2011. A total of 22 programs

were reviewed (see Table 3.1). The review process involved the following steps:

 Document review. Written policy and protocol manuals were reviewed by the

evaluation team for a general synopsis of program parameters. Manuals were

obtained either from the Office of the Statewide Problem solving Court

Coordinator, or in one case directly from a program coordinator. Two programs

did not have a comprehensive policy manual on hand, the Douglas County family

Recovery Court and the Douglas County STAR Court.

 Site visit. The evaluation team contacted the designated program coordinator for

each problem solving court program. Working with the coordinator, a site visit

was scheduled for all the programs. The purpose of the site visits was to gather

first hand observations and data from each of the programs individually. There

were three components to each site visit. First, the evaluation team member asked

to observe a scheduled drug court team meeting with the programs. Team meeting

observations were completed for all programs except four of them. For those four

programs, one was not operating at the time site visits were scheduled, and for the

remaining three programs, program team members had reservations about client

confidentiality and therefore the evaluation team did not request to sit in on the

internal program team meeting. Secondly, the evaluation team member observed a

formal hearing for each of the programs. Hearing observations were conducted for

all programs with the exception of one program, which had recently shut down

operations and had no scheduled hearings. Finally, a formal, audio-recorded

interview was requested with all of the program coordinators using a predefined

set of interview questions. Interviews were completed with all 22 program

coordinators. Interviews were also conducted with two judges.

 Program profiles. Based on the written documentation and observations and

information from the site visits, a program profile was developed for each of the

operating problem solving court programs. After a draft of each profile was

completed, it was then sent to each program coordinator to review for any

program updates, changes, or corrections. Multiple drafts and revisions were

completed for all program profiles. Coordinators were also specifically asked to

provide information about how their programs complied with the Standardized

Model for Delivery of Substance Abuse Services. Completed program profiles are

contained in Appendix 1.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

33 | P a g e

Table 3.1: Courts and Site Visit Dates

Problem Solving Court Document Review and Site Visits

Program

Written Protocols/Manual

Site Visit

Central Nebraska Adult Drug

Court

Yes

November 5, 2010

Central Nebraska Family Drug

Court

Yes

December 7, 2010

District Six Adult Drug Court

Yes

December 6, 2010

Douglas County 0-5 Family

Dependency Drug Court

Yes

February 22, 2010

Douglas County Adult Drug

Court

Yes

November 17, 2010

Douglas County Family

Recovery Court

No documents

October 19, 2010

Douglas County Juvenile Drug

Court

Yes

January 24, 2011

Douglas County Young Adult

Court

Yes

December 2, 2010

Douglas County STAR Court

No documents

October 12, 2010

Lancaster County Family Drug

Court

Yes

November 8, 2010

Lancaster County Juvenile Drug

Court

Yes

November 3, 2010

Lancaster County Adult Drug

Court

Yes

November 19, 2010

Midwest Nebraska Drug Court

Yes

November 22, 2010

North Central Adult Drug Court

Yes

November 10, 2010

Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug

Court

Yes

November 11, 2010

Northeast Nebraska Juvenile

Drug Court

Yes

November 11, 2010

Sarpy County Adult Drug Court

Yes

November 1, 2010

Sarpy County Juvenile Drug

Court

Yes

October 28, 2010 and

January 27, 2010

Scottsbluff County Adult Drug

Court

Yes

February 8, 2011

Scottsbluff County DUI Court

Yes

February 8, 2011

Scottsbluff County Juvenile Drug

Court

Yes

February 8, 2011

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug

Court

Yes

October 18, 2010

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

34 | P a g e

Nebraska’s Problem-solving Courts

Many similarities exist among the operating drug court programs in Nebraska. All

problem solving court programs in Nebraska operate under the scope of the Nebraska

Supreme Court Rules, particularly Chapter 6 , articles 12 (Problem-solving and drug

courts) and 13 (Substance abuse services), which contain requirements for program

operation and treatment protocols, respectively. All programs are required to comply with

these basic program standards. Additionally, there is a statewide coordinator’s office for

the problem solving courts, as well as a variety of professional guidelines that exist (most

notably the Ten Key Components of Drug Courts), which serve to provide a degree of

uniformity and consistent practices among programs.

However, there are also unique characteristics specific to each program. Programs vary in

terms of the number of people they serve, selection criteria, program team dynamics and

partners, monitoring methods, program components, use of incentives or sanctions,

overall judicial approaches, and other items.

There are three general categories of problem-solving courts currently operating in

Nebraska: 1) Adult drug courts, including the Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court,

District Six Adult Drug Court, Lancaster County Adult Drug Court, Midwest Nebraska

Adult Drug Court, North Central Adult Drug Court, Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug

Court, Sarpy County Adult Drug Court, Scottsbluff County Adult Drug Court, and

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court; 2) Juvenile drug courts, including the Douglas

County Juvenile Drug Court, Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court, Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court, Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court, and Scottsbluff County Juvenile

Drug Court ;and 3) Family drug courts, including the Central Nebraska Family Drug

Court, Douglas County Zero to Three Family Dependency Drug Court, Douglas County

Family Recovery Court, Douglas County STAR Court, and Lancaster County Family

Drug Court. Additionally, there is a DUI court in Scottsbluff which meets concurrently

with an adult drug court, and also a young adult court in Omaha.

These problem solving courts, both on an individual and systems level, are continually

modifying their scope of operations, and in some cases, experiencing existential

challenges. The family drug courts, for example, are in a state of flux due to the statewide

child welfare privatization initiative. At the time when site visits were being conducted

by the evaluation team, one family court had shut down operations due to uncertainties

related to the privatization initiative. It should be noted that the family courts also operate

with a different scope of operations, and were de facto being coordinated— largely,

though not always—by family case managers who were employees of the Nebraska

Department of Health and Human Services and not by state probation or county

employees like the majority of problem solving courts in Nebraska. The family courts are

therefore a step removed from the de facto scope of coordination of the Statewide

Problem Solving Courts office, and uncertainties related to the privatization initiative has

interfered with plans for integrating the family programs more closely with the other

problem-solving programs.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

35 | P a g e

Operational Characteristics of Nebraska’s Problem-solving Courts

There are many general similarities in terms of how the state’s problem solving courts are

administered on a day to day basis. A summary of shared characteristics and experiences

are discussed below.

Clients

Among all programs, there is pre-established criteria which define program entrance

requirements. Those requirements typically include a post-disposition, plea of guilt for a

non-violent criminal charge; a criminal history without major crimes of violence, sexual

offenses, or drug manufacturing/trafficking charge; a diagnosed drug/alcohol dependency

issue; and no outstanding obligations to other community corrections programs such as

being on parole or participating in another problem-solving court program. These criteria

exist to screen out violent offenders, or offenders with substantial and material criminal

histories, and screen in individuals whose criminal activities would not put communities

at high risk and are largely related to their drug dependencies. On an anecdotal level,

most of the programs indicated that the majority of dependency issues among clients

were related to methamphetamine and prescription drug abuse, followed by alcohol and

marijuana. Clients also generally come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and

have long-term cognitive or behavioral health issues, though that is not always the case.

Assessment and Intake Procedures

Intake procedures of new participants among the state’s problem-solving courts are

generally similar. Referrals to programs are typically made through attorneys who work

with the programs as team members. Applications for admission are made by an

individual’s attorney or public defender directly to a program’s coordinator. Releases of

information are provided by applicants. Some programs require the approval of a county

attorney for an application for admission to proceed. Program coordinators then typically

interview applicants, utilizing standardized assessment tools as required by Supreme

Court rules, such as the Level of Service, Case Management Inventory and the Nebraska

Simple Screening Instrument. Some programs use additional instruments as well.

Coordinators orient the individual to the program, and sometimes ask or require

applicants to sit in on a program court hearing so they can observe proceedings and

understand program expectations. Formal drug/alcohol assessments of applicants are then

conducted by an affiliated, state-registered substance abuse treatment provider for a

determination on dependency and recommended level of care.

Upon meeting technical entrance requirements, problem-solving court teams typically

vote on whether or not to admit an individual into their program during a team meeting.

Judges usually have the final say on an application as the leader of the program team.

Individuals who are accepted into a program are then required to plead guilty to the

original charge, and are then formally bonded into a program at a subsequent hearing.

Team Meetings

All programs have regular staffing meetings. Staffing meetings typically involve at least

the participation of the program’s judge, coordinator, supervision officer(s), and

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

36 | P a g e

prosecuting attorneys. Most but not all programs also regularly included public

defenders, law enforcement personnel, treatment providers, and other agency

representatives in regular staff meetings. One program did not regularly include the Judge

on team meetings, though he was available to participate in team meetings for difficult

cases. All problem-solving programs have team meetings on at least a monthly basis, and

more typically on a bi-weekly basis. Team meetings are usually convened on the same

day or prior day to formal courtroom hearings.

Typical team staffing meetings include individual reviews of each participant’s progress

in programming and treatment, discussions of any incentives or sanctions, reviews of new

applicants, and possible terminations of participants. At all the staffing meetings

observed, judges led discussions of cases, and sought input from other team members

about how the team should proceed with each client. Input and perspective from a client’s

specific supervision officer and/or treatment provider are particularly valued, yet all team

members are asked for their input. Decisions on admissions or terminations were usually

made by consensus or majority vote. The most time consuming discussions observed in

team staffing meetings usually involved decisions about participants who had broken

program guidelines, and what the most appropriate response should be from the Judge. In

many cases, such discussions usually involved considerations about the participant’s

treatment progress and other therapeutic issues, the impact of the participant’s behavior

on other program participants, and the participant’s immediate family or living situation.

In most of the team meetings observed, in-depth focus was placed on therapeutic issues

behind client behavior. If time allowed, teams spent considerable amounts of time

discussing treatment issues related to particular clients.

Courtroom Hearings

The format of court hearings in Nebraska’s problem-solving programs is generally quite

similar. At all hearings observed, participants are called before the bench, and a summary

of the participant’s progress is provided either by that individual’s supervision officer or

by the participant directly. The Judge might then ask the participant for his/her input on

their progress, and then indicate areas of concern or expectations about future behavior.

The degree and style of interaction between participants and judges varied from program

to program. In all the observed courtroom hearings, judges appeared to offer a mix of

positive reinforcements, and expectations for improvement. Other items typically

discussed at hearings included participants’ job, education, or living situation, whether or

not they were current with program fees/payments, and progress with substance abuse

treatment. In the juvenile drug court programs, parents are required to attend hearings and

are also asked to provide feedback to the judge and team about their children’s progress

in the program as well.

The actual duration of individual hearings varied widely. In some of the larger programs

observed, an individual is before the bench for two to three minutes. In smaller programs,

judges may spend up to ten minutes on one participant. Generally, the longest individual

hearings observed occurred with the juvenile programs, where there was considerable

interaction between program judge, juvenile participants, and parents, sometimes lasting

fifteen or more minutes per case. The exception was one program, where there was no

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

37 | P a g e

defined interaction between participants and the judge. In that hearing, participants were

called to sit before the bench, but provided no input to the court about their progress.

Instead, the program coordinator summarized the participant’s progress for the court

while the participants sat quietly before the bench.

The tone of interaction between judges and participants varied widely, depending on the

unique situation of each participant and the personality of the judges. In all hearings

observed, judges offered defined expectations for future behavior, and stated clear

reasons for why a particular incentive or sanction was being used. All the judges seemed

to value interacting directly with participants with the exception of the one program

discussed above.

In one hearing observed by the evaluation team, the program departed from the typical

hearing format and instead conducted a less formal and more interactive discussion. In

that particular hearing, the judge led a discussion about drug dependency and recovery

with all participants, who seemed to enjoy the opportunity to talk such issues in a less

formal context.

Program Phases and Monitoring

With the exception of one program, all of Nebraska’s problem-solving courts use a phase

system for programming. Programs typically have three to five phases or participation

that individuals must successfully complete before they can graduate. Specific

requirements and expectations vary among programs, but all the phased programs employ

a structure where monitoring and also treatment are more intensive in the initial stages,

and gradually taper down as the participant proceeds to graduation.

As required by the condition of their bond, participants are initially expected to adhere to

a rigorous monitoring and treatment schedule in early stages designed to directly address

the underlying substance dependency and achieve sobriety. Early phases might require

random drug/alcohol testing anywhere from three to five times a week, frequent visits

with supervision officers, intensive treatment, and frequent participation in 12-step

groups. In later stages of the program, more emphasis is placed on social integration and

maintaining long-term stability while keeping sober. Focus is placed on obtaining

employment and/or a GED (for adults), positive school behavior (for juveniles, or adults

if they are in school), housing and family stability, addressing long-term cognitive and

behavioral issues, education for life skills, and social activities. Final program phases are

geared towards preparing participants for long-term and permanent sobriety and change

and self-reliance. In addition to long-term sobriety, at least two of the adult programs also

require that participants have a full-time or near full-time job and a GED before they can

graduate from the program.

Most of the programs evaluated use a telephone call-in process to manage drug/alcohol

testing. For example, participants may be assigned to a color code upon entrance into the

program. All participants are required to call in to a designated phone number early in the

morning, which indicates whether or not their color is being called on for the day. If it is,

they must go to a testing location and be tested that morning. As mentioned earlier,

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

38 | P a g e

monitoring is typically most intensive at earlier program phases, and then occur less

frequently near the end of the program. However, some programs maintain a schedule of

random and frequent drug/alcohol testing throughout the duration of the programming.

Some programs augment testing at an assigned testing location with home visits, though

this depends on the availability of program staff or law enforcement partners to conduct

home visits.

Sanctions and Incentives

All written program guidelines reviewed by the evaluation team contain lists of sanctions

and incentives that may be issued by the judge for participant behavior. Common

sanctions include issuing jail time, increased testing and monitoring, return to a previous

phase, and verbal warnings before the bench. Common incentives include small rewards

(gift cards, movie tickets), praise and recognition before the bench, phase advancement,

and allowances for travel.

All of the programs reviewed under this evaluation approached the use of sanctions and

incentives with a high degree of flexibility. Decisions to issue sanctions and incentives

were based on individual cases, the specific behavior at issue, and relevant contextual

background. Programs maintained specific budgets for issuing incentives. In most cases,

incentives such as gift cards are paid for out of participant program fees. In other cases,

county funding augments an incentive fund, or community partners or businesses donate

funds or gifts. In at least one case, program team members actually pay for program

participants using their own income.

It should be mentioned that the availability of some sanctions might be dependent on the

community context. For instance, the issuing of jail-time as a sanction is dependent on

available jail space. In at least one of the adult drug programs, that jurisdiction’s jail has

the available space to house participants from time to time. This is not the case in other

jurisdictions where jail space is more limited. Several of the Douglas County-based

problem-solving programs benefit from having a day reporting center which can be used

as a sanction, as well as for therapeutic opportunities. Those programs benefit from

having a day reporting center in their jurisdiction, but other programs—particularly those

in rural areas—do not enjoy the same access to such resources. This restricts options for

programs.

Challenges/Areas of Concern

Access to Treatment

Securing adequate treatment for participants remains a consistent challenge among

Nebraska’s problem-solving courts, particularly because many clients have underlying

behavioral or personal issues that drive their behavior and substance dependencies.

Participants with mental health issues are especially challenging to work with:

“This problem we are dealing with is not a drug problem. It’s a mental

health problem. Just because they have stopped using drugs doesn’t mean

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

39 | P a g e

they are out of the woods. Below the surface there is an iceberg of how

they think and behave. It’s a cognitive behavioral pattern.… It is family

problems, money management problems, parenting issues, and a whole

plethora of elements in one’s life that our clients need help with. They

don’t have those skills.”

Participants with dual diagnoses bring additional financial challenges. Financial

resources are limited for substance abuse treatment, and even more so for mental

health issues:

“I wouldn’t say we have completely mentally ill participants, but we do

have people with dual diagnoses…. It can be frustrating as well because

they have to pay for both sets of services. They are not only paying for

their alcohol or substance abuse treatment, but we work with them on the

mental health side as well, because a lot of people suffer from depression.

That is automatic. So what is frustrating is that they may have a little

money to pay for the substance abuse side, but then they don’t have

money to pay for the mental health side.”

The availability of adequate treatment resources in rural areas of the state are a major

challenge for programs:

“I don’t think that there are very many people out there who have a

substance abuse issue who don’t also have an underlying mental health

issue as well. It varies throughout the participants, but many of them are

basically self-medicating. I come from a counseling background. It is

something I look for…. We try and find providers who are licensed to deal

with people with dual diagnosis. But it’s hard to find them in our district.”

“If I had a wish list, it would be paying for mental health treatment and

also medication evaluation. Our drug court pays for both of those but it’s a

challenge to find the money. It’s hard. So many people, when they are

depressed and have a problem, they go and see a general practitioner.

Well, they can’t go and see a psychiatrist for real treatment, and if they go

through the region, we have had one participant here who was waiting six

months for medication.”

“It is very hard to get [clients] into short-term residential because of the

cost factors. Overall we lack in services for the area. Especially if they are

in areas further west, for intensive outpatient treatment, services are very

scarce…. The other thing lacking with [clients] is the support for after

treatment, such as structured living resources, specifically for females. It’s

just not available.”

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

40 | P a g e

However, even in larger communities, there is a great deal of demand for limited

treatment resources. One coordinator from an Omaha-based problem-solving court noted

that waiting for spots to open among treatment facilities slows down the program and

hampers progress among participants:

“A lot of times there are waiting lists for places, so often it delays the

entire process. The lack of resources in the community is the problem….

The biggest waiting list is for residential treatment. I had one client get in

within a week of applying, and that is really fast. I’ve also had clients wait

8-10 weeks.”

Standardized Model for Delivery of Substance Abuse Services and Fee for Service

Voucher System

The implementation of Nebraska Supreme Court Rule chapter 6, article 13 (standardized

model for treatment) has brought a uniform process for the delivery of treatment. By in

large, coordinators believe that this new regimen provides needed structure to the

treatment process:

“Since the standardized model came around, we had some squawks about

it, and there being some standardized forms of evaluation. But overall it

has been a good thing. It has brought people’s standards up to what it

should be for drug and alcohol services. It has brought those standards up

to snuff, so now we are all operating on the same platform as far as the

components that need to be involved in a quality drug and alcohol

treatment services operation. There are forms that we now need to fill out

regularly. They are just seen as ‘have to’ forms. Maybe initially they were

seen as above and beyond what we were doing. But now they are just

forms we understand that need to be filled out, and we do.”

“It may have changed some of the outcomes. When we first started, we

didn’t really lose a lot of sleep about where they went for treatment. Now

we are obviously only working with agencies that follow the Standardized

Model and really know what they are doing. The providers that are really

good, solid providers follow the model’s requirements. The outcomes,

graduation rates, and communication are all better. I can pick up the phone

and talk to any one of the providers and be on the same page. The

evaluations look much better. They are digging deeper and not just giving

us a one page evaluation like it might have been in the past.”

The Standardized Model has, however, created some new issues for day to day

administration. Coordinators of several programs have reported that they do not believe

that all state-approved treatment providers provide quality care. Similarly, some

providers have developed reputations for offering less challenging and rigorous treatment

curriculums that attract some participants. Programs thus have to spend considerable time

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

41 | P a g e

and resources managing care for participants with providers that they feel may not be as

effective as they could be:

“For example we just had an individual who came into our program, and

he had done and evaluation and was in a treatment program with a certain

provider. We’ve known that with this provider, the form of treatment is to

sit down and watch a few videos to meet an hours requirement. We put

this individual into an aftercare program run by a provider that we know

does quality work, and to assess this person’s progress in recovery. If the

person was not where he should be in aftercare, we would have moved

him back into intensive outpatient treatment. We discuss these

contingencies on a daily basis, and how to deal with situations like this.”

“I still think there are providers out there who are doing the bare minimum

just to get on that list of providers to receive voucher money. Here we

don’t tell people where to go, but we have identified a few providers who

we feel does quality work, to do the majority of our work. We encourage

them to go to places who we know do quality work. We will accept

evaluations from any provider who is on the approved list, but if they ask

us where we should go for treatment, we will encourage them to go to

those quality agencies.”

“We try to use one agency to do our evaluations so they are consistent and

accurate. _____ is our treatment provider. He is the one we try to use, but

we can’t force a participant to use him. But we try to use him because we

know that we will get good quality, accurate evaluations from him…. The

Standardized Model has been good. I like it because there are some cases

when participants are going to a provider that is not following the

Standardized Model, and you can tell because their recommendations are

not reflective of the actual situation. The key thing is knowing what

agencies are not following it.”

Similarly, some of the approved treatment providers that serve program participants do

not have the time or interest to maintain a regular relationship with the problem-solving

courts. Several courts have a preferred provider or set of providers that regularly

participate in program team meetings, and have generally good rapports with the courts.

But other providers may not always be as involved as they could or should be. This can

lead to a lack of effective communication between the program and treatment providers:

“Really there are not a lot of quality treatment providers for [our clients].

We have had very good luck with communication with [a preferred

treatment provider]. They always provide a written weekly progress

report. That is who we have been using. They are really good at getting us

evaluations on time if someone needs an evaluation. They do a great job at

doing that. Some of the providers are not that willing to come to the table

and provide us with the progress reports that we need. So we have

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

42 | P a g e

narrowed it down to one, but if they do come in with another provider, we

use them as well.”

“The flip side of the Standardized Model is that with having participants at

different providers, but only having one local provider regularly sit-in on

our team meetings and be a part of what is going on with the clientele, that

is doing a disservice to the participants. Because we are utilizing other

providers who might call and give you an update, or might return a call if

you need an update, but other than that they are not regularly participating

in the program in the way it is intended to be.”

Coordinators of programs for adult offenders believe that the fee for service voucher

system has been of great benefit to participants who need the financial support for

treatment. However, some coordinators think that the voucher system has created

incentives for treatment providers that may not equate with the best or most efficient type

of care that should be offered:

“The voucher system has some limitations. If for example a person keeps

on doing well, they won’t keep giving them a voucher. Then that person

has to go to private paying or sliding scale. For the first time we are seeing

treatment saying “Oh they’re done,” when previously they wouldn’t have

said that…. Sometimes they end their treatment a lot sooner. Because

when a voucher runs out, they are done. If we could keep that funding in

place, we could keep them in longer. Of course, I always try to keep them

in longer because the research shows that the longer you keep a meth

addict in, the more likely they will succeed. So we push a lot for them to

stay in even though the voucher ends….The biggest negative about the

voucher system is that there is a huge push to put people in the higher

levels of care, because that voucher is there. Before, a person was put in a

lower level of care so you could see how they would do before putting

them in residential. Now, treatment just knocks on the door and says ‘I

want a voucher for this, I want this person in residential, I want a voucher

for IOP,’ so now it’s like they just push a button and people get paid. The

Standardized Model is to start people in lower levels of care, but when you

know that bank is right there, they push harder for those higher levels of

care…. But of course the good news about the voucher is that that funding

is there.”

Training Needs for Program Staff

A number of program coordinators and staff expressed a desire for the state to provide

more training or opportunities for professional development generally:

“We had training when we started the program [several] years ago. But

people have moved on. We have different people on the team. The Judge

is different now. We have different attorneys now. It would be very

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

43 | P a g e

refreshing to go back and have new training. It would be nice to have an

opportunity to hear about new research or trends, and learn about what

other programs are doing now. You come back very energized and

refreshed. We’ve talked about how nice it would be to send all team

members to training, but we have no resources right now.”

“Some of us do communicate with each other via email or phone, but it

would be nice to come together once in a while. I would love that. I’m

eager for that sort of stuff. I love to improve myself….If there would be

more financial resources for the majority of the team to attend the annual

drug court conference, that would be great. I got the chance to attend a

conference. It was a great experience to hear about the latest research, the

current trends, what are other drug courts doing across the country. I think

that would be great every year to have that opportunity, and just in general

to have a training fund for the team members.”

Coordinators stated that the area in which training needs are most pressing are in the

PSCMIS database:

“We need some help in learning that reporting mechanism. It will take

more than one day. Maybe it will be a week-long training, or two days a

week for a month. I’d like to be able to use it to start pulling out some of

the data to base decisions and changes on, but I can’t pull it out….”

“It’s a problem with the fact that there is not any money apparently to

change the system. PSCMIS can either be an asset or a deficit. There are

definite bugs.”

“More Oracle training [is needed]. It’s a quite difficult program. We need

more of that. I’m pretty decent with computers, but I run queries and just

get an error message. Just having a training every few months would be

helpful.”

Other coordinators noted that there are training needs in evaluation. Coordinator and staff

priorities are typically dedicated to day to day management and/or emergency situations

involving particular clients. The ability to structure and self-assess the program and make

policy or program changes needs improvement and focus:

“I don’t know how to do evaluation… It would be nice if we had some

kind of training from the state that taught us, ‘This is what you should

look for.’ I have no idea how to do this sort of thing. We just go day by

day, but I am sure there are places we can improve. Are we doing it right?

Are we doing it wrong? Every year the state should be out evaluating us.

Here are some things you are doing well. Here are some things you need

to work on.”

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

44 | P a g e

“I’m going to be honest; I haven’t looked at a lot of the data. I get caught

up in the day to day operation of the program. I do keep track of how

many of them have GEDs, how many of them are working, how many

have completed [a community program], and I track that. But I haven’t

really paid a lot of attention to what it all means. That’s a training thing

too, if you ask me. We need training on how to look at that, and what it all

means.”

Funding for Participant Incentives/activities

Securing funding for treatment services, training, and other basic administrative activities

is a continual priority among all problem-solving courts. Several program coordinators

did however emphasize that finding funds to provide incentives or to support community

integration or social activities for participants was a challenge. Several program staff

members indicated that they pay out-of-pocket to fund such activities because they

believed it was integral to participant success, though often times programs have little

funds designated for such expenses:

“One of our huge concerns and hurdles is funding. As you know there is

not a lot of funding for drug courts. The Supreme Court came out with a

rule or statement saying that any employee or officer of the court can’t

seek funding for incentives and that sort of stuff. So trying to find a way to

seek funding for incentives and pro-social activities is a hurdle that we

have not figured out how to climb yet.”

“I wish we could have more Governors or Senators come out and sit in

and see this program, see that it works, and maybe we could get more

funding. What if I did a fundraiser and raised $10,000? They say we can’t

do that. I have a very wealthy [family member] who would probably give

me $10,000, but I couldn’t use it…. It would be nice if we could accept

money as a donation to help these people.”

“We have no funding. The Judge sometimes writes a check for a hundred

bucks or so and goes out and gets gift cards to use. I’ve written checks and

gotten gift cards. Some of the attorneys in our court will write a check. We

have an attorney who went to a church and got a donation.”

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

45 | P a g e

In this section, we attempt to answer six questions related to problem solving court

participants, based on data in the Problem Solving Court Management Information

System:

1. How many individuals do Nebraska Problem Solving Courts Serve?

2. What are the Demographic Characteristics of Participants?

3. What are the Crimes Committed and Drug Histories of Participants?

4. What are the Education and Employment Characteristics of Participants?

5. What are the Risk Levels of Participants?

6. Are there Demographic Disparities in Who is Accepted to Problem Solving

Courts?

Data for this analysis was pulled from the Problem Solving Court Management

Information System. We analyze and compare data for each of the different types of

courts separately; so we compare the adult courts to each other and the juvenile courts to

each other. Since only one of the family drug courts enters data in this system, the

analysis for family courts only includes the Lancaster County Family Drug Court. Also,

there is only one young adult court and one Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court.

For these three courts, there were no similar courts with which to compare; so we use the

adult drug court in each jurisdiction for comparison: the Lancaster County Adult Drug

Court as a comparison for the Lancaster County Family Court, the Douglas County Adult

Drug Court as a comparison for the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court, and the

Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court as a comparison for the Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court. We would not anticipate that each of the matched pairs would have the same

characteristics or serve the same populations; however, we believe it instructive to note

similarities and differences between these special problem solving courts and the more

traditional model of adult drug court.

How many individuals do Nebraska problem solving courts serve?

Nebraska adult drug courts had enrolled 1482 participants between January 1, 2007 and

April 30, 2011 (see Table 4.1). Enrollment ranged from 14 participants in the Scotts Bluff

County Drug Court to 756 participants in the Douglas County Adult Drug Court. Table

4.1 also shows the number of people graduated and terminated from adult problem

solving courts. The difference between the number of participants graduated and

terminated and the number of participants enrolled is the number of participants active in

each court on April 30, 2011. We believe the enrollment information from the Problem

Solving Court Management Information System that we used for this analysis is accurate.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

46 | P a g e

Table 4.1: Adult Drug Court Participants January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2011

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Enrolled

January 1,

2007 or

After

195

756

223

Graduated

349

Terminated

264

Nebraska juvenile drug courts had enrolled 292 participants between January 1, 2007 and

April 30, 2011 (see Table 4.2). Enrollment ranged from 12 in the Northeast Juvenile

Drug Court to 105 in the Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court. Table 4.2 also shows the

number of juveniles graduated and terminated from juvenile problem solving courts. As

with the adult courts, the difference between the number of participants graduated and

terminated and the number of participants enrolled is the number of juveniles active in

each court on April 30, 2011.

Table 4.2: Juvenile Drug Court Participants January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2011

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Enrolled January 1,

2007 or After

105

Graduated

Terminated

The young adult court had enrolled 31 participants between January 1, 2007 and April 30,

2011 (see Table 4.3). For purposes of comparison, we have included the enrollment

numbers for the Douglas County Adult Drug Court.

Table 4.3: Douglas Young Adult and Adult Participants January 1, 2007 through April

30, 2011

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Enrolled January 1, 2007

or After

756

Graduated

349

Terminated

264

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

47 | P a g e

The Scotts Bluff Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court had enrolled 23 participants

between January 1, 2007 and April 30, 2011 (see Table 4.4). The Scotts Bluff Adult Drug

Court is shown for comparison purposes.

Table 4.4: Scotts Bluff DUI and Adult Court Participants January 1, 2007 through April

30, 2011

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Enrolled January 1, 2007 or

After

Graduated

Terminated

The Lancaster County Family Court had enrolled 23 participants between January 1,

2007 and April 30, 2011 (see Table 4.5). The Lancaster County Adult Drug Court is

shown for comparison. Other family courts do not enter data in the Problem Solving

Court Management Information System (PSCMIS). Nebraska Problem Solving Courts

had served at least 1862 participants between January 1, 2007 and April 30, 2011.

Table 4.5: Lancaster Family and Adult Court Participants January 1, 2007 through April

30, 2011

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Enrolled January 1, 2007 or

After

223

Graduated

Terminated

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

48 | P a g e

What are the Demographic Characteristics of Participants?

Demographic information across the courts included age, gender, race/ethnicity and

marital status. In this section we describe similarities and differences in the demographic

backgrounds of participants for adult courts, juvenile courts, the young adult court and

the Driving Under the Influence Court. We believe the demographic information from the

Problem Solving Court Management Information System that we used for this analysis is

accurate.

Adult Courts

Age

There is no significant difference in the age of participants across adult drug courts

(F(9,1439) = 1.448, p = .163). The average age of participants ranges from just under 28

years for the Northeast Nebraska Drug Court to nearly 33 years of age for the Midwest

Nebraska Drug Court (see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Average Age for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Age

(Mean)

28.84

31.65

30.54

31.18

32.55

29.57

27.77

29.97

29.93

29.26

Sample

Size

195

756

223

Gender

Contrary to expectations, adult drug courts differ in the proportion of men and women

enrolled in their courts (χ

(9) = 29.804, p < .001). The District 6 Adult Drug Court has

the highest percent of women enrolled, with women constituting over half of the

participants in this court. District 6 does not differ significantly from Central Nebraska

and Southeast Nebraska, in which women are just under half of the participants. The

remaining courts have a significantly lower proportion of women enrolled, and do not

differ from each other (see Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Gender for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Male

102

52.3%

45.0%

494

65.3%

151

67.7%

65.7%

84.2%

63.6%

64.9%

71.4%

50.8%

Female

47.7%

55.0%

262

34.7%

32.3%

34.3%

15.8%

36.4%

35.1%

28.6%

49.2%

Sample

Size

195

756

223

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

49 | P a g e

Race/Ethnicity

Not surprisingly, there is a significant difference across courts in the race/ethnic

background of participants (χ

(27) = 212.575, p < .001). Douglas County has the highest

proportion of African-American participants, followed by Lancaster County. Midwest

Nebraska and Scotts Bluff County have the highest proportion of Hispanic participants

(see Table 4.8). These differences were expected based on differences in race/ethnicity

across Nebraska communities.

Table 4.8: Race/Ethnicity of Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

White/

Caucasian

164

84.1%

93.3%

490

64.9%

163

73.4%

68.6%

100%

84.1%

90.9%

64.3%

91.5%

Black/

African-

American

2.1%

1.7%

201

26.6%

14.4%

4.5%

3.9%

5.1%

Hispanic

9.7%

3.3%

4.1%

31.4%

6.8%

3.9%

35.7%

1.7%

Other

4.1%

1.7%

3.4%

8.1%

4.5%

1.3%

1.7%

Sample

Size

195

755

222

Marital Status

We did not anticipate there would be differences across courts with regard to marital

status. In order to minimize zero-count cells for analysis, marital status categories were

collapsed into Married/Cohabitating vs. Single/ Divorced/Separated/Widowed. There is a

significant difference in participant marital status across adult drug courts (χ

(9) =

20.253, p = .016). North Central Nebraska has the highest proportion of married and

cohabitating participants compared to the other courts. Midwest Nebraska, Northeast

Nebraska, and Southeast Nebraska also have a relatively high proportion of married

participants, and do not differ from North Central Nebraska (see Table 4.9).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

50 | P a g e

Table 4.9: Marital Status of Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Cohabitating

9.7%

3.0%

2.7%

5.7%

15.8%

2.3%

6.8%

Divorced

16.9%

15%

11.8%

13.5%

14.3%

15.8%

9.1%

18.2%

14.3%

10.2%

Married

7.2%

11.7%

10.2%

9.0%

17.1%

26.3%

18.2%

13%

7.1%

18.6%

Separated

6.2%

1.7%

4.0%

4.5%

5.7%

11.4%

7.8%

7.1%

Single

116

59.5%

53.3%

466

61.6%

129

57.8%

54.3%

42.1%

59.1%

58.4%

64.3%

59.3%

Widowed

0.5%

1.7%

0.4%

2.9%

1.3%

7.1%

Unknown*

16.7%

12.1%

1.3%

5.1%

Sample Size

195

756

223

*This category not included in analysis.

Juvenile Courts

Age

There is a significant difference in age of participants across juvenile drug courts

(F(4,285)=3.386, p = .010). Although there were significant differences, the differences

across courts were not large: the average age for participants in all courts was between 16

and 17 years. Lancaster County has the highest average age, and significantly differed

from Douglas County and Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Courts. No significant

differences for participant age exist for Sarpy County and Scotts Bluff County Juvenile

Drug Courts (see Table 4.10).

Table 4.10: Average Age of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Age (Mean)

16.46

16.94

16.19

16.71

16.46

Sample size

104

Gender

No significant differences in gender exist across juvenile drug courts (χ

(4) =3.007, p =

.557). Participants in Nebraska’s juvenile drug courts are predominantly male (see Table

4.11).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

51 | P a g e

Table 4.11: Gender of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Male

80.0%

77.5%

66.7%

84.8%

75.0%

Female

20.0%

22.5%

33.3%

15.2%

25.0%

Sample Size

105

Race/Ethnicity

We anticipated there would be differences in the race/ethnicity of juvenile drug court

participants given the differences in demographics across the state. There is a significant

difference in ethnic background across juvenile drug courts (χ

(12) = 75.997, p < .001).

Douglas County has the largest proportion of African-American participants, and

Northeast Nebraska has the largest proportion of Hispanic participants. Three courts

(Lancaster County, Northeast Nebraska, and Scotts Bluff County) also have a sizeable

proportion of ‘Other’ ethnic groups represented in their courts. The ‘Other’ category

consists largely of those of Native American and Asian ethnicity (see Table 4.12).

Table 4.12: Race/Ethnicity of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

White/Caucasian

55.2%

70%

41.7%

86.1%

68.8%

Black/African-American

35.2%

8.8%

5.1%

Hispanic

8.6%

7.5%

41.7%

5.1%

18.8%

Other

13.8%

16.7%

3.8%

12.5%

Sample Size

105

Marital Status

There is a significant difference for participant marital status across juvenile drug courts

(χ

(4)=71.540, p < .001). All participants in Douglas County, Northeast Nebraska, and

Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Courts were identified as single; while at least 40% of

participants in Lancaster County and Sarpy County are listed as ‘Unknown’ (see Table

4.13). It is likely the vast majority of those in the ‘Unknown’ category are single, given

that they are juveniles. The differences in this analysis appear to have more to do with

completion of data entry rather than differences in demographics across courts.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

52 | P a g e

Table 4.13: Marital Status of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Single

105

100%

60%

100%

57%

100%

Unknown

40%

43%

Sample Size

105

Young Adult Court

Age

Participants in the Adult Drug Court are older upon entrance than those in the Young

Adult Drug Court, as expected (F(1, 785) = 37.908, p < .001) (see table 4.14).

Table 4.14: Average Age of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Age (Mean)

30.54

19.74

Sample Size

756

Gender

There is no significant difference in the gender distribution across the Douglas County

Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (χ2(1) = 1.035, p =

.309) (see Table 4.15).

Table 4.15: Gender of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Male

494

65.34%

74.19%

Female

262

34.56%

25.81%

Sample Size

756

Race/Ethnicity

The Adult Drug Court has a significantly higher percentage of whites/Caucasians, and

significantly fewer Blacks/African-Americans, than the Young Adult Drug Court (χ

(3) =

10.628, p = .014) (see Table 4.16).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

53 | P a g e

Table 4.16: Race/Ethnicity of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

White/Caucasian

490

64.90%

48.39%

Black/African

American

201

26.62%

51.61%

Hispanic

5.03%

Other

3.44%

Sample Size

755

Marital Status

To minimize zero-count cells for analysis, marital status categories were collapsed into

Married/Cohabitating vs. Single/ Divorced/Separated/Widowed. Not surprisingly, all of

those in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court are single, while those in the Adult

Drug Court are more likely to be married/ cohabitating (χ

(1) = 5.234, p = .022) (see

Table 4.17).

Table 4.17: Marital Status of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Cohabitating

3.04%

Divorced

11.77%

Married

10.19%

Separated

3.97%

Single

466

61.64%

100%

Widowed

.40%

Unknown*

8.99%

Sample Size

756

*This category not included in analysis.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

54 | P a g e

Driving Under the Influence Court

Age

There is no significant difference in age for participants between the Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 34) = 0.887, p = .353)

(see Table 4.18).

Table 4.18: Average Age of DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Age (Mean)

29.93

32.81

Sample Size

Gender

There is no significant difference in the gender distribution across the Scotts Bluff

County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (χ

(1) = 0.221, p =

.639). Both courts serve primarily males (see Table 4.19).

Table 4.19: Gender of DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Male

71.43%

78.26%

Female

28.57%

21.74%

Sample Size

Race/Ethnicity

There is no significant difference in the distribution of race/ethnicity between participants

in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

(χ

(3) = 0.742, p = .696). Both courts serve a majority of White/Caucasian participants

with a substantial number of Hispanic participants (see Table 4.20)

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

55 | P a g e

Table 4.20: Race/Ethnicity of DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

White/Caucasian

64.29%

56.52%

Black/African

American

Hispanic

35.71%

39.13%

Other

4.35%

Sample Size

Marital Status

To minimize zero-count cells for analysis, marital status categories were collapsed into

Married/Cohabitating vs. Single/ Divorced/Separated/Widowed. There is no significant

difference across the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court in the marital status of participants (χ

(1) = 0.782, p = .377). Most participants

in both courts are single (see Table 4.21).

Table 4.21: Marital Status of DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Cohabitating

Divorced

14.29%

17.39%

Married

7.14%

17.39%

Separated

7.14%

Single

64.29%

65.22%

Widowed

7.14%

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

56 | P a g e

Family Court

Age

There is no significant difference in age for participants between the Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 255) = 1.058, p = .305)

(see Table 4.22).

Table 4.22: Average Age of Family Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Age (Mean)

31.18

29.44

Sample Size

223

Gender

There are significantly more women in the Lancaster Family Court than in the Adult

Drug Court (χ

(1) = 51.22, p < .001) (see Table 4.23).

Table 4.23: Gender of Family Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Male

151

67.71%

2.94%

Female

32.29%

97.06%

Sample Size

223

Race/Ethnicity

There is no significant difference in the distribution of race/ethnic groups between the

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Court (χ

(3) =

3.567, p = .312). The majority of participants for both courts are White/Caucasian (see

Table 4.24)

Table 4.24: Race/Ethnicity of Family Court Participants

Lancaster County Adult

Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

White/Caucasian

163

73.42%

75%

Black/African

American

14.41%

9.38%

Hispanic

4.05%

Other

8.11%

15.63%

Sample Size

222

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

57 | P a g e

Marital Status

To minimize zero-count cells for analysis, marital status categories were collapsed into

Married/Cohabitating vs. Single/ Divorced/Separated/Widowed. There is no significant

difference in the marital status of participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court

and the Lancaster County Family Court (χ

(1) = 3.384, p = .066) (see table 4.25).

Table 4.25: Marital Status of Family Court Participants

Lancaster County Adult

Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Cohabitating

2.69%

Divorced

13.45%

11.76%

Married

8.97%

20.59%

Separated

4.48%

2.94%

Single

129

57.85%

41.18%

Widowed

0.45%

Unknown*

12.11%

23.53%

Sample Size

223

*This category not included in analysis.

What are the Crimes Committed and Drug Histories of Participants?

We examined the types of crimes committed and the drug histories of participants in

adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, the young adult court, the Driving Under the

Influence Court and the Lancaster County Family Court. Information for this analysis

was obtained from the Problem Solving Court Management Information System. There

were some data challenges for this analysis. We believe there was data entry or coding

errors for some courts. For example, for adult drug courts there were 10 individuals

identified as having a Felony 1 charge, seven of which plead to a Felony 1 charge. In

discussions with coordinators, we do not believe that persons with Felony 1 charges

would be accepted into adult drug court. Based on discussions with coordinators, we do

not believe the number of inaccurate charges is large. Another data issue with regard to

charged offense appears to be that in some courts as participants move from one level to

the next, prosecutors will reduce the charges. Since there is no separate field in the

PSCMIS to record this change, the court will enter this as the original or plead charge.

Hence, when we examine charged or plead offense, the data may not reflect the original

charge or plea.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

58 | P a g e

Another issue is that we had missing data for a substantial number of participants. This is

particularly noticeable in the drug of choice data in which over half the participants had

missing data. In discussions with coordinators, we believe this is primarily the result of

information not being converted from the Probation information system to the PSCMIS;

therefore the data in this section is likely to reflect individuals who participated in

problem solving courts since 2009. For a few courts, coordinators indicated the lack of

information about primary drug of choice was a data entry issue and they intended to

become more diligent about ensuring information gets entered into the PSCMIS.

Adult Courts

Charged Offense Class

There are significant differences in the highest charged offense class across adult drug

courts in Nebraska (F(9,992) = 7.659, p < .001).Specifically, Lancaster County

participants, on average, are charged with more serious offense classes than participants

in other courts , and it is the only court without a majority of participants charged with

Felony Class 4 offenses. Douglas County has participants with the second most severe

charged offenses. The most common charged offense across courts was Felony 4 (see

Table 4.26).

Table 4.26: Charged Offense Class for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Felony

Class 1C / 1D

3.4%

1.4%

1.7%

9.1%

Felony 2

3.8%

12.1%

14.0%

30.3%

3.3%

33.3%

5.1%

9.1%

7.7%

Felony 3 / 3A

28.7%

17.2%

126

29.4%

32.7%

16.7%

28.9%

32.2%

18.2%

32.7%

Felony 4

106

67.5%

67.2%

237

55.2%

37.0%

80.0%

66.7%

71.1%

57.6%

63.6%

59.6%

Misdemeanor

3.4%

Sample size

157

429

165

Admitted/Plead Offense Class

There are also significant differences across the admitted offense classes for participants

in Nebraska Adult Drug Courts (F(9,976) = 12.067, p < .001). As with charged offense

class, Lancaster County participants, on average, plead to more serious offense classes

than participants in other courts, and it is the only court without a majority of participants

admitting to Felony 4’s. Douglas County has participants with the second most severe

plead offenses. Only in Scotts Bluff County do a large propotion of the participants plead

down to misdemeanor offenses (see Table 4.27). Curiously, some offenders in the adult

juvenile court are listed as pleading to juvenile offenses.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

59 | P a g e

Table 4.27: Admitted/Plead Offense Class for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Felony 1C / 1D

2.0%

1.4%

Felony 2

3.2%

4.0%

13.8%

27.4%

3.3%

5.0%

6.0%

Felony 3 / 3A

25.5%

14.0%

125

29.1%

31.1%

13.3%

8.8%

25.0%

26.0%

Felony 4

112

71.3%

80.0%

237

55.2%

41.5%

83.3%

100%

91.2%

63.3%

50.0%

68.0%

Misdemeanor

5.0%

50.0%

Juvenile

0.5%

1.7%

Sample Size

157

429

164

Drug Use History

There is a significant difference in the number of different drugs used by participants

prior to starting a drug court program across adult drug courts (F(9,746) = 108.22, p <

.001). Lancaster County has participants who use the highest number of kinds of drugs,

and is significantly different from all other drug courts. District 6 participants use the

second largest number of kinds of drugs (see Table 4.28).

Table 4.28: Number of Drugs Used by Adult Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Number

of Drugs

Used

(Mean)

1.08

3.20

1.53

5.42

1.00

1.73

1.22

1.62

1.00

2.12

Sample

Size

420

146

Analysis of adult participants’ drug of primary choice reveals significant differences, (X

(36) = 92.532, p < .001). Lancaster County has a significantly lower percentage of

participants with depressants/alcohol as a drug of choice than Midwest Nebraska and

Scotts Bluff County Midwest Nebraska and Lancaster County have a lower proportion of

participants with marijuana listed as their drug of choice than do Central Nebraska,

Douglas County, North Central Nebraska, and Southeast Nebraska. Lancaster County

has a higher proportion of participants with stimulants as their drug of choice than

Central Nebraska, Douglas County, North Central Nebraska, Northeast Nebraska, and

Southeast Nebraska. Midwest Nebraska and Northeast Nebraska have a higher

percentage of participants who list opioids as their drug of choice, compared to the other

courts(see Table 4.29).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

60 | P a g e

Table 4.29: Drug of Choice for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Opioid/

Narcotic

6.9%

5.0%

6.7%

7.5%

23.5%

6.7%

33.3%

14.3%

17.6%

Stimulant

40.2%

55.0%

176

41.9%

100

68.5%

52.9%

33.3%

22.2%

57.1%

50.0%

23.5%

Marijuana

44.8%

30.0%

178

42.4%

15.1%

5.9%

46.7%

33.3%

23.8%

25.0%

47.1%

Depressant

(includes

Alcohol)

8.0%

10.0%

7.4%

3.4%

17.6%

13.3%

11.1%

4.8%

25.0%

11.8%

Other^

1.7%

5.5%

Sample Size

420

146

No primary

drug of

choice

reported*

108

55.4%

66.7%

336

44.4%

34.5%

51.4%

21.1%

79.5%

72.7%

71.4%

71.2%

^Primarily hallucinogens, with one Lancaster County participant choosing inhalants.

*This category not included in analysis.

Juvenile Courts

Charged Offense Class

There is a significant difference across the five juvenile drug courts in the highest offense

class participants are charged with (χ

(8) = 17.858, p = .022). The majority of

participants in all courts are charged with a Juvenile 1 offense class, although the

proportion is significantly higher in Lancaster County than in the other courts. Higher

proportions of participants in the other four courts are charged with various misdemeanor

and lesser juvenile offenses (see Table 4.30).

Table 4.30: Charged Offense Class of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Offense Class

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Felony 3 / 4

3.2%

1.9%

7.7%

Juvenile 1

71.4%

98.0%

77.8%

83.0%

61.5%

Misdemeanor/

City Ordinance

Juvenile 2 thru

Juvenile 4 /

25.4%

2.0%

22.2%

15.1%

30.8%

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

61 | P a g e

Admitted/Plead Offense Class

There is not a significant difference across the five juvenile drug courts in the highest

offense class participants plead to (χ

(8) = 15.304, p = .054). As with the charged

offenses, the majority of participants in all courts admit to a Juvenile 1 offense class (see

Table 4.31).

Table 4.31: Admitted/Plead Offense for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Offense Class

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Felony 3 / 4

3.3%

Juvenile 1

72.1%

97.9%

77.8%

82.3%

76..9%

Misdemeanor/ City

Ordinance Juvenile

2 thru Juvenile 4 /

24.6%

1.2%

22.2%

17.7%

23.1%

Sample size

Drug Use History

There is no significant difference in the total number of kinds of drugs used by

participants in juvenile drug courts (F(4,98) = 1.172, p = .328) (see Table 4.32).

Table 4.32: Number of Drugs Used by Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Number of Drugs

Used (Mean)

1.35

1.14

1.00

1.48

.80

Court Sample

Size

There is no significant difference in the primary drug of choice across juvenile drug

courts (X

(16) = 21.630, p = .156). However, a majority of participants have no primary

drug of choice listed (see Table 4.33). Marijuana/cannabis was the largest category for all

juvenile courts.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

62 | P a g e

Table 4.33: Primary Drug of Choice for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Drug

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Opioid/ Narcotic

2.9%

3.6%

Stimulant

5.9%

3.6%

Marijuana

91.2%

57.1%

87.1%

80.0%

Depressant (includes

Alcohol)

32.1%

12.9%

20.0%

Other

3.6%

Sample size

No primary drug of

choice reported*

67.6%

65.0%

58.3%

60.8%

68.8%

^Hallucinogens

*This category not included in analysis.

Young Adult Court

Charged Offense Class

Participants in the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have more severe offense class

charges than do those in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (χ

(4) = 192.288,

p < .001). Specifically, Douglas County Adult Court participants are charged with more

Felony 4’s than participants in the Young Adult Drug Court, while those in the Young

Adult Drug Court are charged with more Misdemeanors (see Table 4.34).

Table 4.34: Charged Offense Class for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Felony 1C / 1D

1.4%

Felony 2

14.0%

6.5%

Felony 3 / 3A

126

29.4%

38.7%

Felony 4

237

55.2%

12.9%

Misdemeanor

41.9%

Sample Size

429

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

63 | P a g e

Admitted/Plead Offense Class

Participants in the Douglas County Adult Drug Court also have more severe

admitted/plead offense classes than do those in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug

Court (χ

(5) = 223.205, p < .001). Douglas County Adult Court participants plead to

more Felony 2’s and Felony 4’s than did Young Adult Drug Court participants, and

Young Adult Court participants plead to more Misdemeanors (see Table 4.35).

Table 4.35: Admitted/Plead Offense Class for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Felony 1C / 1D

1.4%

Felony 2

13.8%

Felony 3 / 3A

125

29.1%

38.7%

Felony 4

237

55.2%

12.9%

Misdemeanor

48.4%

Juvenile

0.5%

Sample Size

429

Drug Use History

Participants in the Adult Drug Court use significantly more drugs than those in the Young

Adult Drug Court (F(1, 433) = 6.044, p = .014). This is not surprising since the young

adult court is not exclusively a drug court (see Table 4.36).

Table 4.36: Number of Drugs Used by Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Number of Drugs

Used (Mean)

1.53

0.93

Sample Size

420

There is a significant difference in the type of drugs selected as participant’s drug of

choice between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young

Adult Drug Court (χ

(4) = 11.905, p = .018). Participants in the Young Adult Court

preferred marijuana more and stimulants less than participants in the Adult Drug Court

(see Table 4.37).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

64 | P a g e

Table 4.37: Primary Drug of Choice for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Opioid/ Narcotic

6.7%

Stimulant

176

41.9%

Marijuana

178

42.4%

80.0%

Depressant (Includes

Alcohol)

7.4%

13.3%

Other

1.7%

Sample Size

420

No primary drug of choice

reported*

336 (44.44%)

16 (51.61%)

^Hallucinogens

*This category not included in analysis.

Driving Under the Influence Court

Charged Offense Class

Participants in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court have more severe offense class

charges than do those in the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (χ

(4) = 18.772, p = .001).

Those in the Scotts Bluff Adult Court are charged more often with Felony 4’s, while

those in the DUI court are charged more often with Misdemeanos (see Table 4.38).

Table 4.38: Charged Office Class for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Felony 1C / 1D

9.1%

Felony 2

9.1%

Felony 3 / 3A

18.2%

23.8%

Felony 4

63.6%

9.5%

Misdemeanor

14*

66.7%

Sample Size

*Half (seven) are Misdemeanor Class W.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

65 | P a g e

Admitted/Plead Offense Class

As with charged offense class, there is a difference in the highest admitted/plead offense

class between those in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff

County DUI Court (χ

(2) = 10.026, p = .007). Again, those in the Scotts Bluff Adult

Court plead more often to Felony 4’s than those in the DUI court. Unlike with charged

offense class, there is no difference in rate of pleading to misdemeanors between the

courts, due to participants in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court pleading down to

misdemeanors (see Table 4.39).

Table 4.39: Admitted/Plead Offense Class for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Felony 1C / 1D*

Felony 2*

Felony 3 / 3A

23.8%

Felony 4

50.0%

4.8%

Misdemeanor

50.0%

15^

71.4%

Sample Size

^Ten are Misdemeanor Class W.

*These categories not included in analysis as all participants plead to a lower class offense.

Drug Use History

There is no significant difference in the number of drugs used when starting the program

between participants in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff

DUI Court (F(1, 8) = 0.400, p = .545) (see Table 4.40).

Table 4.40: Number of Drugs Used for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean

1.00

0.67

Sample Size

There is no significant difference in the primary drug of choice used by those in the

Scotts Bluff County Adult Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (χ

(3) = 4.097, p

= .251) (see Table 4.41).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

66 | P a g e

Table 4.41: Primary Drug of Choice for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Opioid/ Narcotic^

Stimulant

50.0%

Marijuana

25.0%

33.3%

Depressant (Includes

Alcohol)

25.0%

50.0%

Other

16.7%

Sample Size

No primary drug of choice

reported*

71.43%

73.91%

^Inhalants

*This category not used in analysis.

Family Court

Charged Offense Class

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court have more severe offense class

charges than do those in the Lancaster County Family Court (χ

(3) = 183.00, p < .001).

Specifically, those in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court are more likely to have

been charged with felonies, while all Lancaster County Family Court participants are

charged with Juvenile 3A’s (see Table 4.42).

Table 4.42: Charged Offense Class for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Felony 1C / 1D*

Felony 2

30.3%

Felony 3 / 3A

32.7%

Felony 4

37.0%

Misdemeanor*

Juvenile

18^

100%

Sample Size

165

^All Juvenile Class 3A charges.

*These categories not used in analysis due to no participants in category.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

67 | P a g e

Admitted/Plead Offense Class

As with charged offenses, participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court plead to

more severe offense classes than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (χ

(3) =

182.00, p < .001). Specifically, those in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court are more

likely to have plead to felonies, while all Lancaster County Family Court participants

plead to Juvenile 3A’s (see Table 4.43).

Table 4.43: Admitted/Plead Offense Class for Family Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Felony 1C / 1D*

Felony 2

27.4%

Felony 3 / 3A

31.1%

Felony 4

41.5%

Misdemeanor^

Juvenile

18^

100%

Sample Size

164

^All Juvenile Class 3A charges.

*These categories not used in analysis due to no participants in category.

Drug Use History

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court use significantly more kinds of

drugs than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 153) = 22.834, p < .001)

(see Table 4.44).

Table 4.44: Number of Drugs Used by Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Mean

5.42

1.44

Sample Size

146

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court participants do not have significantly different drugs

of choice from the Lancaster County Family Dependency Court participants (χ

(4) =

3.076, p = .545) (see Table 4.45).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

68 | P a g e

Table 4.45: Primary Drug of Choice for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Opioid/ Narcotic

7.5%

22.2%

Stimulant

100

68.5%

66.7%

Marijuana

15.1%

11.1%

Depressant (Includes

Alcohol)

3.4%

Other

5.5%

Sample Size

146

No primary drug of choice

reported*

34.53%

73.53%

^Hallucinogens, with one participant preferring inhalants.

*This category not used in analysis.

What are the Education and Employment Characteristics of Participants?

We examined education and employment information for each of the five types of

problem solving courts using data from the PSCMIS. A few courts noted that there were

some data entry issues and not all of their education and employment data was being

entered. They indicated they would be more diligent in the future to ensure complete data

entry. Nevertheless, we believe the employment and education data is reasonably

accurate.

Adult Courts

Education

There are no significant differences across courts in the grade completed by adult drug

court participants by the time they start a drug court program (F(9,1285) = 1.414, p =

.177). Participants in most adult drug courts had between an 11

and 12

grade level on

average (see Table 4.46).

Table 4.46: Education Level of Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Completed

Grade

(Mean)

12.09

11.73

11.83

11.79

11.34

11.40

11.90

12.15

11.39

11.75

Sample Size

118

696

202

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

69 | P a g e

There is a significant difference among adult drug courts in the proportion of participants

who start the court with a high school or GED diploma (F(9,1285) = 3.011, p = .001).

Central Nebraska and Lancaster County have the highest percent of participants starting a

drug court program with a high school or GED diploma, followed by Sarpy County and

Lancaster County. These four courts differ significantly from Midwest Nebraska, which

has the lowest percentage of participants starting the program with a high school or GED

diploma (see Table 4.47).

Table 4.47: High School Degree/GED of Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebras

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Less than

High

School/

GED

10.2

24.6%

148

21.3%

13.4%

41.9%

31.6%

23.7%

20.6%

28.6%

25.0%

High

School/

GED or

Greater

106

89.8

75.4%

548

78.7%

175

86.6%

58.1%

68.4%

76.3%

79.4%

71.4%

75.0%

Sample

Size

118

696

202

Employment

There is a significant difference among adult drug courts in the number of hours per week

worked by participants when starting a drug court program (F(9,1416) = 23.988, p <

.001). Central Nebraska and Lancaster County have participants working the most hours

per week when starting a drug court program, and do not differ from each other. Douglas

County and North Central Nebraska have participants who work the next highest number

of hours per week. Northeast Nebraska follows, and does not differ significantly from

North Central Nebraska. The remaining five courts have participants starting the

program with significantly fewer hours worked per week, and do not differ from each

other (see Table 4.48).

Table 4.48: Hours of Initial Employment for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Work

Hours

per

Week

(Mean)

24.18

0.67

18.68

24.62

3.29

15.11

8.23

6.13

2.86

5.79

Sample

Size

185

738

199

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

70 | P a g e

Juvenile Courts

Education

There is a significant difference across courts in the level of education completed by the

time participants start a juvenile drug court program (F(4,189) = 6.19, p < .001). Juvenile

drug court participants in Sarpy County, on average, have completed the highest grade in

school, compared to the other courts. In contrast, those in Northeast Nebraska have

completed the least grade in school; Northeast Nebraska is significantly different from all

other drug courts except for Scotts Bluff County (see Table 4.49).

Table 4.49: Education Level of Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

9.77

9.79

8.27

10.16

8.81

Sample size

Employment

There is no significant difference in the number of hours juvenile drug court participants

were employed weekly when entering a drug court program (F(4,161) = .792, p < .532)

(see Table 4.50).

Table 4.50: Hours of Initial Employment for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Young Adult Court

Education

Participants in the Adult Drug Court have completed more education on average upon

entering the program than those in the Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 722) = 5.076, p =

.025). However, the average grade completed for both courts is between 11

and 12

grade (see Table 4.51).

Table 4.51: Education Level of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Completed Grade

(Mean)

11.83

11.20

Sample Size

696

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

0.42

1.44

2.08

0.98

0.0

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

71 | P a g e

There is no significant difference in education level (defined as completed high school or

GED vs. did not complete high school or GED) at the beginning of the program between

the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1, 722) = 0.849, p = .357) (see Table 4.52).

Table 4.52: High School Degree/GED of Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Less than High

School/GED

148

21.26%

40%

High School or Equivalent

or greater

548

78.74%

71.43%

Sample Size

696

Employment

There is no significant difference in the number of hours worked per week for

participants in the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young

Adult Drug Court (F(1, 767) = 0.90, p = .343) (see Table 4.53).

Table 4.53: Hours of Initial Employment for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Work Hours Per

Week (Mean)

18.68

22.06

Sample Size

738

Driving Under the Influence Court

Education

There is no significant difference in the grade completed at the start of the program for

participants in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court (F(1, 34) = 1.324, p = .258) (see Table 4.54).

Table 4.54: Education Level for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Completed Grade

(Mean)

11.39

12.25

Sample Size

There is no difference in education level (defined as completed high school or GED vs.

did not complete high school or GED) at the beginning of the program between the Scotts

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

72 | P a g e

Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 722) =

0.849, p = .357) (see Table 4.55).

Table 4.55: High School Degree/GED of DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Less than High

School/GED

28.57%

18.18%

High School or

Equivalent or greater

71.43%

81.82%

Sample Size

Employment

There is no significant difference in the number of hours worked per week for

participants in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court (F(1, 35) = 0.027, p = .871) (see Table 4.56).

Table 4.56: Hours of Initial Employment for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Work Hours Per

Week (Mean)

2.86

3.48

Sample Size

Family Court

Education

There is no difference in the average grade completed by the start of the program for

participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family

Court (F(1, 209) = 0.606, p = .437) (see Table 4.57).

Table 4.57: Education Level of Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Completed Grade

(Mean)

11.79

11.33

Sample Size

202

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court are more likely to have a high

school or GED diploma than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 209) =

6.790, p = .010) (see Table 4.58).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

73 | P a g e

Table 4.58: High School Degree/GED of Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Less than High

School/GED

13.37%

44.44%

High School/GED

or Greater

175

86.63%

55.56%

Sample Size

202

Employment

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court worked significantly more hours

per week at the start of the program than those who are in the Lancaster County Family

Court (F(1, 207) = 21.35, p < .001) (see Table 4.59).

Table 4.59: Hours of Initial Employment for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Work Hours Per

Week (Mean)

24.62

0.00

Sample Size

199

What are the Risk Levels of Participants?

There is much discussion in the literature about who should be served by problem solving

courts. Early evaluations found most problem solving courts serving moderate risk

offenders (Belenko, 2001). Effectiveness studies provided some justification for this

target population. Higher risk populations were found to do less well in drug courts than

those at more moderate risk. For example, persons charged with misdemeanors are more

likely to graduate from drug court than persons charged with felonies (Belenko, 2001);

first time offenders are more likely to complete drug court than those with more offenses

(Saum, Scarpitti, Butzin, Perez, Jennings, & Gray, 2002; Peters, Haas, & Murrin, 1999);

and individuals with an extensive history of drug treatment do less well in drug court than

persons who have not been to treatment as often (Miller & Shutt, 2001).

However, others have suggested drug courts should target higher risk offenders. They

argue drug courts are a scarce resource, low to moderate risk offenders can be effectively

served in lower intensity justice programs, research indicates drug courts are effective for

high risk offenders, without drug court involvement high risk offenders are likely to cost

society more to serve through recidivism and imprisonment, therefore drug courts should

be reserved for higher risk offenders. As stated by Huddleston and Marlowe (2011),

“Research identifies that the ‘High Risk/High Need’ population of offenders respond

optimally to the Drug Court model and yield the greatest returns on investment.” (p. 17).

Based on a review of the research, Knight, Flynn, and Simpson (2008) state, “Research

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

74 | P a g e

has clearly demonstrated that intensive treatment services should be reserved for

individuals with the most severe drug use problems. Providing intensive services to those

with less severe problems is not only a waste of valuable resources (particularly since

these individuals tend to do as well with less intensive intervention), but may actually

make their drug use problem worse.”

As part of the Nebraska Statewide Problem Solving Court Evaluation, we looked at risk

level of participants across courts. We looked at a number of different indicators of risk.

1. Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) – a screening

device for adults that assesses risk and need including criminal history,

education/employment, family/marital, leisure/recreation, companions,

alcohol/drug problem, pro-criminal attitude, and antisocial patterns.

2. Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) – a

screening device for youth that assesses prior and current offenses, family

circumstances, education/employment, peer relations, substance abuse,

leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and attitudes/orientation.

3. The criminal history/prior and current offenses subscales of the LS/CMI

and YLS/CMI.

4. The alcohol/drug problems subscale of the LS/CMI and YLS/CMI.

5. The Simple Screening Instrument (SSI) – a component of the Nebraska

standardized model for assessing substance abusing offenders

6. The Juvenile Screening Instrument (JSI)

7. Adolescent Chemical Dependency Inventory (ACDI)

8. The Standardized Risk Assessment Reporting Format – a tool used to give

treatment providers an indication of the offenders risk of re-arrest.

The most complete information in the PSCMIS was for the LS/CMI and YLS/CMI.

Although the SSI is used extensively, the only information in the PSCMIS is the risk

level rather than the score, which limits the variability across participants.

Adult Courts

LS/CMI Level

Initial LSCMI level for adult drug courts show a significant difference among the courts

(F (9, 718) = 10.12, p < .001). District 6 and Lancaster County participants have

significantly higher LSCMI levels than all other adult drug courts, followed by a

grouping of Douglas County, Southeast Nebraska, North Central Nebraska, and Midwest

Nebraska courts. Scotts Bluff County participants have the lowest LSCMI scores

compared to the other courts, but did not differ significantly from Sarpy County, Central

Nebraska, and Northeast Nebraska. Means are based on a five point scale from 1 = very

low to 5 = very high. The average score for participants for most courts fell in the

medium to high range; for two courts, participant scores fell in the high to very high

range (see Table 4.60).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

75 | P a g e

Table 4.60: LS/CMI Levels for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Very

Low

6.3%

Low

5.2%

1.8%

3.5%

0.8%

3.1%

2.8%

7.6%

3.5%

Medium

36.4%

5.4%

23.4%

10.2%

37.5%

25.0%

52.8%

28.8%

80.0%

24.6%

High

51.9%

46.4%

123

48.0%

44.1%

37.5%

43.8%

33.3%

50.0%

20.0%

47.4%

Very

High

6.5%

46.4%

25.0%

44.9%

21.9%

25.0%

11.1%

13.6%

24.6%

Mean

3.60

4.38

3.95

4.33

3.78

3.81

3.53

3.70

3.20

3.93

LS/CMI Total Score

The average risk level for all courts except one fell in the “high” level (20-29); the

average risk level for participants in one court fell in the moderate range (11-19). There

are significant differences among adult drug courts on the average initial LS/CMI Total

Score (F(9,721) = 11.647, p < .001). District 6 and Lancaster County participants have

significantly higher initial LS/CMI Total Scores than participants in all other courts, and

do not differ from each other. Scotts Bluff County has participants with the lowest initial

LS/CMI score, but is not significantly different from any courts except District 6 and

Lancaster County, likely due to sample size constraints. Northeast Nebraska and Central

Nebraska have participants with the second and third lowest initial LS/CMI score, and

both are significantly lower than Douglas County and Southeast Nebraska, in addition to

District 6 and Lancaster County (see Table 4.61).

Table 4.61: LS/CMI Total Score for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

20.29

28.04

23.96

27.68

22.63

22.69

19.69

21.86

18.80

22.71

Sample

Size

257

127

LS/CMI Criminal History Sub-score (CH)

The Criminal History (CH) sub-score of the LSCMI also differed among adult drug

courts (F(9,721) = 3.326, p = .001). Midwest Nebraska participants have the highest CH

sub-scores among the courts, followed by a grouping of Lancaster County, North Central

Nebraska, Scotts Bluff County, and Southeast Nebraska, which did not differ from

Midwest Nebraska. Central Nebraska differed only from the courts with the highest

(Midwest Nebraska) and lowest (Northeast Nebraska) CH sub-scores. District 6, Sarpy

County, and Douglas County, differed from Midwest Nebraska, but did not differ from

Northeast Nebraska, which has participants with the lowest CH sub-score. Criminal

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

76 | P a g e

history scores range from 1-8 with 1=very low and 8= very high. The average criminal

history score for participants in most courts fell in the low to medium range, while

average scores for participants in four courts were in the medium range (see Table 4.62).

Table 4.62: Criminal History Scores for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

3.61

3.54

3.24

4.05

4.53

4.00

2.78

3.30

4.00

3.71

Sample

Size

257

127

LS/CMI Alcohol/Drug Problems Sub-score (ADP)

There are differences among adult drug courts on the average initial LS/CMI

Alcohol/Drug Problems (ADP) sub-score (F(9,721) = 4.364, p < .001). Lancaster County

participants have the highest initial ADP sub-scores, followed by District 6 and Midwest

Nebraska adult drug courts, which do not differ significantly from Lancaster County.

Douglas County, Southeast Nebraska, Central Nebraska, North Central Nebraska, and

Northeast Nebraska participants have middle scores compared to the other courts, and do

not differ significantly from each other. Sarpy County and Scotts Bluff County

participants have the lowest ADP scores, and are significantly lower than Douglas

County. Alcohol/drug problem scores range from 1-8 with 1=very low and 7-8= very

high. The average alcohol/drug problem score for participants in most courts fell between

the high and very high range, while average scores for participants in three courts were in

the high range (see Table 4.63).

Table 4.63: Alcohol/Drug Problem Scores for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

6.14

6.72

6.37

6.91

6.41

6.13

5.92

5.85

5.00

6.31

Sample

Size

257

127

SSI

There is a significant difference in SSI level among adult drug courts (F(9,613) = 2.313,

p = .015). Follow-up comparisons indicate significant differences among adult drug

courts. Central Nebraska and Lancaster County have participants with the highest SSI

scores. North Central Nebraska has the lowest percent of participants scoring Moderate

to High (77.8%) and the most scoring Minimal (22.2%) among all the courts, although

did not differ from the other courts statistically, likely because of the low number of

participants in North Central Nebraska with SSI scores. Midwest Nebraska and Sarpy

County have participants with the lowest SSI scores compared to other adult drug courts.

Scores on the SSI range from 1-3 with 1 indicating none to low risk of alcohol/drug

abuse, 2 indicating minimal risk, and 3 indicating moderate to high risk. The average SSI

score for participants in all adult courts fell near the moderate to high range (see Table

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

77 | P a g e

4.64) (note, while actual scores on the SSI range from 0-14, the only scores in the

PSCMIS are the three categorical scores).

Table 4.64: SSI Levels for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

None to

Low

2.8%

4.3%

3.4%

Minimal

3.8%

8.2%

13.0%

22.2%

2.9%

10.2%

12.5%

7.8%

Moder-

ate to

High

100%

96.2%

250

89.0%

100%

82.6%

77.8%

97.1%

86.4%

87.5%

92.2%

Mean

3.00

2.96

2.86

3.00

2.78

2.97

2.83

2.88

2.92

SRARF

Analysis of SRARF level of risk for adult drug courts reveals a significant difference

among courts (F(9, 599) = 8.046, p < .001). Significant between-court differences for

SRARF level of risk were found. District 6 has participants with the highest SRARF level

of risk. District 6 does not differ from Lancaster County, Scotts Bluff County, Sarpy

County, North Central Nebraska, and Southeast Nebraska. Douglas County, Midwest

Nebraska, and Central Nebraska tend to group together with participants having a lower

SRARF level of risk than the previous six adult courts. SRARF level of risk for Northeast

Nebraska participants is significantly lower than every other adult drug court (p = .003 or

smaller). The average SRARF score for participants in most courts fell in the medium to

high range; while average scores for participants in one court were in the low to medium

range (see Table 4.65).

Table 4.65: SRARF Levels for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Low

5.8%

5.9%

10.1%

52.9%

3.4%

5.9%

Medium

84.0%

21.2%

135

49.8%

26.6%

63.6%

44.4%

26.5%

39.7%

37.5%

39.2%

High

16.0%

73.1%

120

44.3%

63.3%

36.4%

55.6%

20.6%

56.9%

62.5%

54.9%

Mean

2.16

2.67

2.38

2.53

2.36

2.56

1.68

2.53

2.63

2.49

Juvenile Courts

YLS/CMI Level

There is a significant difference for the average initial YLSCMI Level across juvenile

drug courts (F(4,166) = 9.728, p < .001). Douglas County and Sarpy County participants

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

78 | P a g e

have the highest initial YLS/CMI levels, and do not differ from each other. Lancaster

County participants have the lowest initial YLS/CMI levels, on average. Northeast

Nebraska and Scotts Bluff County participants fall between the highest and lowest courts,

and are not significantly different from any of the other courts. The average criminal

history score for participants in most courts fell in the moderate to high range, while

average scores for participants in one court were in the low to moderate range (see Table

4.66).

Table 4.66: YLS/CMI Levels for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Low

1.6%

30.8%

28.6%

1.5%

25%

Moderate

51.6%

65.4%

28.6%

48.5%

37.5%

High

46.9%

3.8%

42.9%

50%

37.5%

Mean

2.45

1.73

2.14

2.48

2.13

Sample size

YLS/CMI Total Score

Based on YLS/CMI scores, the risk level for participants in all juvenile drug courts fell in

the “moderate” range (9-22). There are significant differences in the average initial

YLS/CMI Total Score across juvenile drug courts (F(4,166) = 13.609, p < .001). Sarpy

County and Douglas County participants have the highest initial YLS/CMI scores, and do

not differ from each other. Lancaster County participants have the lowest initial scores,

on average, and are significantly different from Douglas County and Sarpy County (see

Table 4.67).

Table 4.67: YLS/CMI Total Score for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

20.28

11.65

16.29

20.61

16.25

Sample size

YLS/CMI Prior Criminal Offenses Sub-score (PCO)

There is a significant difference for the average YLS/CMI-PCO sub-score across juvenile

drug courts in (F(4, 166) = 3.362, p = .011). Northeast Nebraska participants have the

highest initial PCO sub-score, followed by Scotts Bluff County, which does not differ

significantly from Northeast Nebraska. Participants in the other three courts (Douglas

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

79 | P a g e

County, Lancaster County, and Sarpy County) have significantly lower initial PCO sub-

scores than Northeast Nebraska and Scotts Bluff County, and do not differ from each

other. Prior and current offenses/disposition scores range from 0-5 with 0=low, 1-

2=moderate, and 5= high. The average prior offense history score for participants in most

juvenile courts fell in the low to moderate range, while average scores for participants in

one court were in the moderate range and for another court in the moderate to high range

See Table 4.68). It should be noted that youth placed in diversion for prior offenses may

have low Prior Criminal Offense sub-scores, since this sub-score is related toward prior

convictions.

Table 4.68: Prior Offense Scores for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

0.81

0.85

2.14

0.88

1.75

Sample Size

YLS/CMI Substance Abuse Sub-score (SA)

There are significant differences for the average initial YLS/CMI-SA sub-score across

juvenile drug courts (F(4,166) = 9.985, p < .001). Sarpy County and Douglas County

participants have the highest SA sub-scores, and do not differ from each other. Northeast

Nebraska and Lancaster County participants have the lowest levels, on average, and are

significantly different from Douglas County and Sarpy County. Scores from Scotts Bluff

County juvenile drug court participants fall in the middle of the other courts, and differ

significantly only from scores in Sarpy County. Substance abuse risk scores for juveniles

range from 0-5 with 0=low, 1-2=moderate, and 5= high. The average substance abuse

score for participants in two juvenile courts fell in the high range, while average scores

for participants in three courts were in the moderate to high range (See Table 4.69).

Table 4.69: Substance Abuse Risk Scores for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

3.27

2.04

2.00

3.32

2.50

Sample size

SSI Level

No significant difference exists for the average SSI Level score across juvenile drug

courts (F (3,92) = 1.576, p = .201). Scores on the SSI range from 1-3 with 1 indicating

none to low risk of alcohol/drug abuse, 2 indicating minimal risk, and 3 indicating

moderate to high risk. The average SSI score for participants in all juvenile courts fell in

the minimal to moderate/high range (see Table 4.70).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

80 | P a g e

Table 4.70: SSI Levels for Juvenile Court Participants

Douglas

County

*Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

None to Low

21.2%

Minimal

21.2%

25%

16%

33.3%

Moderate to High

57.6%

75%

76%

66.7%

Mean

2.36

2.75

2.68

2.67

Sample size

*There are no participants with data for SSI Level in Lancaster County.

SRARF Level of Risk

No significant difference exists for the average SRARF level of risk across juvenile drug

courts in Nebraska (F(3,91) = 1.282, p = .285). The average SRARF score for

participants in all juvenile courts fell in the medium to high range (see Table 4.71).

Table 4.71: SRARF Levels for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

*Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Low

9.1%

11.1%

Medium

36.4%

42%

55.6%

High

54.5%

100%

54%

33.3%

Mean

2.45

3.00

2.50

2.22

Sample size

Juvenile Screening Instrument

There are no significant differences across juvenile drug courts in participant’s scores on

the Juvenile Screening Instrument, either overall (F(3,80) = 2.405, p = .074), or for the

two sub-scores (YLS: F(3,80) = 1.373, p = .257; SAD: F(3,80) = 0.547, p = .651) (see

Table 4.72). Scotts Bluff County has no participants with a score on the Juvenile

Screening Instrument, and may not use it. Most courts have fewer participants with a

Juvenile Screening Instrument score than a YLS/CMI score (the exception is Lancaster

County, which has about an equal number of participants with each score).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

81 | P a g e

Table 4.72: Juvenile Screening Instrument Scores for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

JSI Total Score

18.50

19.55

19.50

17.83

JSI YLS Score

17.82

19.24

19.50

20.86

JSI SAD Score

3.55

3.10

4.50

3.38

Sample size

ACDI

Only three of the juvenile courts have participants with an ACDI score listed (participants

= 49 juveniles total). Across these three courts, there is not a significant difference in

ACDI scores of participants (F(14,82) = 0.781, p = .686) (see Table 4.73).

Table 4.73: ACDI Sub-Scores for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

ACDI Truth

53.18

43.26

69.00

ACDI Alcohol

26.29

36.68

58.00

ACDI Drugs

59.29

62.19

82.00

ACDI Violence

51.12

54.74

35.00

ACDI Distress

54.29

65.35

72.00

ACDI Adjustment

59.76

59.52

35.00

ACDI Stress

46.53

57.81

19.00

Sample size

Young Adult Court

LS/CMI Level [adults only]

Participants of the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have significantly higher initial

LS/CMI levels than those in the Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 284) = 6.191, p = .013).

The average LS/CMI score for participants in the young adult court fell in the medium to

high range (see Table 4.74).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

82 | P a g e

Table 4.74: LS/CMI Levels for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Very Low

Low

3.52%

13.33%

Medium

23.44%

2.0%

High

123

48.05%

63.33%

Very High

25%

3.33%

Mean

3.95

3.57

LS/CMI Total Score

The average LS/CMI score for participants in the Young Adult Court barely fell in the

“high” range (20-29). Participants of the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have

significantly higher initial LS/CMI total scores than those in the Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1, 285) = 7.685, p = .006) (see Table 4.75).

Table 4.75: LS/CMI Scores for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

23.96

20.20

Sample Size

257

LS/CMI Criminal History Sub-score (CH)

Participants of the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have significantly higher criminal

history sub-scores than those in the Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 285) = 6.89, p = .009).

Criminal history scores range from 1-8 with 1=very low and 8= very high. The average

criminal history score for participants in the young adult court fell in the low range (see

Table 4.76).

Table 4.76: Criminal History Scores for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

3.24

2.17

Sample Size

257

LS/CMI Alcohol/Drug Problems Sub-score (ADP)

Participants of the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have significantly higher LS/CMI

alcohol/drug problem scores than those in the Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 285) =

104.254, p < .001) (see Table 4.77). This may not be surprising since many of the young

adult court participants are in the program for offenses other than substance abuse.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

83 | P a g e

Table 4.77: Alcohol/Drug Abuse Scores for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

6.37

3.50

Sample Size

257

SSI

There is no significant difference in initial SSI levels between the Douglas County Adult

Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 291) = 0.051, p =

.822). The average SSI score for participants in the young adult court courts fell near the

moderate to high range (see Table 4.78).

Table 4.78: SSI Levels for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

None to Low

2.85%

Minimal

8.19%

16.67%

Moderate to High

250

88.97%

83.33%

Mean

2.86

2.83

SRARF

There is no difference in initial SRARF levels between the Douglas County Adult Drug

Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (F(1, 281) = 0.432, p = .512).

The average SRARF classification for participants in the young adult court fell between

the medium and the high range (see Table 4.79).

Table 4.79: SRARF Levels for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Low

5.90%

8.33%

Medium

135

49.82%

33.33%

High

120

44.28%

58.33%

Mean

2.38

2.50

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

84 | P a g e

Driving Under the Influence Court

LS/CMI Level and Criminal History Sub-score

There is no significant difference in initial LS/CMI levels between the Scotts Bluff

County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 10) = 0.891, p =

.367). Average LS/CMI levels for participants in the DUI court fall between medium and

high (see Table 4.80).

Table 4.80: LS/CMI Levels for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Very Low

Low

Medium

80%

57.14%

High

20%

28.57%

Very High

25%

14.29%

Mean

3.20

3.57

LS/CMI Total Score

The average score for participants in the DUI Court fell in the lower part of the “high”

range (20-29) There is no significant difference in initial LS/CMI total score between the

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court and the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court (F(1, 10) =

0.326, p = .581) (see Table 4.81).

Table 4.81: LS/CMI Total Score for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean

18.80

21.00

Sample Size

LS/CMI Criminal History Sub-score (CH)

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court participants have significantly higher criminal history

sub-scores than those in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court (F(1, 10) = 6.127, p =

.033). Average criminal history scores for participants in the DUI court fell between

medium and high (see Table 4.82).

Table 4.82: Criminal History Scores for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean

4.00

5.43

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

85 | P a g e

LS/CMI Alcohol/Drug Problems Sub-score (ADP)

There is no difference in LS/CMI alcohol/drug problem sub-scores between the Scotts

Bluff County DUI Court and the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court (F(1, 10) = 1.62,

p = .232). Average alcohol/drug problems scores for participants in the DUI court fell in

the high level (see Table 4.83).

Table 4.83: Alcohol/Drug Problem Scores for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean

5.00

6.00

Sample Size

SSI

There is no significant difference in initial SSI levels between the Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 21) = 1.957, p = .176).

All participants in the DUI court were in the moderate to high level (see Table 4.84).

Table 4.84: SSI Levels for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

None to Low

Minimal

12.5%

Moderate to High

87.5%

100%

Mean

2.88

3.00

SRARF

There is no difference in initial SRARF levels between the Scotts Bluff County Adult

Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 21) = 0.785, p = .386). The

average SRARF risk level for participants in the DUI court fell in the medium to high

level (see Table 4.85).

Table 4.85: SRARF Levels for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Low

Medium

37.5%

20%

High

62.5%

80%

Mean

2.63

2.80

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

86 | P a g e

Are there Demographic Disparities in Who is Accepted to Problem Solving Courts?

For this analysis, we examined who gets into drug court in relation to who receives

regular probation. To ensure the two groups were comparable (drug court participants vs.

persons on probation), we matched persons on probation to problem solving court

participants based on type and class of offense and level of risk base on the LS/CMI or

YLS/CMI. We conducted this analysis for gender, race/ethnicity, age, and marital status.

We found no significant differences for marital status; so these results are not included in

the report. Separate analyses were conducted for each court. We have grouped the

analyses by court type.

Adult Drug Courts vs. Probation Sample

For the comparison group, we selected an adult probation sample of individuals who met

the following criteria:

1. Sentenced by district courts in the same counties covered by adult drug courts (38

counties covered by Adult Drug Courts: Adams, Antelope, Blaine, Boyd, Brown,

Buffalo, Cherry, Cuming, Custer, Dawson, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Furnas, Gage,

Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hall, Holt, Howard, Jefferson, Keya Paha, Knox,

Lancaster, Loup, Madison, Phelps, Pierce, Rock, Saline, Sarpy, Scotts Bluff,

Sherman, Stanton, Valley, Wayne, Wheeler);

2. Had a probation sentence date of January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2011;

3. Initial LS/CMI level that matched the drug court participants of medium low,

medium, medium high, high, or very high; and

4. Charged with drug felonies with an NCIC offense class of felony 2, 3, or 4.

Disparity analyses are run separately for each court compared to probationers from the

same counties served by the court (see Table 4.86).

Table 4.86: Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis Samples

Court

Covered Counties

(and number of counties)

Problem-

Solving

Participants

Probation

Sample

Central Nebraska

Adams, Buffalo, Hall, Phelps (4)

195

206

District 6

Dodge (1)

Douglas County

Douglas (1)

756

257

Lancaster County

Lancaster (1)

223

346

Midwest Nebraska

Dawson, Furnas, Gosper (3)

North Central Nebraska

Blaine, Boyd , Brown, Cherry, Custer,

Garfield, Greeley, Holt, Howard, Keya

Paha, Loup, Rock, Sherman, Valley,

Wheeler (15)

Northeast Nebraska

Antelope, Cuming, Knox, Madison, Pierce,

Stanton, Wayne (7)

Sarpy County

Sarpy (1)

153

Scotts Bluff County

Scotts Bluff (1)

Southeast Nebraska

Fillmore, Gage, Jefferson, Saline (4)

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

87 | P a g e

Only two courts were significantly different on any demographic variables when

compared to the matched probation sample. The Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court has

a higher proportion of women enrolled than are enrolled in probation in the same counties

covered by the drug court.

Douglas County Adult Drug Court differs from those enrolled in probation in Douglas

County in on two demographic variables: age and ethnicity. Participants in the drug

court are younger than people who are given probation. Also, the drug court has a higher

proportion of participants who are white/ Caucasian, and a lower proportion of

participants who are black/ African-American, than does probation.

Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is a significant difference between programs in Central Nebraska in the percent of

men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 5.240, p = .022). The Central Nebraska Adult Drug

Court has a higher proportion of women entering the program than go into probation (see

Table 4.87).

Table 4.87: Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Central Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

102

52.3%

131*

63.6%

Female

47.7%

75*

36.4%

Sample size

195

206

* p < .05

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not significantly differ

between Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,399) = 1.919, p = .167)

(see Table 4.88).

Table 4.88: Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Central Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

28.84

30.18

Sample size

195

206

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

88 | P a g e

Ethnicity

There is no significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 2.999, p = .392). The majority

of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.89).

Table 4.89: Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Central Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

164

84.1%

171

83.4%

Black/

African-American

2.1%

4.9%

Hispanic

9.7%

7.3%

Other

4.1%

4.4%

Sample size

195

205

District 6 Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in Dodge County in the percent of

men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 1.014, p = .314) (see Table 4.90).

Table 4.90: District 6 Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

District 6

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

45.0%

58.8%

Female

55.0%

41.2%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not significantly differ

between District 6 Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,65) = 3.405, p = .070) (see Table

4.91).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

89 | P a g e

Table 4.91: District 6 Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

District 6

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

31.65

26.03

Sample size

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

District 6 Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 2.417, p = .491). The majority of those

enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.92).

Table 4.92: District 6 Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

District 6

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

93.3%

88.2%

Black/

African-American

1.7%

0.0%

Hispanic

3.3%

11.8%

Other

1.7%

0.0%

Sample size

Douglas County Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in Douglas County in the percent

of men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 2.230, p = .135). The majority of participants in

both programs are men (see Table 4.93).

Table 4.93: Douglas County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Douglas County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

494

65.3%

181

70.4%

Female

262

34.7%

29.6%

Sample size

756

257

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

90 | P a g e

Age

Douglas County Adult Drug Court participants are significantly younger than probation

participants when they enroll (F(1,1011) = 26.025, p < .001) (see Table 4.94).

Table 4.94: Douglas County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Douglas County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

30.54

34.27*

Sample size

756

257*

* p < .001

Ethnicity

There is a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Douglas County Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 14.013, p = .003). Although the

majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity, Douglas

County Adult Drug Court has a higher proportion of white/Caucasian participants, and a

lower proportion of black/ African-American participants, than probation (see Table

4.95).

Table 4.95: Douglas County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Douglas County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

490

64.9%

137*

53.7%

Black/

African-American

201

26.6%

96*

37.6%

Hispanic

5.0%

6.7%

Other

3.4%

2.0%

Sample size

765

255

* p < .05

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in Lancaster County in the percent

of men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 0.883, p = .347). The majority of participants in

both programs are men (see Table 4.96).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

91 | P a g e

Table 4.96: Lancaster County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

151

67.7%

221

63.9%

Female

32.3%

125

36.1%

Sample size

223

346

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not significantly differ

between Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,567) = 1.221, p = .270)

(see Table 4.97).

Table 4.97: Lancaster County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

31.18

32.12

Sample size

223

346

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 1.400, p = .706). The majority

of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.98).

Table 4.98: Lancaster County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

163

73.4%

243

70.6%

Black/

African-American

14.4%

17.2%

Hispanic

4.1%

5.2%

Other

8.1%

7.0%

Sample size

222

344

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

92 | P a g e

Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in counties covered by the

Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court in the percent of men and women who enroll (χ

(1)

= 0.369, p = .544). The majority of participants in both programs are men (see Table

4.99).

Table 4.99: Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Midwest Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

65.7%

72.1%

Female

34.3%

27.9%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,76) = 2.589, p = .112)

(see Table 4.100).

Table 4.100: Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Midwest Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

32.55

28.58

Sample size

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 7.035, p = .071). The majority

of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity. Also, a large

proportion of those enrolling in both courts are Hispanic (see Table 4.101).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

93 | P a g e

Table 4.101: Midwest Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Midwest Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

68.6%

65.1%

Black/

African-American

0.0%

9.3%

Hispanic

31.4%

18.6%

Other

0.0%

7.0%

Sample size

North Central Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in counties covered by the North

Central Adult Drug Court in the proportion of men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 0.175,

p = .676). The majority of participants in both programs are men (see Table 4.102).

Table 4.102: North Central Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

North Central

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

84.2%

78.9%

Female

15.8%

21.1%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between North Central Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,36) = 3.150, p = .084) (see

Table 4.103).

Table 4.103: North Central Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

North Central

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

29.57

35.80

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

94 | P a g e

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

North Central Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 2.003, p = .367). The vast majority

of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.104).

Table 4.104: North Central Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

North Central

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

100%

65.1%

Black/ African-American

0.0%

Hispanic

0.0%

5.3%

Other

0.0%

5.3%

Sample size

Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in counties covered by the

Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court in the proportion of men and women who enroll

(χ

(1) = 0.255, p = .614). The majority of participants in both programs are men (see

Table 4.105).

Table 4.105: Northeast Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

63.6%

68.4%

Female

36.4%

31.6%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,96) = 1.312, p = .255)

(see Table 4.106).

Table 4.106: Northeast Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

27.77

29.99

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

95 | P a g e

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference overall in the ethnic background of participants

entering the Northeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 6.060, p = .109).

The majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see

Table 4.107).

Table 4.107: Northeast Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

84.1%

63.2%

Black/

African-American

4.5%

17.5%

Hispanic

6.8%

10.5%

Other

4.5%

8.8%

Sample size

Sarpy County Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in Sarpy County in the proportion

of men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 0.318, p = .573). The majority of participants in

both programs are men (see Table 4.108).

Table 4.108: Sarpy County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Sarpy County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

64.9%

105

68.6%

Female

35.1%

31.4%

Sample size

153

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between the Sarpy County Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,213) = 0.332, p = .565)

(see Table 4.109).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

96 | P a g e

Table 4.109: Sarpy County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Sarpy County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

29.97

30.79

Sample size

153

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference overall in the ethnic background of participants

entering the Sarpy County Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 3.410, p = .333). The

vast majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see

Table 4.110).

Table 4.110: Sarpy County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Sarpy County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

90.9%

125

81.7%

Black/

African-American

3.9%

7.2%

Hispanic

3.9%

7.8%

Other

1.3%

3.3%

Sample size

153

Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in Scotts Bluff County in the

proportion of men and women who enroll (χ

(1) = 0.282, p = .595). The majority of

participants in both programs are men (see Table 4.111).

Table 4.111: Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

71.4%

63.9%

Female

28.6%

36.1%

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

97 | P a g e

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,73) = 0.065, p =

.800) (see Table 4.112).

Table 4.112: Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

29.93

29.23

Sample size

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference overall in the ethnic background of participants

entering the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 2.226, p = .527).

The majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see

Table 4.113).

Table 4.113: Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

64.3%

60.7%

Black/

African-American

0.0%

4.9%

Hispanic

35.7%

26.2%

Other

0.0%

8.2%

Sample size

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court

Gender

There is not a significant difference between programs in counties covered by the

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court in the proportion of men and women who enroll

(χ

(1) = 0.602, p = .438) (see Table 4.114).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

98 | P a g e

Table 4.114: Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Male

50.8%

42.4%

Female

49.2%

57.6%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ significantly

between the Southeast Nebraska County Adult Drug Court and probation (F(1,85) =

3.775, p = .055) (see Table 4.115).

Table 4.115: Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

29.26

33.27

Sample size

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 2.782, p = .427). The vast

majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table

4.116).

Table 4.116: Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court Disparity Analysis for

Race/Ethnicity

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

91.5%

100%

Black/

African-American

5.1%

0.0%

Hispanic

1.7%

0.0%

Other

1.7%

0.0%

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

99 | P a g e

Juvenile Drug Courts vs. Probation Sample

The juvenile probation sample included juvenile offenders who met the following

criteria:

1. They were sentenced by juvenile courts in the same counties covered by juvenile drug

courts (5 counties: Douglas, Lancaster, Madison, Sarpy, and Scotts Bluff Counties);

2. They had a sentence date of January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2011;

3. The initial YLS/CMI level matched the YLS/CMI levels of juvenile drug court

participants of moderate (including moderate low, moderate, and moderate high) or

high (including high and very high); and

4. They were charged with drug charges with an NCIC offense class of Juvenile 1.

Disparity analyses are run separately for each court compared to probationers from the

same county served by the court (see Table 4.117).

Table 4.117: Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis Samples

Court

Covered Counties

Problem-Solving

Participants

Probation

Sample

Douglas County

Douglas

105

243

Lancaster County

Lancaster

133

Northeast Nebraska

Madison

Sarpy County

Sarpy

Scotts Bluff County

Scotts Bluff

Only one court is significantly different on any demographic variable when compared to

the matched juvenile probation sample. The Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court

has participants that are significantly older than those juveniles sentenced in Scotts Bluff

County to probation.

Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court

Gender

Gender of juveniles starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between

Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (χ

(1) = 0.054, p = .816).

The majority of participants in both programs are male (see Table 4.118).

Table 4.118: Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Douglas County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Male

80.0%

197

81.1%

Female

20.0%

18.9%

Sample size

105

243

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

100 | P a g e

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between Douglas

County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (F(1,345) = 0.140, p = .709) (see

Table 4.119).

Table 4.119: Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Douglas County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

16.46

16.41

Sample size

104

243

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 0.346, p = .951). A slight

majority of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table

4.120).

Table 4.120: Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Douglas County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

55.2%

136

56.4%

Black/

African-American

35.2%

34.0%

Hispanic

8.6%

7.9%

Other

1.0%

1.7%

Sample size

105

241

Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court

Gender

Gender of juveniles starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between

Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (χ

(1) = 0.254, p = .614).

The majority of participants in both programs are male (see Table 4.121).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

101 | P a g e

Table 4.121: Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Male

77.5%

74.4%

Female

22.5%

25.6%

Sample size

133

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between Lancaster

County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (F(1,211) = 0.188, p = .665) (see

Table 4.122).

Table 4.122: Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

16.94

16.87

Sample size

133

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 5.835, p = .120). A majority

of those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.123).

Table 4.123: Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for

Race/Ethnicity

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

70.0%

74.4%

Black/

African-American

8.8%

15.0%

Hispanic

7.5%

4.5%

Other

13.8%

6.0%

Sample size

133

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

102 | P a g e

Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court

Gender

Gender of juveniles starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between

Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (χ

(1) = 1.543, p = .214).

The majority of participants in both programs are male (see Table 4.124).

Table 4.124: Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Male

66.7%

86.7%

Female

33.3%

13.3%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between Northeast

Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (F(1,25) = 0.025, p = .876) (see

Table 4.125).

Table 4.125: Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

16.20

16.26

Sample size

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court or probation (χ

(2) = 0.678, p = .712) (see Table

4.126).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

103 | P a g e

Table 4.126: Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for

Race/Ethnicity

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

41.7%

53.3%

Black/

African-American

0.0%

Hispanic

41.7%

26.7%

Other

16.7%

20.0%

Sample size

Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court

Gender

Gender of juveniles starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between

Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (χ

(1) = 1.536, p = .215). The

majority of participants in both programs are male (see Table 4.127).

Table 4.127: Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Sarpy County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Male

84.8%

76.8%

Female

15.2%

23.2%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between Sarpy

County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (F(1,145) = 1.162, p = .283) (see

Table 4.128).

Table 4.128: Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Sarpy County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

16.71

16.91

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

104 | P a g e

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court or probation (χ

(3) = 3.273, p = .351). The majority of

juveniles in both programs are of white/Caucasian ethnicity (see Table 4.129).

Table 4.129: Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Sarpy County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

86.1%

91.3%

Black/

African-American

5.1%

1.4%

Hispanic

5.1%

1.4%

Other

3.8%

5.8%

Sample size

Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court

Gender

Gender of juveniles starting a drug court or probation program does not differ between

the Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (χ

(1) = 0.18, p =

.895). The majority of participants in both programs are male (see Table 4.130).

Table 4.130: Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Scotts Bluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Male

75.0%

72.7%

Female

25.0%

27.3%

Sample size

Age

Age when starting a drug court or probation program is significantly different between

Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court and juvenile probation (F(1,25) = 4.923, p =

.036). Juveniles in probation are nearly a year younger, on average, than the juveniles in

the juvenile drug court (see Table 4.131).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

105 | P a g e

Table 4.131: Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Scotts Bluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

16.46

15.64*

Sample size

* p < .05

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court or probation (χ

(2) = 1.057, p = .589) (see Table

4.132).

Table 4.132: Scotts Bluff County Juvenile Drug Court Disparity Analysis for

Race/Ethnicity

Scotts Bluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

68.8%

54.5%

Black/

African-American

0.0%

Hispanic

18.8%

36.4%

Other

12.5%

9.1%

Sample size

Scotts Bluff Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court vs. Probation Sample

The comparison sample for the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court consisted of a DUI

probation sample that met the following criteria:

1. They were sentenced in Scotts Bluff County;

2. They had a sentence date of January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2011;

3. The initial SSI level matched the level of DUI Court participants of moderate to high,

with and without the 'refer to substance abuse' notation; and

4. They were charged with any offense class of Driving Under the Influence of Liquor.

Disparity analyses are run for the DUI court compared to probationers from the same

county served by the court (see Table 4.133).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

106 | P a g e

Table 4.133: DUI Court Disparity Analysis Samples

Court

Covered Counties

Problem-Solving

Participants

Probation

Sample

Scotts Bluff DUI Court

Scotts Bluff

259

There are no demographic differences between Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

participants and those charged with driving under the influence of alcohol but sentenced

to probation in Scotts Bluff County.

Gender

Gender of those enrolling does not differ between Scotts Bluff County DUI Court and

probation (χ

(1) = 0.101, p = .751). The majority of participants in both programs are

male (see Table 4.134).

Table 4.134: Scotts Bluff County DUI Court Disparity Analysis for Gender

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Probation

Male

78.3%

195

75.3%

Female

21.7%

24.7%

Sample size

259

Age

Age when starting a program does not differ between Scotts Bluff County DUI Court and

probation (F(1,279) = 0.054, p = .816) (see Table 4.135).

Table 4.135: Scotts Bluff County DUI Court Disparity Analysis for Age

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Probation

Age (Mean)

32.81

32.26

Sample size

259

Ethnicity

There is not a significant difference in the ethnic background of participants entering the

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court or probation (χ

(3) = 1.301, p = .729). A majority of

those enrolling in both programs are of white/ Caucasian ethnicity. Also, a large

proportion of those enrolling in both courts are Hispanic (see Table 4.136).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

107 | P a g e

Table 4.136: Scotts Bluff County DUI Court Disparity Analysis for Race/Ethnicity

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Probation

White/ Caucasian

56.5%

173

66.8%

Black/

African-American

0.0%

0.4%

Hispanic

39.1%

28.2%

Other

4.3%

4.6%

Sample size

259

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

108 | P a g e

Time from Arrest to Participation

A number of scholars have suggested that offenders should be accepted into drug court as

soon as possible after they are arrested. A recommended performance indicator for

Nebraska is the number of days between arrest and admission into drug court (National

Center for State Courts, 2009). This measure reflects on the timeliness of processing. We

examined the time between arrest and entry into the program across courts.

Adult Courts

There are significant mean differences across adult drug courts in the number of weeks

from arrest to program start date (F (9, 954) = 4.642, p < .001). North Central Nebraska

has the highest average number of weeks from arrest to program start, although it is not

significantly different from the other courts, likely because the sample size for this court

is low for this analysis. Southeast Nebraska, Scotts Bluff County, and Lancaster County

form a group that has significantly higher average weeks from arrest to program start than

the remaining six courts. Midwest Nebraska has the lowest average weeks from arrest to

program start, and does not differ significantly from District 6, Northeast Nebraska, or

Sarpy County (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Time from Arrest to Participation for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

26.72

23.19

26.18

32.04

16.65

38.90

19.84

24.89

35.32

37.89

Sample

size

156

416

165

Juvenile Courts

There are significant differences across juvenile drug courts in the number of weeks from

arrest to program start date (F(4, 178) = 3.672, p = .007). Douglas County has the

highest average number of weeks from arrest to program start, followed by Lancaster

County and Northeast Nebraska, which are not significantly different from the other

courts. Sarpy County and Scotts Bluff County have the lowest average number of weeks

from arrest to program start, and differ significantly from Douglas County, but not from

each other (see Table 5.2).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

109 | P a g e

Table 5.2: Time from Arrest to Participation for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

47.96

40.48

37.03

33.71

27.97

Sample size

Douglas County Young Adult Court

There is no difference in the number of weeks between arrest and program start date for

the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1, 445) = 1.95, p = .163) (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Time from Arrest to Participation for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Mean (Weeks from arrest to

program start)

26.18

30.90

Sample Size

416

Family Drug Court

Participants in the Lancaster County Family Court had significantly more weeks between

their arrest and the program start date than participants in the Lancaster County Adult

Drug Court (F(1, 181) = 5.76, p = .017) (see Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: Time from Arrest to Participation for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Mean (Weeks from arrest to

program start)

32.04

52.39

Sample Size

165

Driving Under the Influence Court

There is no difference in the number of weeks between arrest and program start date for

the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1,

29) = 2.14, p = .154) (see Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Time from Arrest to Participation for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean (Weeks from arrest to

program start)

35.32

28.70

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

110 | P a g e

Number of Problem Solving Court Hearings

We looked at the average number of hearings held for each person who graduated or was

terminated from adult, juvenile, young adult, DUI, and Family Courts. Research indicates

an interaction between types of offenders included in drug courts and drug court

procedures. High risk offenders, such as those diagnosed with antisocial personality

disorder or who have a previous treatment failure, performed better in drug court

programs in terms of drug screenings when required to attend bi-weekly status hearings

(more intensive than the standard dose). However, low risk offenders performed equally

well regardless of the “dosage of hearings” (Marlow, Fesinger, Lee, Dugosh, &

Benasutti, 2006; Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004).

Adult Drug Courts

There is a significant difference in the average number of problem-solving court (PSC)

hearings across adult drug courts (F(9,965) = 11.992, p < .001). Lancaster County has

significantly more PSC hearings per month than the other courts. Scotts Bluff County has

the lowest number of PSC hearings per participant, but also has only one participant with

data in this field. Northeast Nebraska and Sarpy County also have a significantly lower

number of PSC hearings per month than the other courts (see Table 5.6).

Table 5.6: Number of Hearings for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

2.01

1.07

1.52

3.31

0.72

1.40

0.18

0.39

0.14

1.01

Sample

Size

131

586

143

Juvenile Drug Courts

There is not a significant difference in the number of problem-solving court hearings per

month across juvenile drug courts (F(3,101) = 1.216, p = .308) (see Table 5.7).

Table 5.7: Number of Hearings for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

1.11

1.63

1.32

1.15

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

111 | P a g e

Young Adult Court

There is no significant difference in the number of problem-solving court (PSC) hearings

per month between the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court and the Douglas

County Adult Drug Court (F(1, 593) = 0.811, p = .368) (see Table 5.8).

Table 5.8: Number of Hearings for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Mean (Hearings per month)

1.52

0.87

Sample Size

586

Driving Under the Influence Court

Data for the total number of problem-solving court hearings per month for the Adult

Drug Court and the DUI Court are unable to be analyzed because there is only one

participant from each court that participated in problem-solving court hearings (see Table

5.9).

Table 5.9: Number of Hearings for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean (Hearings per month)

0.14

0.43

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court have significantly more problem-

solving court hearings per month than participants in the Lancaster County Family Court

(F(1, 253) = 9.601, p = .002) (see Table 5.10).

Table 5.10: Number of Hearings for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County Family

Court

Mean (Hearings per month)

13.17

1.66

Sample Size

222

Incentives and Sanctions

Incentives are an important part of the drug court experience. Receiving encouragement

in the courtroom (Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2002; Saum et al., 2002) serves as a

powerful motivator for achievement (Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2002). Similarly,

Senjo and Leip (2001) noted that participants who received more supportive comments

during court monitoring were more likely to graduate from the program than those

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

112 | P a g e

participants who received fewer supportive comments. Sanctions also appear to be a

critical component of drug courts (Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, & Rocha 2007).

Adult Drug Courts

Sanctions

There is a significant difference across adult drug courts in the number of sanctions per

month (F(9,639) = 2.528, p = .007). Lancaster County, District 6, and Douglas County

give more sanctions per month than do the other courts (see Table 5.11).

Table 5.11: Average Sanctions/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

0.17

0.58

0.54

0.64

0.09

0.20

0.12

0.03

0.01

0.12

Sample

Size

333

Incentives

There is a significant difference across adult drug courts in the number of incentives per

month (F(9,641) = 30.621, p < .001). Lancaster County gives significantly more

incentives per month than do all of the other courts, except District 6 which has the next

highest rate of incentives and does not differ from Southeast Nebraska and Scotts Bluff

County. Southeast Nebraska also gives significantly more incentives per month than six

of the remaining seven courts (the exception being Scotts Bluff County). There are no

other differences among the courts (see Table 5.12).

Table 5.12: Average Incentives/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

0.00

0.51

0.01

0.61

0.13

0.00

0.11

0.12

0.25

0.33

Sample

Size

333

Juvenile Drug Courts

Sanctions

There is a significant difference in the number of sanctions per month across juvenile

drug courts (F(4,105) = 8.285, p < .001). Lancaster County and Northeast Nebraska give

the highest number of sanctions per month, and do not differ significantly from each

other. Douglas County and Scotts Bluff County give the fewest sanctions per month, and

do not differ from each other (see Table 5.13).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

113 | P a g e

Table 5.13: Average Sanctions/Month for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

0.03

0.31

0.19

0.04

Sample size

Incentives

There is a significant difference in the number of incentives per month across juvenile

drug courts (F(4,105) = 18.660, p < .001). Sarpy County Juvenile Drug Court gives

significantly more incentives than the other four juvenile drug courts (see Table 5.14).

Table 5.14: Average Incentives/Month for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

0.001

0.14

0.86

0.27

Sample size

Young Adult Court

Sanctions

There is no significant difference in the number of sanctions per month between the

Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1, 338) = 0.911, p = .340) (see Table 5.15).

Table 5.15: Average Sanctions/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Mean (Sanctions per month)

0.64

0.03

Sample Size

333

Incentives

There is no difference between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas

County Young Adult Drug Court in the number of incentives given to participants per

month (F(1, 338) = 0.118, p = .731) (see Table 5.16).

Table 5.16: Average Incentives/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Mean (Incentives per month)

0.01

0.02

Sample Size

333

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

114 | P a g e

Driving Under the Influence Court

Sanctions

There is no difference in the total number of sanctions given per month between the

Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court (F(1, 15) =

0.226, p = .642) (see Table 5.17).

Table 5.17: Average Sanctions/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean (Sanctions per month)

0.11

0.02

Sample Size

Incentives

There is no difference in the number of incentives given to participants per month

between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court (F(1, 15) = 0.009, p = .925) (see Table 5.18).

Table 5.18: Average Incentives/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean (Incentives per month)

0.25

0.26

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

Sanctions

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court receive significantly more

sanctions per month than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 188) = 8.64, p

= .004) (see Table 5.19).

Table 5.19: Average Sanctions/Month for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County Family

Court

Mean (Sanctions per month)

2.98

0.00

Sample Size

173

Incentives

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court receive significantly more

incentives per month than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 188) = 6.50,

p = .012) (see Table 5.20).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

115 | P a g e

Table 5.20: Average Incentives/Month for Adult Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County Family

Court

Mean (Incentives per month)

8.31

0.00

Sample Size

173

Number of Drug Tests

Adult Drug Courts

There is a significant difference across adult drug courts in the number of drug tests per

participant (F(9,982) = 50.046, p < .001). Lancaster County gives significantly more drug

tests per month than all of the other courts, followed by Central Nebraska, which gives

significantly more drug tests than the remaining eight courts. District 6 gives significantly

more drug tests than Northeast Nebraska, Southeast Nebraska, Sarpy County, and Scotts

Bluff County. None of the other courts differ from each other (see Table 5.21).

Table 5.21: Number of Drug Tests for Adult Problem Solving Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

7.86

4.88

3.14

9.25

2.77

4.48

2.35

1.88

1.02

2.27

Sample

Size

130

596

143

Juvenile Drug Courts

There is a significant difference in the number of drug tests per month across juvenile

drug courts (F(4,144) = 6.216, p < .001). Douglas County gives significantly more drug

tests per month than Scotts Bluff County, Sarpy County, and Lancaster County (see

Table 5.22).

Table 5.22: Number of Drug Tests for Juvenile Problem Solving Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

6.07

2.11

3.32

2.51

2.65

Sample size

Young Adult Court

There is no significant difference between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the

Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court in the number of drug tests given to

participants per month (F(1, 601) = 2.525, p = .113) (see Table 5.23).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

116 | P a g e

Table 5.23: Number of Drug Tests for Young Adult Problem Solving Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Mean (Drug tests per month)

3.14

0.48

Sample Size

596

Driving Under the Influence Court

There is no difference in the number of drug tests given to participants per month

between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court (F(1, 28) = 1.08, p = .308) (see Table 5.24).

Table 5.24: Number of Drug Tests for DUI Problem Solving Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean (Drug tests per month)

27.78

9.59

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

Participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court receive significantly more drug

tests per month than those in the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1, 163) = 106.433, p

< .001) (see Table 5.25).

Table 5.25: Number of Drug Tests for Family Problem Solving Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County Family

Court

Mean (Drug tests per month)

9.25

2.85

Sample Size

143

Time in Program

Adult Drug Courts

Time in Program (Graduated/Terminated Only)

There are significant differences across adult drug courts (F (9, 1016) = 17.389, p <

.001). The following sections examine these differences separately for graduated

participants and terminated participants (see Table 5.26).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

117 | P a g e

Table 5.26: Time in Program for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Mean

16.48

20.02

12.41

13.55

19.28

5.05

19.02

24.44

16.30

23.61

Sample

Size

131

608

143

Time in Program (Graduated Only)

There is a significant mean difference across adult drug courts in the number of months

graduated participants spent in programs (F(8,582) = 18.857, p < .001). Sarpy County has

the highest average amount of time in program for graduates, followed by Southeast

Nebraska, which did not differ significantly from Sarpy County. Midwest Nebraska

differs only from Douglas County, which has the fewest number of months spent in

program by graduates. A middle group formed by Central Nebraska, District 6,

Lancaster County, and Northeast Nebraska differed significantly from the courts with the

longest (Sarpy County and Southeast Nebraska) and shortest (Douglas County) spent in

program by graduates. Scotts Bluff County may be in this group as well, but has too few

graduates in this analysis to be significantly different from any other court. Some of these

differences between courts may be programmatic (see Table 5.27).

Table 5.27: Time in Program for Graduated Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

*North

Central

Nebraska

North-

east

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

South-east

Nebraska

Mean

21.27

20.93

15.88

22.02

22.18

19.05

26.33

21.31

25.50

Months in program

Less

Than

3 Mos.

3 to 6

Months

6 to 9

Months

9 Mos.

to 1 Year

15.2%

1 Yr to

15 Mos.

148

42.5%

15 to 18

Months

9.1%

31.6%

20.1%

26.7%

26.3%

7.4%

66.7%

18 to 21

Months

51.9%

26.3%

14.1%

47.5%

33.3%

57.9%

7.4%

8.3%

21 Mos.

to 2 Yrs.

16.9%

10.5%

32.2%

13.3%

10.5%

29.6%

41.7%

2 Years

or More

22.1%

31.6%

20.3%

26.7%

5.3%

55.6%

33.3%

50%

Sample

Size

348

*North Central Nebraska did not have any participants who graduated with data for this analysis.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

118 | P a g e

Time in Program (Terminated Only)

There is a significant difference among adult drug courts in the number of months

terminated participants spent in the program (F (9, 425) =5.59, p < .001). Northeast

Nebraska had the highest average number of months spent in programs, followed by

Southeast Nebraska and District 6. North Central Nebraska had the lowest average

number of months spent in program by terminated participants, but did not differ from

the remaining six courts (see Table 5.28).

Table 5.28: Time in Program for Terminated Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

North-east

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

South-east

Nebraska

Mean

9.65

17.54

7.78

7.60

8.42

5.05

18.93

14.23

12.55

18.59

Months in program

Less Than

3 Months

24.1%

23.1%

29.8%

25%

20%

3 to 6

Months

16.7%

14.3%

24.2%

26.2%

100%

25%

11.1%

6 to 9

Months

16.7%

18.5%

14.3%

25%

16.7%

22.2%

9 Months

to 1 Year

13%

14.3%

11.9%

8.3%

20%

25%

11.1%

1 Yr to

15 Mos.

5.6%

9.2%

7.1%

50%

16.7%

20%

25%

15 to 18

Months

3.7%

28.6%

7.7%

1.2%

16.7%

11.1%

18 to 21

Months

11.1%

3.5%

4.8%

16.7%

20%

11.1%

21 Mos.

to 2 Yrs.

5.6%

14.3%

0.8%

4.8%

25%

2 Years

or More

3.7%

28.6%

1.2%

3.6%

33.3%

20%

33.3%

Sample Size

260

Juvenile Drug Courts

Time in Program (Graduated/Terminated Only)

There are no significant differences for the average number of months juvenile drug court

participants spent in programs across all juvenile drug courts (F(4,209) = 1.695, p = .152)

(see Table 5.29).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

119 | P a g e

Table 5.29: Time in Program for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

13.74

11.48

9.68

12.92

12.09

Sample Size

Time in Program (Graduated Only)

There is a significant mean difference for the number of months juvenile drug court

graduates spent in programs across juvenile drug courts, (F(4,79) = 3.557, p = .010).

Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court has the highest average number of months spent by

drug court graduates, only significantly differing from Lancaster County and Sarpy

County, which had the two lowest average numbers of months. No significant differences

exist for Northeast Nebraska and Scotts Bluff County Drug Courts (see Table 5.30).

Table 5.30: Time in Program for Graduated Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

17.68

12.60

13.93

13.15

15.43

Months in Program

Less Than 3

Months

2.9%

3 to 6

Months

5.9%

6 to 9

Months

5.3%

8.3%

14.7%

9 Months to

1 Year

10.5%

45.8%

17.6%

1 Year to 15

Months

15.8%

20.8%

100%

23.5%

60%

15 to 18

Months

26.3%

25%

17.6%

20%

18 to 21

Months

10.5%

5.9%

20%

21 Months

to 2 Years

15.8%

11.8%

2 Years or

15.8%

Sample size

Time in Program (Terminated Only)

No significant differences among juvenile drug courts exist for the average number of

months in program spent by terminated drug court participants, F(4,125)=1.083, p = .368

(see Table 5.31).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

120 | P a g e

Table 5.31: Time in Program for Terminated Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Mean

12.32

10.79

8.73

12.61

7.92

Months in Program

Less Than 3

Months

15.1%

10.3%

11.1%

3 to 6

Months

13.2%

15.4%

22.2%

12%

25%

6 to 9

Months

11.3%

25.6%

22.2%

12%

25%

9 Months to

1 Year

11.3%

7.7%

22.2%

50%

1 Year to 15

Months

3.8%

7.7%

11.1%

24%

15 to 18

Months

26.4%

15.4%

11.1%

20%

18 to 21

Months

9.4%

12.8%

21 Months

to 2 Years

3.8%

5.1%

2 Years or

5.7%

Sample size

Young Adult Court

Time in Program (Graduated/Terminated Only)

Participants in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court were in the program longer

than those in the Douglas County Adult Court on average (F(1, 618) = 15.624, p < .001)

(see Table 5.32).

Table 5.32: Time in Program for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

12.41

22.40

Sample Size

608

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

121 | P a g e

Time in Program (Graduated Only)

On average, participants who graduated in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

were in the program longer than those who graduated in the Douglas County Adult Drug

Court (F(1, 354) = 14.869, p < .001) (see Table 5.33).

Table 5.33: Time in Program for Graduated Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

15.88

27.65

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

3 to 6 Months

6 to 9 Months

9 Months to 1 Year

15.2%

1 Year to 15 Months

148

42.5%

15 to 18 Months

20.1%

18 to 21 Months

14.1%

14.3%

21 Months to 2 Years

6.0%

28.6%

2 Years or More

2.0%

57.1%

Sample Size

348

Time in Program (Terminated Only)

Terminated participants in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court were in the

program longer than those in the Douglas County Adult Court on average (F(1, 263) =

5.015, p = .026) (see Table 5.34).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

122 | P a g e

Table 5.34: Time in Program for Terminated Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Mean

7.78

15.05

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

23.1%

40.0%

3 to 6 Months

24.2%

6 to 9 Months

18.5%

9 Months to 1 Year

11.9%

1 Year to 15 Months

9.2%

20.0%

15 to 18 Months

7.7%

18 to 21 Months

3.5%

21 Months to 2 Years

0.8%

20.0%

2 Years or More

1.2%

20.0%

Sample Size

260

Driving Under the Influence Court

Time in Program (Terminated/Graduated Only)

There is no significant difference in the in the total number of months participants were

in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

programs (F(1, 20) = 0.046, p = .833) (see Table 5.35 and Figure 5.1).

Table 5.35: Time in Program for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

Mean (Months)

16.30

16.88

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

123 | P a g e

Figure 5.1: Time in Program

Time in Program (Graduated Only)

There is no significant difference in the total number of months spent in the Scotts Bluff

County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court programs for graduated

participants (F(1, 11) = 1.285, p = .281) (see Table 5.36).

Table 5.36: Time in Program for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean

21.31

17.86

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

3 to 6 Months

6 to 9 Months

9 Months to 1 Year

1 Year to 15 Months

30.0%

15 to 18 Months

66.7%

30.0%

18 to 21 Months

20.0%

21 Months to 2 Years

20.0%

2 Years or More

33.3%

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

124 | P a g e

Time in Program (Terminated Only)

There is no significant difference in the in the total number of months terminated

participants were in the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts Bluff

County DUI Court (F(1, 7) = 0.296, p = .603) (see Table 5.37).

Table 5.37: Time in Program for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Mean

12.55

14.93

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

3 to 6 Months

25.0%

6 to 9 Months

20.0%

9 Months to 1 Year

25.0%

1 Year to 15 Months

25.0%

20.0%

15 to 18 Months

40.0%

18 to 21 Months

21 Months to 2 Years

25.0%

20.0%

2 Years or More

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

Time in Program (Terminated/Graduated Only)

There is no significant difference in the in the total number of months participants were

in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Court (F(1,

172) = 0.069, p = .793) (see Table 5.38 and Figure 5.2).

Table 5.38: Time in Program for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County Adult

Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Mean

13.55

13.09

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

125 | P a g e

Figure 5.2: Time in Program

Time in Program (Graduated Only)

On average, participants who graduated in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court were

in the program longer than those who graduated in the Lancaster County Family Court

(F(1, 70) = 22.040, p < .001) (see Table 5.39).

Table 5.39: Time in Program for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Mean

22.02

16.64

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

3 to 6 Months

6 to 9 Months

9 Months to 1 Year

23.1%

1 Year to 15 Months

23.1%

15 to 18 Months

15.4%

18 to 21 Months

47.5%

15.4%

21 Months to 2 Years

32.2%

15.4%

2 Years or More

20.3%

7.7%

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

126 | P a g e

Time in Program (Terminated Only)

There is not a significant difference in the in the total number of months terminated

participants were in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County

Family Court (F(1, 100) = 2.713, p = .103) (see Table 5.40).

Table 5.40: Time in Program for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Mean

7.60

10.53

Months In Program

Less Than 3 Months

29.8%

5.6%

3 to 6 Months

26.2%

33.3%

6 to 9 Months

14.3%

11.1%

9 Months to 1 Year

8.3%

11.1%

1 Year to 15 Months

7.1%

22.2%

15 to 18 Months

1.2%

5.6%

18 to 21 Months

4.8%

21 Months to 2 Years

4.8%

5.6%

2 Years or More

3.6%

5.6%

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

127 | P a g e

Overview of Problem-Solving Court Cost Studies

A number of cost studies have previously been conducted of problem-solving courts,

though scope, methods, and data included for examination have varied extensively. It

should be noted that all cost studies we examined assume certain parameters based on the

availability and accuracy of data, and assumptions about the significance of program

elements to program costs. The methods employed by researchers to estimate program

costs are typically dependent on the availability of data, and judgments made about their

accuracy. Almost all cost studies we reviewed excluded costs data if it was judged to be

inaccurate, unavailable, or too difficult to obtain relative to their potential value in

estimating a final program cost estimate and/or predicting program outcomes. A proper

cost study identifies cost components examined, and limitations that should be kept in

mind when interpreting the presented data. Several cost studies are outlined herein to

provide an overall context for our Nebraska problem-solving court cost study.

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy conducted a costs-benefits study of five

adult drug courts operating in the state from 1998-1999 (Barnowski & Aos, 2003). The

study included a total estimate of average per participant cost for being in a drug court

program. Total expenditures were calculated based on courtroom processing costs

derived from a review of each court’s weekly hearing calendar, drug court program costs

related to monitoring and treatment reported by each program, and sanctions costs for

jail-time and community supervision. Study authors concluded that the average total cost

of a drug court participant for courtroom processing was $3,206.00, costs for monitoring

and treatment were $4,427.00, and sanctions costs were $3,594.00. The total average cost

for a participant in one of the five drug courts was $11,227.00.

A more recent 2011 study conducted of seven Oregon adult drug courts found that total

program costs per participant ranged from $3,411.00 to $24,692.00 per program. The

average cost per person in one of the seven studied programs was $16,411.00 (Carey &

Waller, 2011). Costs examined in this study included the costs of court hearings, case

management, treatment and testing, and jail sanctions. The large variation in costs across

programs was due to differing practices among programs (e.g., frequency of hearings,

length of program, differing costs of living, and different treatment protocols). The same

researchers conducted a study of seven Maryland adult drug courts in 2009 using similar

methodologies and examining the same costs data (Mackin et al., 2009). The study found

that total program costs per participant ranged from $9,529.00 to $34,647.00. The

average total program cost for participants within the examined programs was

$23,114.00.

Several studies have been conducted using a cost per day analysis. Costs per day analysis

are derived from studies in which a one year timeline is identified as the scope of the

study. Although some participants enroll, and are graduated or terminated from programs

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

128 | P a g e

within one year, it should be noted that most programs graduate participants in durations

lasting longer than a year.

In a study for the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, the University

of New Mexico Institute for Social Research conducted a costs per program and cost per

day study for the state’s drug courts for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 (Guerin &

Banihashemi, 2002). Fifteen courts were contacted as part of the study, and six were able

to provide viable data. Data quality and availability varied with each court. Expenses data

was missing for some courts, and treatment service costs were not collected for some

providers within the requested time frames. Some programs were too new to collect data

from a full cohort of participants. Expenditure information collected included salaries and

benefits, treatment, and indirect costs. This information was collected through a

combination of surveys and examination of budgetary information. Ultimately, the study

was able to arrive at an estimated program cost (total expenditures) and cost per day

(total expenditures divided by client days) for two juvenile drug courts for fiscal years

1999 and 2000. In 1999, those annual costs respectively for each of the two courts were

program costs of $316,280.00 and $287,203.00, and costs per day of $49.76 and $21.22.

In 2000, annual program costs were $456,791.86 and $380,304.77, and costs per day of

$73.21 and $27.00.

The Institute for Social Research at the University of New Mexico also conducted a costs

per program and costs per day study for the Metropolitan DWI-Drug Court in Bernalillo

County (Albuquerque), New Mexico, for fiscal years 2005-2008 (Cathey, Guerin &

Adams, 2009). Expenditures used to calculate costs included salaried and donated time of

drug court teams, indirect costs (rent) and treatment. This information was collected

through a combination of surveys and examination of budgetary information. Costs per

program for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, were $1,419,923.00,

$1,534,841.00, $1,536,759.00, and $1,616,205.00. Costs per day for fiscal years 2005,

2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, were $13.22, $11.72, $15.71, and $11.68.

A 2001 study of the Polk County, IA, adult drug court was conducted by the Iowa

Department of Human Rights (Stageberg, Wilson, & Moore, 2001). Costs information

examined included salaries of team members, case management time, administrative

time, and treatment, but did not include sanctions related costs. The study found average

costs per day of participants to be $17.27. A 2003 study of the Multnomah County

(Portland) adult drug court used prospective study methods in which researchers

identified a sub-sample of eligible drug court participants, and followed them through the

drug court process to identify time spent in various drug court activities (Carey &

Finigan, 2003). Expenses included as part of their cost study included court processing

costs, court hearings, jail time sanctions, and treatment. The study found the cost per day

of participants in the court to be $16.24. A 2009 cost study of rural Rutland County Adult

Drug Court in Vermont estimated average costs per day of a graduate at $57.99 with 376

total days in the program (Carey et al., 2009). Costs examined included court hearings,

case management, participant treatment, and jail sanctions.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

129 | P a g e

Recent cost per day studies have been completed for several Maryland drug court

programs. The average cost per day of graduated participants in Montgomery County

(Washington D.C. metropolitan area) Adult Drug Court was determined to be $64.42,

with average length in the program for graduates 525 days (Mackin et al., 2010a). Costs

examined included court hearings, case management, treatment, monitoring, and jail

sanctions. The average cost per day of graduated participants in the Baltimore County

Juvenile Drug Court was estimated at $100.94, with average duration in the program 471

days (Mackin et al., 2010b). Costs examined included court hearings, case management,

participant treatment, family treatment sessions, monitoring, and youth residential and

detention costs. In contrast, the rural St. Mary’s County Juvenile Drug Court average

cost per day for a graduate was estimated at $79.78, and average length of stay in the

program 358 days (Mackin et al., 2010c). Costs examined included court hearings, case

management, participant treatment, monitoring, and youth residential housing and

detention costs.

Methods for Nebraska Cost Study

Scope and Cost Elements

Cost studies conducted in other jurisdictions have primarily been either retrospective or

prospective in nature. Retrospective studies typically require the collection of information

for costs that have already been incurred based on financial records and/or estimates from

program staff. Prospective studies typically involve the collection of cost information as

individuals proceed through the duration of a problem-solving court program.

Prospective studies are less common, and can be difficult to conduct due to the extensive

resources required to track participants and programming on a day-to-day basis.

We used both a one year retrospective scope and participant cost per day analysis to

estimate costs for Nebraska’s problem solving courts. The retrospective scope was

chosen for several reasons. First, fiscal year costs data was available from the Office of

the Statewide Coordinator for Problem-Solving Courts for several key costs components,

including A) fee for service voucher funds used for all participants in adult problem

solving courts; B) administrative fee information paid to the state for adult problem

solving courts; C) number of days that all participants were enrolled in both adult and

juvenile problem solving programs; D) and salary and benefits information for adult and

juvenile problem solving program team members.

We elected to focus primarily on salary and benefits information, collected fees, and

treatment costs for participants, as the basis for our costs study. Based on previous cost

studies conducted in other jurisdictions, we knew that program team salary costs and

participant treatment costs would likely serve to be the majority of all program costs, an

assumption that was proven to be correct in our assessment of costs for Nebraska’s

programs. The available data thus served as a good basis for our analysis.

We identified fiscal year 2009-10 for the scope of the retrospective study (July 1, 2009 to

June 30, 2010) as it was the most recent fiscal year data existed preceding the initiation of

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

130 | P a g e

our cost study. Additionally, we chose to use a retrospective costs study because it is far

less intrusive for both problem-solving programs and participants than a prospective costs

study, which would have involved tracking all costs-related transactions that occurred

within a program for all participants. Although tracking a sub-sample of participants

might have been an option for a prospective costs study, such an approach would still

have had potentially intrusive implications for both individual clients and program staff,

and required a substantial amount of time and resources for the evaluation team.

Similarly, we choose to use a participant cost per day analysis as opposed to a total cost

per participant in a program analysis. Although many successful participants typically

take longer than one full year to graduate from a program, the fiscal year framework was

the most convenient to use given the availability of fiscal year data for fee for service

voucher funding and program team member salaries. Costs per day per participant served

equals the total costs affiliated with a program within the one-year costs study time frame

divided by the total number of days in which that program served clients within that same

year (i.e. person/days).

There were some significant limitations to our study that must be noted. First, outside of

fee for service voucher funding available from the Office of the Statewide Coordinator

for Problem-Solving Courts, none of the programs in our study had collected treatment

related costs for participants. Secondly, salary and benefits information from the Office

of the Statewide Coordinator only existed for select problem-solving team members,

typically the program coordinator and probation/supervision staff. For purposes of our

cost study, we considered these employees to be “core” team members. Salary and

benefits information for judges, attorneys, and ancillary team members such as treatment

providers, or representatives from law enforcement agencies, had not been collected in a

systematic fashion. We considered these individuals to be “extended” team members for

purposes of the cost study.

To collect missing salary and benefits costs for these “extended” team members, we 1)

asked team members to both estimate salary and benefits information and time spent

dedicated to the program for FY 2009-10 using a 40 hour work week FTE calculation;

and 2) we contacted the respective county agencies or the State of Nebraska Department

of Administrative Services for salary and benefits information for public employees (i.e.

judges, county attorneys, public defenders). If team members did not provide salary or

FTE estimates, we asked problem solving court program coordinators to estimate the

time for those extended team members. Thus, with the exception of salary and benefits

information available from public sources, the salary and benefits information for these

extended team members should only be considered as estimates. We calculated costs for

both “core” and “extended” team members (if available) for our cost study, with the

“core” costs representing real costs paid to program coordinators and

probation/supervision officers, and “extended” costs representing both “core” team

member salary and benefit information and information which was largely based on

estimates .

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

131 | P a g e

Collecting retrospective treatment costs for FY 2009-10 posed a challenge since such

information had not been previously collected by either the Office of the Statewide

Coordinator for Problem-Solving Courts or individual programs. We asked program

coordinators to contact treatment providers for all clients served within the FY 2009-10

and provide real cost figures for those individuals. We did not differentiate between costs

paid for differing types or levels of treatment services. Some adult programs reported

having no treatment related costs for individuals outside of the fee for service voucher

system. Most adult programs, however, did have considerable costs not paid for through

the voucher system, and had to rely on cost figures provided by treatment agencies. It

must be noted that these costs are derived solely from treatment agencies, and there is no

independent verification for the accuracy of those costs. However, we have no reason to

believe that the costs information provided by these treatment agencies is not accurate. In

the future, we recommend that the state institute a system so that treatment costs paid for

problem solving court clients to treatment providers, regardless of payment source, be

systematically tracked by the state for future cost assessments.

Additionally, we asked individual program coordinators to calculate the aggregate

number of days that individuals were enrolled in their programs for the FY 2009-10 (i.e.

“person/days”). Although these figures were provided through the Office of the Statewide

Coordinator for Problem-Solving Courts, after reviewing the data and consulting with the

Office of the Statewide Coordinator, we had reason to believe that individual program

coordinators would be able to provide a more accurate count of person/days for their

program.

Total costs used to estimate a cost per day per participant served consist of salary and

benefits costs plus treatment costs incurred by programs, and jail/detention time cost

estimates if available. Fee information was deducted from total costs with the assumption

that fees paid by participants are used to support programming. Total costs were then

divided by total person/days to arrive at a cost per day per each participant served in the

program. A cost per day per participant based on core team members represents the costs

per day of the core functioning staff behind the program. Costs per day based on

extended team members are more representative of costs associated with courtroom

infrastructure and the overall justice and community corrections system because it

includes salary information of judges and associated attorneys, as well as law

enforcement and treatment agency representatives who are part of wider program teams.

However, because there is more certainty with costs based around core team members,

we recommend relying on core team costs per day as an estimate of the minimal costs

necessary to administer a problem-solving court program.

Table 6.1 (Estimated Costs for Adult Programs Based on Staffing and Treatment Costs)

presents costs per day figures for Nebraska’s adult problem-solving courts, and Table 6.2

(Estimated Costs for Juvenile Programs Based on Staffing and Treatment Costs) presents

costs per day figures for the state’s juvenile problem-solving courts. Also presented for

purposes of comparison are cost figures from the studies of adult and juvenile drug court

programs in other jurisdictions reviewed above, as well as a cost per day ($69.37) for

incarcerating an individual in state prison in Nebraska based on 2001 U.S. Department of

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

132 | P a g e

Justice figures (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004), the last year in which such data was

available from the Justice Department.

Some sources of data are not included in our study. Electronic tracking and monitoring

costs are not included unless they were identified through fees data. Likewise, costs of

incentives provided to program participants for good behavior such as gift cards, movie

tickets, etc., were also not included in our cost study. Our review of previous cost studies

indicated that such costs are very small compared to salary/benefits and treatment data.

Administrative overhead costs for photo copying, office equipment, and rent were also

not included due to both concerns that calculating such costs would have proven too

difficult to assemble from individual programs, and that such components play minimal

roles in program outcomes when compared to treatment or time spent by problem solving

court staff dedicated to the program.

Jail/Detention Costs

We also contacted the Nebraska Crime Commission for assistance with estimating the

costs of jail in Nebraska. Problem solving court programs typically utilize jail/detention

time for participants as a sanction for program infractions. Costs incurred for

jail/detention time are real costs, and are thus included in our analysis. Based on figures

provided to the Nebraska Crime Commission by the US Marshall’s Service, we used a

statewide estimate of county jail cost per day of $45 throughout Nebraska. We assume

that juvenile detention facilities cost at least that amount per day. Thus, a $45 estimate

was used for both adult and juvenile programs.

Figures for jail/detention time incurred were available for most, though not all, of the

programs examined, and derived from the state’s Problem Solving Court Management

Information System. Table 6.3 (Estimated Jail/Detention Costs) presents two figures:

average days in jail/detention per month per participant for the Nebraska programs we

examined in the 2007-2011 timeframe, and an estimate of an average total jail/detention

cost for each program within a year within the 2007-2011 timeframe. The yearly estimate

was calculated by multiplying average days in jail/detention per month per participant by

.033 (1/30) to arrive at a daily figure, which was then multiplied by the total number of

person/days for each program, and then multiplied again by 45 to arrive at an estimate of

total jail/detention costs within a single year between 2007-2011.

It should be recognized that statistical outliers can account for a high average days in

jail/detention per month per participant figure. In other words, many participants in a

drug court program may incur no jail/detention time during their time in the program, but

a small number of individuals with a large number of days in jail/detention could increase

the overall average figure, particularly if the program had a small number of participants.

Table 6.4 (Estimated Costs for Adult Programs Based on Staffing, Treatment and

Jail/Detention Costs) and Table 6.5 (Estimated Costs for Juvenile Programs Based on

Staffing, Treatment and Jail/Detention Costs) present program cost information with

jail/detention time factored into total costs.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

133 | P a g e

As a limitation to our estimate of jail/detention costs, it should be noted that a $45

jail/detention cost per day across all facilities in Nebraska should be considered an

estimate for purposes of this study only, and that there will be variation in actual costs of

detention based on services rendered, location, and other items. Additionally, because of

discrepancies we encountered within the Problem Solving Court Management

Information System, we cite these jail/detention time figures with caution.

Cost Study Limitations

We strongly caution against using our program cost estimate data as a means to

compare the quality or effectiveness of individual programs. Program cost estimates

can vary widely due to differences in salaries of team members, the numbers and risk

levels of program participants and their overall needs, differing policies in program

intensity and length, and the availability and costs of treatment in the various

communities served by Nebraska’s problem solving court programs. Most importantly, a

cost figure should not be considered a measure of program success, or program

efficiency, without a deeper examination of program policies, and all the program and

contextual factors that impact an individual’s success or failure in a problem-solving

court program.

As a final note, our costs study was restricted to the traditional adult and juvenile

probation or county based programs. It does not include Nebraska’s family-based courts

due to a lack of systematic data collection by those programs.

Cost Study Profiles of Nebraska Programs

Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 37,424. Total salary information

for the program was $226,667.92, a sum of $152,830 of state problem-solving court

funds supporting the salaries of the program coordinating staff, as well as $73,837.92 in

costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented time spent by

extended team members including judges, attorneys, law enforcement and corrections

officers, and treatment providers who regularly participated in team meetings and played

significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members included a coordinator

and two supervision officers. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for extended team

members was based on an estimate of time by the program coordinator. Additionally, the

total amount of fees collected from the program as reported by the state was $87,719, of

which $70,000 was used to support salaries and thus deducted from costs. Treatment

costs were provided by the program coordinator. Total treatment costs were

$208,042.06, which was a sum of $135,801.40 in fee-for-service voucher funding,

$67,494.69 in Medicaid costs, and $4,745.97 in fees paid by participants directly out of

pocket or through private insurance. Total costs from these sources amounted to

$452,428.98. The total cost based on core team members was $378,591.06.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $378,591.06

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

134 | P a g e

Costs per person -day (core team): $10.11

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $452,428.98

Costs per person -day (extended team): $12.08

District 6 Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 8685. Total salary information

for the program was $117,589.60, a sum of $98,755.44 of state problem-solving court

funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating staff, as well as

$18,834.16 in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented

time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and played

significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members include the program’s

coordinator and a supervision officer. Extended team members include a judge,

prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for

these team members were either based on an estimate of time by the program

coordinator, or estimates provided by those team members directly. Salary information

was either provided by team members directly or via public records.

The total amount of fees collected from the program as reported by the state was $13,106

to support various administrative costs. Total treatment costs were $203,644.78, a sum of

fee-for-service voucher funding of $115,337.40 provided by the state, and $88,307.38

financed through the behavioral health region in the program’s jurisdiction. Additionally,

another $21,000 in county funding supports testing, incentives, and other program costs.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $329,128.38. The total cost based on core

team members was $310,294.22.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $310,294.22

Costs per person -day (core team): $35.72

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $329,128.38

Costs per person -day (extended team): $37.89

Douglas County Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program in the study time frame was 36,083.

Total salary information for the program was $711,415, a sum of $400,00 of state

problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating

staff, as well as $311,415 in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which

represented time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and

played significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members include the

program’s coordinator, supervision officers, and several administrative staff. Extended

team members include the judge, attorneys and law enforcement and treatment provider

representatives. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for these team members were

based on estimates of time made by those team members or the program coordinator. A

total of $90,618 in participant fees was also assessed by the program. Total treatment

costs amounted to $1,014,569.5, a sum of $463,682.10 in fee-for-service voucher

funding, and $550,887.40 financed through insurance, Medicaid, or out-of-pocket costs.

It should be noted that the latter figure may not be accurate because of the fifteen

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

135 | P a g e

treatment provider agencies that we requested costs from, only fourteen actually provided

costs, and one treatment provider was unable or unwilling to provide those costs.

However, we have reason to believe that the missing costs may be minimal compared to

the information already gathered.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $1,635,366.50. The total cost based on

core team members was $1,323,951.50.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $1,323,951.50

Costs per person -day (core team): $36.69

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $1,635,366.50

Costs per person -day (extended team): $45.32

Douglas County Juvenile Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the state for this program was 3,471. However,

based on entry and exit dates within the PSCMIS data available to the evaluation team,

the amount of person-days for the program during the study time frame was 8,367. The

latter (larger) figure was therefore used to calculate costs.

Total salary information for the program was $258,006.21, a sum of $165,599.85 of state

problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating

staff, as well as $92,406.36 in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which

represented time spent by extended team members who regularly participated in team

meetings and played significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members

include the program’s coordinator, and two supervision officers. Extended team members

include the judge, attorneys and other representatives. Percent of FTE dedicated to the

program for these team members were based on estimates of time made by those team

members or the program coordinator. Total treatment costs amounted to $453,174.28.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $711,180.49. The total cost based on core

team members was $618,774.13.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $618,774.13

Costs per person -day (core team): $73.95

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $711,180.49

Costs per person -day (extended team): $84.99

Douglas County Young Adult Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 7,103. Total salary information

for the program was $111,984.73, a sum of $59,127.23 of state problem-solving court

funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating staff, as well as $52,857.5

in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented time spent by

extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and played significant and

regular roles in the program. Core team members included the program coordinator.

Extended team members included a judge, multiple attorneys, a drug tech, and

corrections officers. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for these team members

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

136 | P a g e

was based on an estimate of time by the program coordinator, as well as salary

information estimated or collected by the coordinator. Additionally, the total amount of

fees collected from the program as reported by the coordinator was $2,131 to support

testing and various administrative costs. Treatment costs for the program were $30,573, a

combination of fee-for-service voucher funding of $17,723 and insurance or out of

pocket costs of $12,850. Total costs from all these sources amounted to $144,688.73. The

total cost based on core team members was $91,831.23.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $91,831.23

Costs per person -day (core team): $12.93

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $144,688.73

Costs per person -day (extended team): $20.37

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 22,486. Total salary information

for the program was $300,465.98, a sum of $238,517 of county and state problem-solving

court funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating staff, as well as

$61,948.98 in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented

time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and played

significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members include the program’s

coordinator, two supervision officers, an administrative assistant, and part-time drug

testing technician. Extended team members include two judges who rotate on a bi-weekly

basis, a prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney. Percent of FTE dedicated to the

program for these team members were based on an estimate of time by the program

coordinator.

The total amount of fees collected from the program as reported by the program was

$43,283, but is not used to defer program administrative costs. Total treatment costs were

$147,370.31, a sum of $77,407.88 financed through the behavioral health region in the

program’s jurisdiction, $17,994 financed by Medicaid, and $51,968.43 in other treatment

costs charged by providers.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $447,836.29. The total cost based on core

team members was $385,887.31.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $385,887.31

Costs per person -day (core team): $17.16

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $447,836.29

Costs per person -day (extended team): $19.91

Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the state for this program was 3,630. Total salary

information for the program was $166,034.53, a sum of $107,495.78 of state problem-

solving court funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating staff, as well

as $58,538.75 in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented

time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and played

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

137 | P a g e

significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members include the program’s

coordinator, and a supervision officer. Extended team members include the judge,

attorneys, and a representative from the treatment agency that serves the program’s

clients. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for these team members were based on

estimates of time made by those team members. Total treatment costs amounted to

$146,845.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $312,879.53. The total cost based on core

team members was $254,340.78.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $254,340.78

Costs per person -day (core team): $70.06

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $312,879.53

Costs per person -day (extended team): $86.19

Midwest NE Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 6,911. Total salary information

for the program was $143,427.14, a sum of $122,735.89 of state problem-solving court

funds supporting the salaries of the core program coordinating staff, as well as $20691.25

in costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented time spent by

extended team who regularly participated in team meetings and played significant and

regular roles in the program. Core team members include the program’s coordinator and

supervision officer. Extended team members included the judge, a prosecuting attorney,

defense attorney, and representatives from law enforcement agencies and treatment

providers. Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for these team members were based

on estimates of time by those individuals or by the program coordinator.

The total amount of fees collected from the program as reported by the program was

$22,030. Total treatment costs were $29,391.80, paid through fee-for-service voucher

funding provided by the state.

The total cost from all these sources amounted to $150,788.94. The total cost based on

core team members was $130,097.69.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $130,097.69

Costs per person -day (core team): $18.82

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $150,788.94

Costs per person -day (extended team): $21.81

North Central Adult Drug Court

The time frame for the North Central Adult Drug Court cost study was the 2010-2011

fiscal year, as the program was only initiated in early 2010. The amount of person-days

reported by the program in that time frame was 4,731. Total salary information for the

program was $61,095.59 to cover the cost of core coordinating staff. Extended team

member salaries were not collected for this program as both the scope and level of

activity for the North Central Adult Drug Court changed significantly within the time

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

138 | P a g e

frame of the cost study. Fees amounted to $125 for the previous fiscal year, an amount

used as a proxy figure for the cost study time frame. Total treatment costs for the

program were $35,192.30, composed exclusively of funding through the fee-for-service

voucher system. The total costs estimate amounted to $96,162.89.

It should be noted that the North Central Adult Drug Court is the newest drug court

program in the state, and is still in the process of developing its programming. Since its

formation, the program has shifted the location of its regular hearings and is still in flux.

The costs estimate should thus not be considered representative of a fully matured

program. Similarly, extended team costs were not identified as the program is still in the

process of establishing its infrastructure.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $96,162.89

Costs per person -day (core team): $20.32

Northeast Nebraska Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

The Northeast Nebraska Adult and Juvenile Drug Court programs are coordinated by the

same program coordinator and supervision officer. There is thus some sharing of both

costs for administrative time and funds received at a county level for overhead. The

amount of person-days reported was 9,413 for the Adult Drug Court and 2,273 for the

Juvenile Drug Court.

The programs received $22,890 in funds at the county level to support overhead, of

which $15,538.75 was dedicated to the Adult Drug Court program and $7,351.25

dedicated to the Juvenile Drug Court program based on estimates by the program

coordinator.

The programs received a total of $108,793.17 to support the salaries of the core program

coordinating staff. Of the $108,793.17 amount, core program staff dedicated an estimated

70% of their time to the Adult Drug Court and the remaining 30% of their time to the

Juvenile Drug Court, representing costs of $76,155.22 and $32,637.95 respectively.

For the adult program, extended team members included a judge, attorneys, probation,

treatment provider representative, and drug tech. The combined value of time spent

dedicated to the adult program by these extended team members was $57,142.81, based

on estimates of FTE by the program coordinator and team members themselves. Total

salary information representing time spent on the adult program amounted to

$133,298.03. Total treatment costs for the adult program were $89,082.70, a combination

of $67,833.65 in fee-for-service voucher funds and $21,249.05 paid from a combination

of Medicaid or other sources. Total fees for the adult program as reported by the state

were $14,921. Total costs of the adult program were $252,840.48. The total cost for the

adult program based on core team members was $195,697.67.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $195,697.67

Costs per person -day (core team): $20.79

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

139 | P a g e

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $252,840.48

Costs per person -day (extended team): $26.86

For the juvenile program, extended team members included a judge, attorneys, probation,

treatment provider representative, and drug tech. The combined value of time spent

dedicated to the adult program by these extended team members was $16,484.79, based

on estimates of FTE by the program coordinator. Total salary information representing

time spent on the adult program amounted to $49,122.74. Total treatment costs for the

juvenile program was $28,066.88. Total costs of the juvenile program were $84,540.87.

The total cost for the juvenile program based on core team members was $68,056.08.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $68,056.08

Costs per person -day (core team): $29.94

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $84,540.87

Costs per person -day (extended team): $37.19

Sarpy County Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

The Sarpy County Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts are coordinated by the same program

staff, though there is not complete overlap among all team personnel. The amount of

person-days reported by the adult program in the study time frame was 8,739. Total

salary information for the program was $201,397.30, a sum of $146,311 of county and

state problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the core program

coordinating staff, as well as $55,086.30 in costs from outside the problem-solving court

budget which represented time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team

meetings and played significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members

include the program’s coordinator, supervision officer, part-time administrative assistant,

and part-time drug testing technician. Extended team members include the judge,

attorneys and law enforcement and treatment provider representatives. Percent of FTE

dedicated to the program for these team members were based on estimates of time made

by those team members or the program coordinator. Additional administrative costs

included $14,500 supported through county funding. A total of $13,457.27 in participant

fees was also assessed by the program. Total treatment costs amounted to $58,577, a sum

of $32,283 in fee-for-service voucher funding, and $26,294 financed through insurance,

Medicaid, or out-of-pocket costs.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $261,017.03. The total cost based on core

team members was $205,930.73.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $205,930.73

Costs per person -day (core team): $23.56

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $261,017.03

Costs per person -day (extended team): $29.86

The amount of person-days reported by the juvenile program in the study time frame was

7,164. Total salary information for the program was $157,786.80, a sum of $92,399 of

county and state problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the core program

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

140 | P a g e

coordinating staff, as well as $65,387.80 in costs from outside the problem-solving court

budget which represented time spent by extended team who regularly participated in team

meetings and played significant and regular roles in the program. Core team members

include the program’s coordinator, supervision officer, part-time administrative assistant,

and part-time drug testing technician. Extended team members included two judges who

each manage their own dockets, attorneys and treatment provider representatives.

Percent of FTE dedicated to the program for these team members were based on

estimates of time made by those team members or the program coordinator. Additional

administrative costs included $9,560 supported through state funding. Total treatment

costs amounted to $133,948, a sum of $20,000 in county funding, and $113,948 financed

through insurance, Medicaid, or out-of-pocket costs.

Total costs from all these sources amounted to $301,294.80. The total cost based on core

team members was $235,907.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $235,907

Costs per person -day (core team): $32.92

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $301,294.80

Costs per person -day (extended team): $42.05

Scottsbluff Adult, DUI and Juvenile Drug Courts

The Scottsbluff Adult, DUI and Juvenile drug court programs are administered by the

same core staff, but there is not complete overlap in team personnel across all three

programs. Additionally, the adult drug court program and DUI program (which only

serves adults) hold court hearings for participants concurrently. To arrive at estimated

salary costs for each of these programs, state problem-solving court funds supporting the

salaries of coordinating staff were equally distributed among the three programs.

The amount of person-days reported by the juvenile program in the study time period was

1,713. Total salary information for the program was $39,901.96, consisting of state

problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the program coordinating staff.

However, due to lack of information on treatment costs, calculating a total costs estimate

for the juvenile program was not possible.

The adult drug court program reported 1,220 person-days for the study time period. The

DUI court program was over twice as large as the adult program, and reported 2,736

person-days in the study time frame. Total salary information for each program was also

$39,901.96, consisting of state problem-solving court funds supporting the salaries of the

program coordinating staff. Salary information for key extended team members was not

provided. The combined adult/dui program collected a total of $520 in fees during the

study time frame, an amount which was equally distributed between both programs. Fee-

for-service voucher funding amounted to $8669.20 for the adult drug court program, and

$5,911 for the dui program. Additionally, treatment providers charged participants in the

dui program $876, for a total treatment cost of $6,787 for the dui court. One known

treatment provider which serves clients in both the adult and dui programs did not

provide an estimate of treatment costs for those served in the study time frame, so a total

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

141 | P a g e

estimate of treatment costs is not possible. However, treatment costs for the vast majority

of participants in both programs are financed by the fee-for-service voucher system.

Thus, there is reason to believe that identified treatment costs do reflect actual treatment

costs.

Total costs from all these sources based on core team members amounted to $48,311.16

for the adult program, and $46,428.96 for the dui program.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $48,311.16 (adult program) and

$46,428.96 (dui program).

Costs per person -day (core team): $39.59 (adult program) and $16.96 (dui

program).

Southeast Nebraska Adult Drug Court

The amount of person-days reported by the program was 10,146. Total salary information

for the program was $149,514.73, a sum of $112,889.73 of state problem-solving court

funds supporting the salaries of the program coordinating staff, as well as $36,625 in

costs from outside the problem-solving court budget which represented time spent by

extended team members including the program judge and attorneys who regularly

participated in team meetings and played significant and regular roles in the program.

Core team members included a coordinator, supervision officer, and a part-time drug

technician. Extended team members included a judge and attorneys. Percent of FTE

dedicated to the program for all team members was based on an estimate of time by the

program coordinator or estimates provided directly by team members. Additionally, the

total amount of fees collected from the program as reported by the state was $10,100, and

counties that fell within the court’s jurisdiction also provided $12,396.46 to the program

to support general administrative expenses. All participants in the program received fee-

for-service voucher funding that amounted to $55,174.25 in costs. Total costs from these

sources amounted to $227,185.44. The total costs based on core team members was

$190,560.44.

Aggregated costs estimate (core team): $190,560.44

Costs per person -day (core team): $18.78

Aggregated costs estimate (extended team): $227,185.44

Costs per person -day (extended team): $22.39

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

142 | P a g e

Table 6.1: Estimated Costs for Adult Programs Based on Staffing and Treatment Costs

Adult Programs

Estimated Costs

Cost parameters

State Prison in Nebraska

in 2001 (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2004)

$69.73 per inmate per day (2001)

n/a

Bernalillo Co., NM

(Cathey, Guerin &

Adams, 2009)

$13.22 per participant per day (2005)

$11.72 per participant per day (2006)

$15.71 per participant per day (2007)

$11.68 per participant per day (2008)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

Montgomery Co., MD

(Mackin et al., 2010)

$64.42 per graduated participant per day

Total duration 525 days

Case management,

participant

treatment, jail

Multnomah Co, OR

(Carey & Finigan, 2003)

$16.24 per participant per day

Case management,

treatment, jail, fees

Polk Co., IA

(Stageberg, Wilson &

Moore, 2001)

$17.27 per participant per day

Case management,

treatment, fees

Rutland Co, VT

(Carey et al., 2009)

$57.99 per graduated participant per day

Total duration 376 days

Case management,

participant

treatment, jail

Central Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

37,424 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $378,591.06

$10.11 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $452,428.98

$12.08 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

District Six Adult Drug

Court

8685 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $310,294.22

$35.72 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $329,128.38

$37.89 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Douglas County Adult

Drug Court

36083 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $1,323,951.5

$36.69 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $1,635,366.5

$45.32 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

7103 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core):

$12.93 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended):

$20.37 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Lancaster County Adult

Drug Court

22846 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $385,887.31

$17.16 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $447,836.29

$19.91 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

143 | P a g e

Midwest Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

6911 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $130,097.69

$18.82 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $150,788.94

$21.81 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

9413 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $195,697.67

$20.79 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $252,840.48

$26.86 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

North Central Adult Drug

Court

4731 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $96,162.89

$20.32 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Sarpy County Adult Drug

Court

8739 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $205,930.73

$23.56 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $261,017.03

$29.86 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Scottsbluff County Adult

Drug Court

1220 person/days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $48,311.16

$39.59 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Scottsbluff County DUI

Court

2736 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $46,428.96

$16.96 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

10146 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $190,560.44

$18.78 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $227,185.44

$22.39 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

144 | P a g e

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

145 | P a g e

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

146 | P a g e

Table 6.2: Estimated Costs for Juvenile Programs Based on Staffing and Treatment Costs

Juvenile Programs

Estimated Costs

Cost parameters

State Prison in Nebraska

in 2001 (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2004)

$69.73 per inmate per day (2001)

n/a

Baltimore Co., MD

(Mackin et al., 2010)

$100.94 per graduated participant per day

Total duration 471 days

Case management,

participant treatment,

family treatment

sessions, monitoring,

and youth housing and

detention costs

New Mexico Juvenile

Court 1

(Guerin & Banihashemi,

2002)

$49.76 per participant per day (1999)

$73.21 per participant per day (2000)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

New Mexico Juvenile

Court 2

(Guerin & Banihashemi,

2002)

$21.22 per participant per day (1999)

$27.00 per participant per day (2000)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

Douglas County Juvenile

Drug Court

8367 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $618,774.13

$73.95 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $711,180.49

$84.99 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

3630 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $254,340.78

$70.06 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $312,879.53

$86.19 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

2273 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $68,056.08.

$29.94 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $84,540.87

$37.19 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment

Sarpy County Juvenile

Drug Court

7164 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $235,907

$32.92 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $301,294.80

$42.05 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment

Scottsbluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

n/a

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

147 | P a g e

Table 6.3: Estimated Jail/Detention Costs

Program

Average number of

days in jail/detention

per month

Person-days

Total jail/detention

costs incurred per year

Adult Programs

Central Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

37,424

District Six Adult Drug

Court

.92

8,685

$11,865.44

Douglas County Adult

Drug Court

.33

36,083

$17,682.47

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

.13

7,103

$1,371.23

Lancaster County Adult

Drug Court

1.04

22,486

$35,283.36

Midwest Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

.95

6,911

$9,749.69

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

.27

9,413

$3,774.14

North Central Adult

Drug Court

1.11

4,731

$7,798.34

Sarpy County Adult Drug

Court

.32

8,739

$4,152.77

Scottsbluff County Adult

Drug Court

.37

1,200

$659.34

Scottsbluff County DUI

Court

.90

2,736

$3,656.66

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

.90

10,146

$13,560.12

Juvenile Programs

Douglas County Juvenile

Drug Court

.11

3,471

$566.98

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

1.35

3,630

$7,277.24

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

2,273

Sarpy County Juvenile

Drug Court

.04

7,164

$425.54

Scottsbluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

.89

1,713

$2,263.98

*Average monthly jail/detention time figures for Central Nebraska Adult Drug Court and Northeast

Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court were zero. It is unclear if this is because no jail/detention was incurred by

participants in those programs, data was entered by program staff in a different system than the

Problem Solving Court Management Information System, errors with the Problem Solving Court

Management Information System, or other reasons.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

148 | P a g e

Table 6.4: Estimated Costs for Adult Programs Based on Staffing, Treatment and

Jail/Detention Costs

Adult Programs

Estimated Costs

Cost parameters

State Prison in Nebraska

in 2001 (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2004)

$69.73 per inmate per day (2001)

n/a

Bernalillo Co., NM

(Cathey, Guerin &

Adams, 2009)

$13.22 per participant per day (2005)

$11.72 per participant per day (2006)

$15.71 per participant per day (2007)

$11.68 per participant per day (2008)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

Montgomery Co., MD

(Mackin et al., 2010)

$64.42 per graduated participant per day

Total duration 525 days

Case management,

participant treatment,

jail

Multnomah Co, OR

(Carey & Finigan, 2003)

$16.24 per participant per day

Case management,

treatment, jail, fees

Polk Co., IA

(Stageberg, Wilson &

Moore, 2001)

$17.27 per participant per day

Case management,

treatment, fees

Rutland Co, VT

(Carey et al., 2009)

$57.99 per graduated participant per day

Total duration 376 days

Case management,

participant treatment,

jail

Central Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

37,424 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $378,591.06

$10.11 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $452,428.98

$12.08 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time*

District Six Adult Drug

Court

8685 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $322,159.66

$37.09 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $340,993.82

$39.26 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Douglas County Adult

Drug Court

36083 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $1,341,633.97

$37.18 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended):

$1,653,048.97

$45.81 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

7103 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $93,192.46

$13.12 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $146,059.96

$20.56 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Lancaster County Adult

Drug Court

22846 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $421,170.67

$18.73 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $483,119.65

$21.48 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

149 | P a g e

Midwest Nebraska Adult

Drug Court

6911 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $139,847.38

$20.23 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $160,538.63

$23.22 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Northeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

9413 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $199,471.81

$21.19 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $256,614.62

$27.26 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

North Central Adult Drug

Court

4731 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $103,961.23

$21.97 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Sarpy County Adult Drug

Court

8739 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $210,083.50

$24.03 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $265,169.80

$30.34 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Scottsbluff County Adult

Drug Court

1220 person/days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $48,970.50

$40.13 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Scottsbluff County DUI

Court

2736 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $50,085.62

$18.30 per person-day (core)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

Southeast Nebraska

Adult Drug Court

10146 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $204,120.56

$20.11 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $240,745.56

$23.72 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment, fees,

Jail/detention time

*As previously noted, there were no recorded or available jail/detention time costs for the Central

Nebraska Adult Drug Court.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

150 | P a g e

Table 6.5: Estimated Costs for Juvenile Programs Based on Staffing, Treatment and

Jail/Detention Costs

Juvenile Programs

Estimated Costs

Cost parameters

State Prison in Nebraska

in 2001 (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2004)

$69.73 per inmate per day (2001)

n/a

Baltimore Co., MD

(Mackin et al., 2010)

$100.94 per graduated participant

Total duration 471 days

Case management,

participant treatment,

family treatment

sessions, monitoring,

and youth housing and

detention costs

New Mexico Juvenile

Court 1

(Guerin & Banihashemi,

2002)

$49.76 per participant per day (1999)

$73.21 per participant per day (2000)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

New Mexico Juvenile

Court 2

(Guerin & Banihashemi,

2002)

$21.22 per participant per day (1999)

$27.00 per participant per day (2000)

Case management,

indirect costs,

treatment

Douglas County Juvenile

Drug Court

8367 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $619,341.11

$74.02 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $711,747.47

$85.06 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment,

Jail/detention time

Lancaster County

Juvenile Drug Court

3630 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $261,618.02

$72.07 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $320,156.77

$88.19 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment,

Jail/detention time

Northeast Nebraska

Juvenile Drug Court

2273 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $68,056.08.

$29.94 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $84,540.87

$37.19 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment,

Jail/detention time*

Sarpy County Juvenile

Drug Court

7164 person-days

Aggregated cost estimate (core): $236,332.54

$32.98 per person-day (core)

Aggregated cost estimate (extended): $301,720.34

$42.11 per person-day (extended)

Case management,

treatment,

Jail/detention time

Scottsbluff County

Juvenile Drug Court

1713 person-days

Costs estimate unavailable

n/a

*As previously noted, there were no recorded or available jail/detention time costs for the Northeast

Nebraska Juvenile Drug Court.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

151 | P a g e

In this section we review five indicators of success or in-program progress:

1. Program Completion: Graduation/termination rates

2. Recidivism Rates

3. Change in education levels

4. Change in employment levels

5. Change in positive drug tests

6. Change in risk scores

Program Completion

Adult Courts

Program Completion

There is a significant difference among adult drug courts in the percent of graduated and

terminated participants (χ

(9) = 35.272, p < .001). Some of these differences may be

related to the length of time courts have been in operation, as some courts have had time

for very few people to either graduate or terminate from the program. Of participants who

are no longer in the program, Midwest Nebraska has the highest percentage of graduates,

followed by Sarpy County, Northeast Nebraska, District 6, and Southeast Nebraska,

which are not significantly different from each other. Central Nebraska and Douglas

County have the next highest percentage of graduates, and differ from Lancaster County

(see Table 7.1).

Table 7.1: Graduation Rates for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District 6

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

*North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Graduated

58.8%

67.6%

349

56.9%

41.3%

78.9%

76.0%

76.6%

42.9%

64.9%

Terminated/

Voluntary

Withdrawal

41.2%

32.4%

264

43.1%

58.7%

21.1%

100%

24.0%

23.4%

57.1%

35.1%

Sample Size

131

613

143

Program Status Termination Reason

Non-compliance with program requirements is the predominant reason for Adult Drug

Court termination status. (This analysis was run with only those with a completion status

of terminated) (see Table 7.2).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

152 | P a g e

Table 7.2: Termination Reason for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

No Answer

61.1%

33.3%

158

59.8%

46.4%

16.7%

54.5%

7.7%

Medical

0.4%

New Law

Violation

3.7%

8.3%

4.2%

9.5%

50.0%

9.1%

25.0%

7.7%

Non-

Compliance

with Program

Requirements

35.2%

58.3%

35.6%

44.0%

50.0%

100%

83.3%

36.4%

75.0%

84.6%

Sample Size

264

Juvenile Courts

Program Completion

There is a significant difference among juvenile drug courts in the percent of graduated

and terminated participants (χ

(4) = 16.820, p = .002). Sarpy County has the highest

percentage of graduates, and does not differ from Scotts Bluff County. The remaining

three courts do not differ from each other (see Table 7.3).

Table 7.3: Graduation Rates for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Graduated

26.0%

38.1%

18.2%

57.6%

55.6%

Terminated/

Voluntary Withdrawal

74.0%

61.9%

81.8%

42.4%

44.4%

Sample Size

Program Status Termination Reason

The reason most frequently cited for termination from Nebraska’s juvenile drug courts is

non-compliance with program requirements. However, all courts except Northeast

Nebraska have a large number of participants for which no reason is listed (see Table

7.4).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

153 | P a g e

Table 7.4: Termination Reason for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

No Answer

59.3%

61.5%

56.0%

25.0%

Reached Age of

Majority

5.6%

New Law Violation

33.3%

25.0%

Non-Compliance with

Program Requirements

35.2%

38.5%

66.7%

44.0%

50.0%

Sample Size

Young Adult Court

Program Completion

There is no difference between the two types of courts in the amount that graduated or

were terminated from the program (χ2(1) = 0.923, p = .583) (see Table 7.5) .

Table 7.5: Graduation Rates for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Terminated/Voluntary

Withdrawal

264

43.07%

41.67%

Graduated

349

56.93%

58.33%

Sample Size

613

Program Status Termination Reason

The reason most frequently used for termination from both the Douglas County Adult

and Young Adult Drug Courts is non-compliance with program requirements, followed

by violations of new laws. However, for the Adult Drug Court, no reason was provided

for more than half of those terminated from the program (see Table 7.6).

Table 7.6: Termination Status for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

No Answer

158

58.7%

Medical

0.4%

New Law Violation

4.2%

40.0%

Non-Compliance with Program

Requirements

36.1%

60.0%

Sample Size

264

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

154 | P a g e

DUI Court

There is no difference between the two types of courts in the amount that graduated or

were terminated from the program (χ2(1) = 0.765, p = .382) (see Table 7.7).

Table 7.7: Graduation Rates for Adult Drug Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Terminated/Voluntary

Withdrawal

57.14%

37.5%

Graduated

42.86%

62.5%

Sample Size

Program Status Termination Reason

The most frequently cited reason for termination from both Scotts Bluff DUI Court and

Adult Drug Court is non-compliance with program requirements, followed by new law

violations (see Table 7.8).

Table 7.8: Termination Status for Adult Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County Adult

Court

Scotts Bluff County DUI

Court

New Law Violation

25.0%

16.7%

Non-Compliance with Program

Requirements

75.0%

83.3%

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

There is no difference between the two types of courts in the amount that graduated or

were terminated from the program (χ2(1) = .005, p = .945) (see Table 7.9).

Table 7.9: Graduation Rates for Adult Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Terminated/Voluntary

Withdrawal

58.74%

58.06%

Graduated

41.26%

41.94%

Sample Size

143

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

155 | P a g e

Program Status Termination Reason

The reason most frequently used for termination from the program was non-compliance

with program requirements (see Table 7.10).

Table 7.10: Termination Status for Family Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

No Answer

46.4%

77.8%

New Law Violation

9.5%

Non-Compliance with Program

Requirements

44.0%

22.2%

Sample Size

Recidivism Rates

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from a problem-solving court. Recidivism was defined as those who were

arrested within one year of leaving a problem-solving court program, and were

subsequently convicted of a felony or drug-related misdemeanor. DUI convictions were

included as a “drug-related misdemeanor”. The good news is recidivism rates are low

across all Nebraska problem solving courts. However, because recidivism rates are low, it

is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about differences across courts based on

statistical analyses.

Adult Drug Courts

We examined recidivism for all participants in adult drug court (graduated and

terminated), and conducted a separate analysis for only those who graduated. Across all

adult drug courts, less than 6% of participants recidivate in the first year after leaving the

program. There is not a significant difference across courts in the rate of recidivism

(χ

(9) = 8.359, p = .498) (see Table 7.11). Across all adult drug courts, less than 5% of

graduates recidivate in the first year after leaving the program. There is not a significant

difference across courts in the rate of recidivism (χ

(8) = 8.969, p = .345) (see Table 7.12.

Table 7.11: Recidivism Rates for Graduated/Terminated Participants in Adult Drug

Courts

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Total

Across

Courts

Recid-

ivated

3.1%

2.7%

6.5%

7.0%

4.0%

8.5%

5.7%

Did Not

Recidivate

127

96.8%

97.3%

573

93.0%

133

93.0%

100%

96.0%

91.5%

100%

1001

94.3%

Sample

Size

131

613

143

1061

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

156 | P a g e

Table 7.12: Recidivism Rates for Graduates Only in Adult Drug Courts

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska*

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Total

Across

Courts

Recid-

ivated

1.3%

5.4%

8.5%

5.6%

4.4%

Did Not

Recidivate

98.7%

100%

330

94.6%

91.5%

100%

94.4%

100%

580

95.6%

Sample

Size

349

607

*North Central Nebraska has no graduates listed in PSCMIS.

Juvenile Drug Courts

We examined recidivism for all participants in juvenile drug court (graduated and

terminated), and conducted a separate analysis for only those who graduated. There is not

a significant difference across juvenile drug courts in recidivism rate (χ

(4) = 4.686, p =

.321). The overall recidivism rate across all juvenile drug courts is 7% (see Table 7.13).

Looking at only juveniles who graduated from drug court, there is not a significant

difference across juvenile drug courts in recidivism rate (χ

(4) = 1.290, p = .863). The

overall recidivism rate of graduates across all juvenile drug courts is 6% (see Table 7.14).

Table 7.13: Recidivism Rates for Graduated/Terminated Participants in Juvenile Drug

Courts

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Total

Across

Courts

Recidivated

4.1%

7.9%

11.9%

7.0%

Did Not Recidivate

95.9%

92.1%

100%

88.1%

100%

200

93.0%

Sample Size

215

Table 7.14: Recidivism Rates for Graduates Juvenile Drug Courts

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Total

Across

Courts

Recidivated

10.5%

4.2%

5.9%

6.0%

Did Not Recidivate

89.5%

95.8%

100%

94.1%

100%

94.0%

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

157 | P a g e

Douglas County Young Adult Court

There is not a significant difference between the Douglas County Young Adult and Adult

Drug Courts in rate of recidivism (χ

(1) = 1.931, p = .165) (see Table 7.15). There is no

difference between the Douglas County Young Adult and Adult Drug Courts in rate of

recidivism for graduates (χ

(1) = 1.012, p = .314) (see Table 7.16).

Table 7.15: Recidivism Rates for Graduated/Terminated Participants in Young Adult

Court

Douglas County

Young Adult

Drug Court

Douglas County

Adult Drug Court

Recidivated

16.7%

6.5%

Did Not Recidivate

83.3%

573

93.5%

Sample Size

613

Table 7.16: Recidivism Rates for Graduates of Young Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult

Drug Court

Douglas County

Adult Drug Court

Recidivated

14.3%

5.4%

Did Not Recidivate

85.7%

330

94.6%

Sample Size

349

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

No one in either the Scotts Bluff County DUI or Adult Drug Courts has recidivated

within one year after leaving the program. A statistical comparison between these two

courts cannot be computed because of the small sample sizes. There is no difference

between the Scotts Bluff County DUI Court and all adult drug courts combined (χ

(1) =

0.958, p = .328) (see Table 7.17).

Table 7.17: Recidivism Rates for Scottsbluff DUI and Adult Drug Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Drug Court

All Adult Drug Courts

Combined

Recidivated

5.7%

Did Not Recidivate

100%

1001

94.3%

Sample Size

1061

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

158 | P a g e

Lancaster County Family Court

There is not a significant difference between the Lancaster County Family Dependency

and Adult Drug Courts in rate of recidivism (χ

(1) = 0.611, p = .435) (see Table 7.18).

Similarly there were no significant differences in recidivism for graduates of Lancaster

County Family and Adult Drug Court (see Table 7.19).

Table 7.18: Recidivism Rates for Graduated/Terminated Participants in Lancaster

County Family and Adult Drug Court

Lancaster County

Family Dependency

Court

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Recidivated

3.2%

7.0%

Did Not Recidivate

96.8%

133

93.0%

Sample Size

143

Table 7.19: Recidivism Rates for Graduated Participants in Lancaster County Family

and Adult Drug Court

Lancaster County

Family Dependency

Court

Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court

Recidivated

8.5%

Did Not Recidivate

100%

91.5%

Sample Size

Education and Employment

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from the program.

Education

There is no effect of time in program (start vs. end) on grade completed for adult

participants (F(1,935) = 0.680, p = .410). There are also no differences across drug courts

in the grade completed by participants overall (F(9,935) = 0.715, p = .695). There is no

interaction of court with time (F(9,935) = 0.871, p = .551) (see Table 7.20). We should

interpret these data with caution. We believe in some cases the grade completion entered

at intake is overwritten over time; hence the data do not accurately reflect changes in

education over time.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

159 | P a g e

Table 7.20: Highest Grade Completed for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Start of

Program:

Grade

Completed

11.91

11.51

11.75

11.86

11.56

11.69

12.01

11.93

End of

Program:

Grade

Completed

12.02

11.51

11.85

11.92

11.59

11.69

12.01

11.93

Sample

Size

579

132

For those starting an adult drug court program without a high school or GED diploma,

there is a significant main effect across time on grade completed (F(1,194) =5.502, p =

.020). Overall, participants completed additional education while they were in a drug

court program.

There is no difference across drug courts in the grade completed by participants overall

(F(7,194) = 1.725, p = .105). There is also no interaction of court with time (F(7,194) =

1.553, p = .152) (see Table 7.21). We should interpret these data with caution. We

believe in some cases the grade completion entered at intake is overwritten over time;

hence the data do not accurately reflect changes in education over time.

Table 7.21: Highest Grade Completed for Adult Drug Court Participants without a High

School or GED Diploma

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Start of

Program:

Grade

Completed

10.10

9.46

9.99

9.65

10.14

9.29

10.13

9.67

10.10

9.46

End of

Program:

Grade

Completed

10.80

9.46

10.41

10.18

10.21

9.29

10.13

9.67

10.80

9.46

Sample

Size

134

There is not a significant difference across time in whether adult participants had a high

school or GED diploma from the time they entered a program to the time they left

(F(1,935) = 1.115, p = .291). There is also not a significant interaction of court with time

(F(9,935) = 0.945, p = .485).

There is, however, a significant difference across adult drug courts in the percent of

participants with a high school or GED diploma overall (F(9,935) = 2.811, p = .003).

District 6 and Midwest courts have a significantly lower proportion of participants with a

high school or GED diploma, whether when starting or completing the program, than the

other courts (see Table 7.22).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

160 | P a g e

Table 7.22: High School/GED Completed for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Start of

Program:

Completed

HS/GED

85.9%

64.9%

76.9%

87.1%

56.3%

100%

70.8%

81.4%

100%

82.4%

End of

Program:

Completed

HS/GED

90.1%

64.9%

82.2%

90.9%

62.5%

100%

70.8%

81.4%

100%

82.4%

Sample

Size

579

132

Employment

There is a significant difference between the start and end of drug court programs in the

number of weekly employment hours worked (F(1,991) = 9.724, p = .002). Participants

on average increased the number of hours they worked per week. There is also a

significant main effect of court on the number of hours worked per week (F(9,991) =

31.402, p < .001). Central Nebraska and Lancaster County have participants that work

more hours per week than other courts, and do not differ from each other. Douglas

County has participants with the next highest number of hours worked compared to the

other courts. The remaining seven courts do not differ significantly from each other.

There is a significant interaction of time in program (start vs. end) and court (F(9,991) =

2.790, p = .003). There is no change in number of hours worked for the North Central

Nebraska and Sarpy County courts. There are significant moderate increases in the

number of hours worked by participants in the Central Nebraska, Lancaster County, and

Southeast Nebraska courts. Participants in District 6, Douglas County, Midwest

Nebraska, Northeast Nebraska, and Scotts Bluff County courts demonstrated significant

and large increases in the number of hours worked per week (see Table 7.23).

Table 7.23: Hours Worked/Week for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Start of

Program:

Hours

worked

per week

28.72

1.08

19.15

26.82

4.21

3.00

2.67

5.71

1.14

End of

Program:

Hours

worked

per week

32.42

7.84

25.88

28.10

12.47

12.20

2.67

12.57

2.29

Sample

Size

121

591

119

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

161 | P a g e

Juvenile Courts

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from the program.

Education

There is a significant difference across time in grade level for juvenile drug court

participants who completed the program (F (1,100) = 5.796, p = .018). Overall, juvenile

participants do advance in grade while in the drug court program.

There is a significant difference overall across juvenile courts in the grade level of

participants (F(4,100) = 3.181, p = .017). Participants in Sarpy County had a

significantly higher grade level overall

There is an interaction of time in program (start vs. end) and juvenile drug court (F(4,

100) = 2.471, p = .049). Participants in Lancaster County advanced significantly more

grades over time than did participants in the other juvenile drug courts. Participants in

Douglas and Sarpy County advanced somewhat, while participants in Northeast Nebraska

and Scotts Bluff County did not advance in grade. This may relate to the length of each

program (see Table 7.24). As with the adult courts, we should interpret these data with

caution. We believe in some cases the grade completion entered at intake is overwritten

over time; hence the data do not accurately reflect changes in education over time.

Table 7.24: Highest Grade Completed for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Start of Program:

Grade

Completed

9.91

9.23

9.40

10.81

9.56

End of Program:

Grade

Completed

10.31

11.44

9.50

11.63

9.56

Sample size

Employment

There is not a significant difference across time in the number of hours worked per week

by participants in Nebraska’s juvenile drug courts (F(1,87)=2.496, p =.118). There is also

not a significant difference overall across courts (F(4,87) = .0605, p = .660). There is not

a significant interaction between time (start vs. end of program) and court (F(4, 87) =

1.848, p = .127) (see Table 7.25).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

162 | P a g e

Table 7.25: Hours Worked/Week for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Start of Program:

Hours worked per week

1.18

1.07

2.27

1.48

0.00

End of Program:

Hours worked per week

1.18

4.82

2.27

2.78

0.00

Sample size

Young Adult Court

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from the program.

Education

There is no difference overall in the grades completed by participants between the

Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (F

(1, 586) = 0.030, p = .862). There is also no significant change across time for the

participants in these courts overall (F(1,586) = 1.897, p = .169). There is no interaction

of type of court and time on the grade completed (F(1,586) = 0.004, p = .169) (see Table

7.26).

Table 7.26: Highest Grade Completed for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Start of Program: Grade

Completed

11.75

11.67

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

11.85

11.79

Sample Size

579

For those without a high school or GED diploma when starting a drug court program,

there is no difference overall in the grades completed by participants between the

Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1 ,133) = 0.041, p = .839). There is also no significant change across time for the

participants in these courts overall (F(1,133) = 0.234, p = .630). There is no interaction

of type of court and time on the grade completed (F(1,133) = 0.234, p = .630) (see Table

7.27).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

163 | P a g e

Table 7.27: Highest Grade Completed for Young Adult Court Participants without a

High School or GED Diploma

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Start of Program:

Grade Completed

9.99

10.00

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

10.41

10.00

Sample Size

134

There is no difference in the education level (defined as high school/GED vs. no high

school/GED) attained by participants overall between the Douglas County Adult Drug

Court and the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (F(1,586) = 0.520, p = .471).

There is also no significant change overall in education level attained between the start

and end of the programs (F(1,586) = 0.507, p = .477), and no interaction of court type

with time (F (1,586) = .0.507, p = .477) (see Table 7.28).

Table 7.28: High School/GED Completed for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County Young Adult

Court

Start of Program:

Completed HS/GED

76.86%

88.89%

End of Program:

Completed HS/GED

82.21%

88.89%

Sample Size

579

Employment

There is a significant difference between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the

Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court in the hours per week worked by participants

overall (F(1,601) = 5.128, p < .001). Participants in the Adult Drug Court work

significantly more hours than participants in the Young Adult Drug Court.

There is not a significant difference across time in the number of hours worked per week

(F(1,601) = 2.845, p = .092). There is also not a significant interaction of type of court

and time (F(1,601) = 1.034, p = .310) (see Table 7.29).

Table 7.29: Hours Worked/Week for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Start of Program:

Hours worked per week

19.15

10.67

End of Program:

Hours worked per week

25.88

12.33

Sample Size

591

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

164 | P a g e

Driving Under the Influence Court

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from the program.

Education

There is no significant difference in overall grade completed between the Scotts Bluff

County Adult Drug Court and DUI Court (F(1,21) = 0.212, p = .650, Mse = 10.118).

Analyses comparing the courts across time could not be conducted because there is no

change in grade completed across time (see Table 7.30).

Table 7.30: Highest Grade Completed for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Start of Program: Grade

Completed

12.00

12.47

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

12.00

12.47

Sample Size

Analysis of change in grade over time for those starting the program without a high

school or GED diploma could not be conducted because there are no participants in the

Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court who started the program without this diploma (see

Table 7.31).

Table 7.31: Highest Grade Completed for DUI Court Participants without a High School

or GED Diploma

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Start of Program: Grade

Completed

9.00

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

9.00

Sample Size

There is no significant difference overall education level (high school or GED diploma

vs. no high school or GED diploma) overall between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug

Court and DUI Court (F(1,21) = 0.913, p = .350). Analyses comparing the courts across

time could not be conducted because there is no change in grade completed across time

(see Table 7.32).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

165 | P a g e

Table 7.32: High School/GED Completed for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Start of Program:

Completed HS/GED

100%

87.5%

End of Program:

Completed HS/GED

100%

87.5%

Sample Size

Employment

There is no difference between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts

Bluff County DUI Court overall (F(1,21) = 1.460, p = .240) or over time (F(1,21) =

2.435, p = .134). Also, there is no difference between the initial and final LS/CMI levels

across courts (i.e, no interaction; F(1,21) = 2.435, p = .134) (see Table 7.33).

Table 7.33: Hours Worked/Week for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Start of Program:

Hours worked per week

5.71

2.50

End of Program:

Hours worked per week

12.57

2.50

Sample Size

Family Drug Court

All of the following analyses were conducted using only those who graduated or were

terminated from the program.

Education

There is no difference overall in the grades completed by participants between the

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Dependency Court

(F (1, 136) = 2.200, p = .140). There is also no significant change across time for the

participants in these courts overall (F(1,136) = 0.170, p = .681). There is no interaction

of type of court and time on the grade completed (F(1,136) = 0.170, p = .681 (see Table

7.34).

Table 7.34: Highest Grade Completed for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Start of Program: Grade

Completed

11.86

11.17

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

11.92

11.17

Sample Size

132

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

166 | P a g e

For those without a high school or GED diploma when starting a drug court program,

there is no difference overall in the grades completed by participants between the

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Dependency Court

(F(1 ,18) = 0.326, p = .575). There is also no significant change across time for the

participants in these courts overall (F(1,18) = 0.746, p = .399). There is no interaction of

type of court and time on the grade completed (F(1,18) = 0.746, p = .399) (see Table

7.35).

Table 7.35: Highest Grade Completed for Family Drug Court Participants without a

High School or GED Diploma

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Start of Program: Grade

Completed

9.65

10.33

Ending of Program:

Grade Completed

10.18

10.33

Sample Size

There is a difference in the education level (defined as high school/GED vs. no high

school/GED) attained by participants overall between the Lancaster County Adult Drug

Court and the Lancaster County Family Dependency Court (F(1,136) = 9.030, p = .003).

Those in the Adult Drug Court are more likely to have a high school or GED diploma

than those in the Family Dependency Court.

There is no significant change overall in education level attained between the start and

end of the programs (F(1,136) = 0.233, p = .630), and no interaction of court type with

time (F(1,136) = 0.233, p = .630) (see Table 7.36).

Table 7.36: High School/GED Completed for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Start of Program:

Completed HS/GED

86.63%

55.56%

End of Program:

Completed HS/GED

90.09%

55.56%

Sample Size

132

Employment

There is a significant difference in the number of hours worked per week overall between

participants in the Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family

Dependency Court (F(1,124) = 21.812, p < .001). Those in the Adult Drug Court work

more hours per week than those in the Family Dependency Court.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

167 | P a g e

There is no significant change overall in hours worked per week between the start and

end of the programs (F(1,124) = 0.115, p = .735), and no interaction of court type with

time (F(1,124) = 0.115, p = .735) (see Table 7.37).

Table 7.37: Hours Worked/Week for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Start of Program:

Hours worked per week

26.82

0.00

End of Program:

Hours worked per week

28.101

0.00

Sample Size

119

Change in Drug Tests

Adult Drug Courts

Drug Tests

There is a significant difference across adult drug courts in the percent of positive drug

tests per participant (F(9,990) = 31.815, p < .001). Douglas County and North Central

Nebraska have participants with significantly higher rates of positive drug tests than do

the other courts, but do not differ from each other (see Table 7.38).

Table 7.38: Positive Drug Test Results for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Percent

Positive

Drug

Tests

2.49%

0.67%

25.76%

5.42%

1.21%

36.61%

2.66%

0.34%

0.00%

6.93%

Sample

Size

130

601

143

Comparison of Positive Drug Tests in First Three Versus Last Three Months

There is a significant decrease in the number of positive drug tests between the first 3

months and last 3 months of adult drug court programs (F(1,796) = 9.072, p = .003).

There is also a significant main effect of court on the overall positive drug tests (F(9,796)

= 9.034, p < .001). North Central Nebraska participants have the most positive drug tests

in both the first and last three months of the program, followed by Douglas County, and

then by Lancaster County and Southeast Nebraska.

There is a significant interaction of court with time in program (first 3 months vs. last 3

months; F(9,796) = 3.368, p < .001). Given that North Central Nebraska participants had

the most positive drug tests in the first three months, they had the biggest room for

improvement, and they did achieve the largest drop in positive drug tests between the

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

168 | P a g e

first 3 and last 3 months in the program. The next biggest decreases were seen in the

other courts that started with the highest number of positive drug tests: Douglas County,

Lancaster County, and Southeast Nebraska (see Table 7.39).

Table 7.39: Positive Drug Test Results for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

First 3

Months:

Positive

Drug

Tests

1.32

0.54

3.73

2.85

0.38

9.00

1.00

0.14

0.00

2.33

Last 3

Months:

Positive

Drug

Tests

0.14

0.04

0.86

0.44

0.00

2.00

0.14

0.05

0.00

0.60

Sample

Size

109

488

106

Juvenile Drug Courts

Drug Tests

There is not a significant difference in the percentage of positive drug tests per participant

across juvenile drug courts in Nebraska (F(4,144) = 0.556, p = .695) (see Table 7.40).

Table 7.40: Positive Drug Test Results for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Percent Positive Drug Tests

4.04%

7.61%

4.20%

3.43%

4.41%

Sample size

Comparison of Positive Drug Tests in First Three Versus Last Three Months

There is a significant effect of time (first 3 months vs. last 3 months) on the number of

positive drug tests (F(1,102) = 4.203, p = .043). Participants have significantly fewer

positive drug tests in their last 3 months in the program than in their first three months.

There is not a significant difference across courts in the number of positive drug tests

(F(4, 102) = 1.605, p = .179). There is also not a significant interaction of time and

court (F(4,102) = 1.667, p = .164) (see Table 7.41).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

169 | P a g e

Table 7.41: Positive Drug Test Results for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

First 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

0.68

0.53

1.43

0.83

0.00

Last 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

0.66

0.37

0.29

0.04

0.00

Sample size

Young Adult Court

Drug Tests

Participants in the Douglas County Adult Drug Court have a higher percentage of

positive drug tests than participants in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court

(F(1,606) = 7.198, p = .007). This is because no one in the young adult court with drug

test result information has any positive drug tests (see Table 7.42).

Table 7.42: Positive Drug Test Results for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County Adult

Court

Douglas County Young

Adult Court

Average Percent

2.58%

Sample Size

601

Comparison of Positive Drug Tests in First Three Versus Last Three Months

There is a significant difference between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the

Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court in positive drug tests overall (F(1,493) =

5.818, p = .016). Participants in the Adult Drug Court have significantly more positive

drug tests than participants in the Young Adult Drug Court.

There is not a significant difference across time in the number of positive drug tests

(F(1,493) = 2.643, p = .105). There is also not a significant interaction of type of court

and time (F(1,493) = 2.643, p = .105) (see Table 7.43).

Table 7.43: Positive Drug Test Results for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

First 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

3.73

0.00

Last 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

0.86

0.00

Sample Size

488

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

170 | P a g e

DUI Court

Analysis of both the percent of positive drug tests across courts, and change in positive

drug tests from the first 3 to the last 3 months in program is unavailable because the 10

total participants in the two courts with drug test result data have no positive drug tests.

Family Drug Court

Drug Tests

Lancaster County Adult Drug Court and Lancaster County Family Dependency Court

participants did not differ in the percent of positive drug tests they had during the

program (F(1, 163) = 0.890, p = .347) (see Table 7.44).

Table 7.44: Positive Drug Test Results for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

Average Percent

5.42%

2.83%

Sample Size

143

Comparison of Positive Drug Tests in First Three Versus Last Three Months

There is no difference overall in the positive drug tests between the Lancaster County

Adult Drug Court and the Lancaster County Family Dependency Court (F(1,115) =

1.063, p = .305). There is also no significant change across time in positive drug tests for

the participants in these courts overall (F(1,115) = 2.836, p = .095). There is no

interaction of type of court and time on positive drug tests (F(1,115) = 0.578, p = .443)

(see Table 7.45).

Table 7.45: Positive Drug Test Results for Family Drug Court Participants

Lancaster County

Adult Court

Lancaster County

Family Court

First 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

2.85

1.09

Last 3 Months:

Positive Drug Tests

0.44

0.18

Sample Size

106

Change in Risk Levels

Adult Drug Courts

LS/CMI

For those with data for more than one LS/CMI administration time, the initial and final

levels were compared. There is a significant difference in LS/CMI level overall across

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

171 | P a g e

courts (F(8,224) = 4.676, p < .001). Lancaster County participants have the highest

average LS/CMI level both at initial and final testing. District 6 has the next highest

average score, and does not differ significantly from Lancaster County. The other eight

courts group together.

Across all adult courts, there is a significant decrease in LS/CMI level (F(1,224) =

136.485, p < .001). There is no significant interaction of court by LS/CMI level across

time (F(8,224) = 1.663, p = .109). All courts show a decrease in LS/CMI level (see Table

7.46).

Table 7.46: Change in Risk Level for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

*North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Initial

Mean

3.41

3.95

3.79

4.23

3.79

3.35

3.58

3.33

3.76

Final

Mean

2.53

2.90

2.56

3.40

2.86

2.50

2.12

2.67

2.88

Sample

Size

*North Central Nebraska did not have any participants with data for this analysis.

LS/CMI Total Score

For those with data for more than one LS/CMI administration time, the initial and final

total scores were compared. Across all adult courts, there is a significant decrease in

LS/CMI score (F(1,233) = 168.428, p < .001).

There is a significant difference in LS/CMI score overall across courts (F(8,233) = 4.698,

p < .001). Lancaster County participants have the highest average LS/CMI score both at

initial and final testing. There is also a significant interaction of court by LS/CMI score

across time (F(8,233) = 2.047, p = .042). Sarpy County participants experience the largest

decrease in LS/CMI score, on average, followed by Douglas County. Southeast

Nebraska participants experience the smallest decrease in LS/CMI scores, followed by

Lancaster County. Participants in the other six courts tend have about the same average

decrease in LS/CMI score (see Table 7.47).

Table 7.47: Change in Risk Score for Adult Drug Court Participants

Central

Nebraska

District

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Midwest

Nebraska

*North

Central

Nebraska

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts

Bluff

County

Southeast

Nebraska

Initial

Mean

18.88

24.41

22.08

26.07

22.14

18.45

20.27

21.00

20.97

Final

Mean

11.18

14.77

12.00

19.47

13.79

10.95

8.88

13.00

15.22

Sample

Size

*North Central Nebraska does not have any participants with data for this analysis.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

172 | P a g e

Juvenile Courts

YLS/CMI

For those with data for more than one YLS/CMI administration time, the initial and final

levels were compared. There is a significant difference in YLS/CMI level overall across

juvenile courts (F(4,85) = 3.742, p = .007). Scotts Bluff County has participants with the

highest YLS/CMI levels overall, and does not differ from Douglas County and Northeast

Nebraska. Sarpy County has participants with the second lowest YLS/CMI levels

compared to the other juvenile courts. Participants in Lancaster County have the lowest

YLS/CMI levels.

There is not a significant difference overall between initial and final YLS/CMI levels

(F(1,85) = 1.377, p = .244). However, there is an interaction between court and time of

administration (initial or final) (F(4,85) = 5.516, p = .001). Participants’ YLS/CMI levels

decreased in the Douglas County, Lancaster County, and Sarpy County juvenile drug

courts. In Northeast Nebraska, there is no change in YLS/CMI level, and in Scotts Bluff

County, the YLS/CMI level increased. These latter two courts, along with Lancaster

County, have few participants with more than one YLS/CMI administration time, and

may not be representative of all participants in these courts (see Table 7.48).

Table 7.48: Change in Risk Level for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Initial Mean

2.47

1.83

2.00

2.56

2.40

Final Mean

2.30

1.67

2.00

1.76

2.80

Sample size

YLS/CMI Total Score

For those with data for more than one YLS/CMI administration time, the initial and final

total scores were compared. There is a significant difference in YLS/CMI score overall

across juvenile courts (F(4,86) = 4.103, p = .004). Scotts Bluff County has participants

with the highest YLS/CMI scores overall, and does not differ from Douglas County.

Participants in Lancaster County have significantly lower YLS/CMI scores than Scotts

Bluff County, Douglas County, and Sarpy County juvenile drug courts.

There is not a significant difference overall between initial and final YLS/CMI scores

(F(1,8586 = 0.968, p = .328). However, there is a significant interaction between court

and time of administration (initial or final; F(4,86) = 4.909, p = .001). Participants’

YLS/CMI scores decreased in Sarpy County more than in the other juvenile drug courts.

In Lancaster County, there is no change in YLS/CMI score, and in Scotts Bluff County

and Northeast Nebraska, the YLS/CMI score increased. These latter two courts, along

with Lancaster County, have few participants with more than one YLS/CMI

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

173 | P a g e

administration time, and may not be representative of all participants in these courts (see

Table 7.49).

Table 7.49: Change in Risk Score for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Douglas

County

Lancaster

County

Northeast

Nebraska

Sarpy

County

Scotts Bluff

County

Initial Mean

19.80

11.17

14.25

21.13

19.67

Final Mean

16.27

11.33

16.00

12.62

23.17

Sample size

Young Adult Court

LS/CMI

Analysis of initial and final LS/CMI level for the Adult Drug Court and the Young Adult

Drug Court shows that there is no difference between the two types of drug courts in

LS/CMI levels, either overall (F(1,78) = 0.566, p = .454, Mse = 1.272) or across time

(F(1 ,78) = 0.899, p = .346, Mse = 0.579). However, there is a difference between the

initial and final LS/CMI levels for both courts (F(1,78) = 5.043, p = .028, Mse = 0.579).

The initial levels were significantly higher than final levels (see Table 7.50).

Table 7.50: Change in Risk Level for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Initial Mean

3.79

3.00

Final Mean

2.56

2.50

Sample Size

LS/CMI Total Score

There is no difference between the Douglas County Adult Drug Court and the Young

Adult Drug Court in LS/CMI score overall (F(1,78) = 0.531, p = .468), or across time

(F(1,78) = 1.511, p = .223. However, in both courts there is a significant difference over

time in the LS/CMI score (F(1,78) = 4.162, p = .045). The initial scores are significantly

higher than final scores in these courts (see Table 7.51).

Table 7.51: Change in Risk Score for Young Adult Court Participants

Douglas County

Adult Court

Douglas County

Young Adult Court

Initial Mean

22.08

15.00

Final Mean

12.00

12.50

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

174 | P a g e

Driving Under the Influence Court

LS/CMI

There is no difference between the Scotts Bluff County Adult Drug Court and the Scotts

Bluff County DUI Court overall (F(1,7) = 1.132, p = .323) or over time (F(1,7) = 1.000, p

= .351). Also, there is no difference between the initial and final LS/CMI levels across

courts (F(1,7) = 2.778, p = .140). The low number of participants in this analysis may

have contributed to the lack of significant findings (see Table 7.52).

Table 7.52: Change in Risk Level for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Initial Mean

3.33

3.67

Final Mean

2.67

3.50

Sample Size

LS/CMI Total Score

There is no difference between the two types of drug courts in LS/CMI scores, either

overall (F(1,7) = 0.514, p = .497) or across time (F(1 ,7) = 0.944, p = .364). There is also

not a significant difference between the initial and final LS/CMI scores (F(1,7) = 2.866, p

= .134) (see Table 7.53).

Table 7.53: Change in Risk Score for DUI Court Participants

Scotts Bluff County

Adult Court

Scotts Bluff County

DUI Court

Initial Mean

21.00

21.33

Final Mean

13.00

19.17

Sample Size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

175 | P a g e

Although not one of the primary evaluation questions, we examined recidivism for

problem solving courts in Nebraska. For this analysis, we used the following definition of

recidivism:

Recidivism must occur after program exit. This performance measure counts the

incidence of post-program recidivism (i.e., whether recidivism occurred, yes or no)

and not the number of recidivistic events. For adult courts, post-program

recidivism is defined as an arrest that occurs after program exit for a new offense if,

and only if, that arrest eventually results in a conviction for a felony, drug/alcohol-

related misdemeanor, or DUI offense (excluding traffic offenses other than DUI).

For practical purposes and to get a large enough sample size, we used a one year time

frame for arrest after a person left a problem solving court. For comparison groups, we

used individuals on probation who were matched based on criminal offense and risk level

within four jurisdictions; Douglas County, Lancaster County, Sarpy County, and rural

courts (counties served by all other adult drug courts). It should be noted that the

comparison groups are not ideal. There are likely factors for which we could not match,

that resulted in some offenders being placed on probation and others being accepted into

drug court. In addition, even though we tried to match the two groups based on level of

risk, the drug court participants averaged a higher risk level than the individuals on

probation. Therefore, we urge caution in interpreting the results of the recidivism

component of the evaluation. Given the differences between the drug court and

comparison group, we would not anticipate equivalent recidivism rates. Nevertheless, we

believe it beneficial to examine similarities and differences between the two groups.

All of the following analyses were conducted using only adults who either successfully or

unsuccessfully completed adult drug court or probation (in the same counties served by

problem-solving courts). Recidivism was defined as those who were arrested within one

year of leaving a problem-solving court program, and were subsequently convicted of a

felony or drug-related misdemeanor. DUI convictions were included as a “drug-related

misdemeanor”.

The probation sample is the same as that used in the Disparity Study. Recidivism for

probationers was identified using the same method as that described earlier for problem-

solving court participants, except that driver’s license number was not available to use for

identifying recidivists. This means that fewer recidivists are likely to have been identified

for the probation sample than if driver’s license number had been available. This may

lead to a lower apparent recidivism rate for the probation sample than if driver’s license

number were available.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

176 | P a g e

Adult Drug Courts

Because of the sample sizes available, it is not possible to compare individual problem-

solving courts to probation in the same geographic area. Therefore, all adult drug courts

are compared to all adult probationers selected for this study.

Given that drug courts typically target a higher risk population than probation, an

ANOVA was performed to determine whether the adult drug court participants had a

higher initial LS/CMI level than probationers in this sample. Despite selection of

probationers scoring at an LS/CMI level of Medium or higher to match the predominant

levels present in the drug court sample, adult drug court participants still had a

significantly higher initial LS/CMI score than the probation participants (M = 3.91 for

adult drug courts; and M = 3.78 for probation; F(1,916) = 5.279, p = .022).

There is a difference between the two types of courts in recidivism rate when successful

vs. unsuccessful completion is taken into account. For adult drug court participants,

those who successfully completed the program were less likely to recidivate than those

who did not graduate (x2(1) = 3.938, p = .047). For the probationers, successful

completion of the program had no impact on recidivism (x2(1) = 1.052, p = .305) (see

Table 10.1). An exact comparison cannot be made between recidivism rates for adult

drug courts in Nebraska and national recidivism results because recidivism studies use

different populations and different measures of recidivism. However, it does appear that

Nebraska recidivism rates appear to be roughly consistent with national estimates.

Table 8.1: Recidivism Rates for Adult Drug Court Participants and Individuals on

Probation

Adult Drug Courts

Probation

Successful

Completion

(Graduated)

Unsuccessful

Completion

(Terminated)

Successful

Completion

Unsuccessful

Completion

Recidivated

4.5%

7.3%

4.1%

6.0%

Did Not Recidivate

577

95.5%

417

92.7%

258

95.9%

283

94.0%

Sample Size

604

450

269

301

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

A sample of DUI offenders in Scotts Bluff County who entered and completed probation

during the study period were examined, and recidivists identified. The Scotts Bluff

County DUI Court does not have enough participants to allow for statistical comparison

to this probation DUI sample. Recidivism rates are presented in Table 10.2.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

177 | P a g e

Table 8.2: Recidivism Rates for Scotts Bluff DUI Court Participants and DUI Offenders

on Probation

Scotts Bluff County DUI Court

Scotts Bluff County Probation

– DUI Offenders

Successful

Completion

(Graduated)

Unsuccessful

Completion

(Terminated)

Successful

Completion

Unsuccessful

Completion

Recidivated

4.5%

6.2%

Did Not Recidivate

100%

258

95.5%

121

93.8%

Sample Size

178

129

Sample sizes for Juvenile Drug Courts, Young Adult Court, and Family Drug Court were

not large enough to conduct statistical analyses.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

178 | P a g e

Predictive Analysis for Adult Drug Courts

We examined factors in the Problem Solving Court Management Information System that

could be associated with success and failure in adult problem solving courts. The purpose

of this analysis is not to identify groups to exclude from problem solving courts, but

rather to identify groups that may currently be less successful in an attempt to identify

possible strategies that may be more effective. The primary dependent variables

(indicators of success) were 1) whether a participant graduated from drug court and 2)

whether a participant reoffended after leaving problem solving court. Therefore, we only

included individuals in the analysis who graduated or terminated/withdrew from drug

court.

We used the following independent variables (predictors) for this analysis (for many of

the variables, we needed to collapse categories to have a sufficient number of participants

in each category):

 Demographics and social functioning:

o Age;

o Gender;

o Race/ Ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, Other);

o Marital Status (married/cohabitating vs.

single/divorced/separated/widowed);

o Grade level attained at start of program (high school degree/GED vs. no

degree or GED);

o Hours worked per week

 Assessments and Drug History:

o Initial Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) Level total

score, and sub-scores;

o Count of total drugs used;

o Primary drug of choice (depressants, opioids/narcotics, stimulants, and

marijuana)

 Program Variables:

o Total number of problem solving court hearings;

o Sanctions per Month;

o Incentives per Month;

o Drug Tests per Month;

o Number of months in program

 Indicators of Success:

o Change in education level;

o Change in hours of employment;

o Change in LS/CMI level or sub-scores;

o Percent of drug tests positive;

o Change in positive drug tests from first 3 months to last 3 months

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

179 | P a g e

PREDICTORS OF GRADUATION

Predictive Analysis for Adult Drug Courts

Demographics and Social Functioning

Both age when starting a drug court program, and hours worked per week, are

significantly related to program completion status. The older a person is when starting a

drug court program, the more likely they are to graduate (r(1031) = 0.152, p < .001). This

finding confirms previous research (e.g., Butzin, Saum, & Scarpitti, 2002). Also, the

more hours per week a person works when starting a program, the more likely they are to

graduate (r(1005) = 0.114, p < .001) (see Table 9.1).

Table 9.1: Age and Hour/Week as Predictors of Graduation for Adult Court

Participants

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.152*

0.114*

p-value

< .001

Sample size

1032

1006

*Significant relationship

Although some national studies have found females more likely to succeed in drug court

than males (Marlowe et al. 2005; Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008), we did not find a

relationship between gender and outcomes. Education level when entering a drug court

program has a significant relationship with program completion status (χ

(1) = 10.705, p

= .001). Those who have a high school or GED diploma when starting a program are

more likely to graduate. Gender and marital status when entering a program are not

related to program completion (see Table 9.2).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

180 | P a g e

Table 9.2: Gender, Marital Status and Education Level as Predictors of Graduation for

Adult Court Participants

Gender

Marital Status

Education Level

Male

Female

Not Married/

Cohabitating

Married/

Cohabitating

No High

School or

GED

Diploma

High

School or

GED

Diploma

Percent Graduating

57.2%

56.9%

62.3%

49.0%

61.8%

p-value

.988

.219

.001*

Sample size

1061

986

945

*Significant relationship

Ethnicity does have a significant relationship with program completion (F(3,1056) =

10.778, p < .001). Those of white/Caucasian and Hispanic ethnicities are more likely to

graduate than those of black/ African-American ethnicity or other ethnicity groups (see

Table 9.3).

Table 9.3: Race/Ethnicity as Predictors of Graduation for Adult Court Participants

White/ Caucasian

Black/

African-American

Hispanic

Other*

Percent Graduating

61.6%

40.9%

65.5%

44.9%

Group Size

760

193

* The ‘Other’ category is approximately half Native American, 15% Asian, and 35% un-

identified ethnicity groups.

Charges and Drug History

The greater the number of kinds of drugs used by the start of an adult drug court program,

the more likely a person is to not graduate (r(476) = -0.209, p < .001). Neither charged

nor admitted offense class relate to program completion status (see Table 9.4).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

181 | P a g e

Table 9.4: Offense Class and Drugs Used as Predictors of Graduation for Adult Court

Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

-0.014

-0.001

-0.209*

p-value

.724

.978

<.001

Sample size

628

630

477

Drug of choice is not significantly related to program completion status (F(4,472) =

1.824, p = .123) (see Table 9.5). This finding is in accordance with some research (e.g.,

Koetzle Schaffer, Hartman, Johnson Listwan, Howell, & Latessa, 2011) but conflicts

with other research (e.g., Miller & Shutt, 2001; Taxman & Bouffard, 2003).

Table 9.5: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Graduation for Adult Court Participants

Opioid/

Narcotic

Stimulant

Depressant

Marijuana

Other*

Percent

Graduating

40.6%

56.4%

69.0%

60.3%

37.5%

Group Size

234

174

*Includes primarily those who prefer Hallucinogens.

Initial Assessments

Several of the initial assessments are related to program completion status. SRARF level

of risk, but not SSI level, is related to program completion (r(336) = -0.313, p < .001).

Both LS/CMI Total Score, and Level, are related to program completion, as are all sub-

scores except Leisure/Recreation (LR; see table below for correlations and p-values) (see

Table 9.6).

Table 9.6: Initial SSI, SRARF, and LS/CMI Scores as Predictors of Graduation for Adult

Court Participants

SSI

Level

SRARF

Level Of

Risk

LS/CMI

Level

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

ADP

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

-.021

-.313*

-.417*

-.468*

-.184*

-.390*

-.216*

-.051

-.314*

-.286*

-.374*

-.388*

p-value

.695

<.001

.336

<.001

Sample size

341

337

352

355

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

182 | P a g e

Program Characteristics

Several programming components are related to successful program completion. The

number of PSC hearings, sanctions, incentives, and drug tests per month are all

negatively correlated with program completion status. The more of these components per

month, the less likely a person is to graduate (see table below for correlations and p-

values). Also, the longer a person is in the program, the more likely they are to graduate

(r(1025) = 0.543, p < .001) (see Table 9.7). We believe the primary reason for the

relationship between these factors and outcomes is that the number of hearings, sanctions,

incentives, and drug tests tend to be more frequent early in the program; since terminated

persons spend less time in the program, they do not experience the gradual reduction in

these factors in the same way as individuals who graduate.

Table 9.7: Time to Start, PSC Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, and Drug Tests as

Predictors of Graduation for Adult Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program

Start

PSC

Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

Program

Completion Status

0.009

-0.338*

-0.344*

-0.190*

-0.275*

0.543*

p-value

.827

< .001

Sample size

592

975

649

651

992

1026

Indicators of Success

Change in education level is significantly related to program completion status. Those

who get a high school or GED diploma while in a drug court program are more likely to

graduate (r(944) = 0.111, p = .001).

Also, the percent of positive drug tests while in a drug court program is significantly

related to program completion status. The fewer positive drug tests a person has, the

more likely they are to graduate (r(999) = -0.326, p < .001). Change in positive drug tests

from the first three to the last three months in the program does not relate to program

completion status (see Table 9.8).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

183 | P a g e

Table 9.8: Education, Hours Worked, Positive Drug Tests as Predictors of Graduation

for Adult Court Participants

Change in

Education Level

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

0.111*

0.035

-0.326*

-0.066

p-value

.001

.265

< .001

.060

Sample size

945

1001

1000

806

Change in both the LS/CMI level and LS/CMI total score are related to program

completion status. The more a person’s LS/CMI level or score decreases, the more likely

they are to graduate. Also, three LS/CMI sub-scores have this same relationship with

program completion status: Alcohol and Drug Problems (ADP), Antisocial Patterns (AP),

and Leisure/Recreation (LR) (see Table 9.9).

Table 9.9: Change in LS/CMI and Sub-Scores as Predictors of Graduation for Adult

Court Participants

Change IN:

LS/CMI

Level

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

ADP

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with Program

Completion

Status

-0.281*

-0.293*

-0.125

-0.091

-0.058

-0.343*

-0.124

-0.343*

-0.029

-0.171*

p-value

<.001

.052

.160

.367

<.001

.054

<.001

.652

.008

Sample size

233

242

Predictive Analysis for Juvenile Drug Courts

We examined factors in the Problem Solving Court Management Information System

(PSCMIS) that could be associated with success and failure in juvenile problem solving

courts. As with the analysis for adult courts, the purpose of this analysis for juvenile

courts is not to identify groups to exclude from problem solving courts, but rather to

identify groups that may currently be less successful in an attempt to identify possible

strategies that may be more effective. The dependent variable (indicator of success) for

this analysis was whether a participant graduated from drug court. Therefore, we only

included individuals in the analysis who graduated or terminated/withdrew from drug

court.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

184 | P a g e

We used the following independent variables (predictors) for this analysis (for many of

the variables, we needed to collapse categories to have a sufficient number of participants

in each category):

 Demographics and social functioning:

o Age;

o Gender;

o Race/ Ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, Other);

o Marital Status;

o Grade level attained at start of program (high school degree/GED vs. no

degree or GED);

o Hours worked per week

 Assessments and Drug History:

o Initial Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)

Level, total score and sub-scores;

o Count of total drugs used;

o Primary drug of choice (depressants, opioids/narcotics, stimulants, and

marijuana)

 Program Variables:

o Weeks from arrest to program start;

o Total number of problem solving court hearings;

o Sanctions per Month;

o Incentives per Month;

o Drug Tests per Month;

o Number of months in program

 Indicators of Success:

o Change in education level;

o Change in hours of employment;

o Change in YLS/CMI level, total score and sub-scores;

o Percent of drug tests positive;

o Change in positive drug tests from first 3 months to last 3 months

Demographics and Social Functioning

For juveniles, grade at the start of a drug court program is significantly related to program

completion status. The higher a juvenile’s grade when starting a drug court program, the

more likely they are to graduate (r(104) = 0.273, p = .005) (see Table 9.10).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

185 | P a g e

Table 9.10: Age, Grade, and Hour/Week as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile Drug

Court Participants

Age at

Program Start

Grade

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.040

0.273*

-0.008

p-value

.559

.005

.903

Sample size

214

105

215

*Significant relationship

Gender is not related to program completion status. Marital status was not analyzed for

juveniles because all juveniles are single (see Table 9.11).

Table 9.11: Gender as Predictor of Graduation for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Gender

Male

Female

Percent Graduating

38.3%

p-value

.902

Sample size

215

*Significant relationship

Race/Ethnicity does have a significant relationship with program completion (F(3,211) =

3.527, p = .016). Juveniles of white/Caucasian ethnicity are more likely to graduate than

juveniles of black/ African-American ethnicity. There are no other differences among

ethnic groups (see Table 9.12).

Table 9.12: Race/Ethnicity as Predictor of Graduation for Juvenile Drug Court

Participants

White/ Caucasian

Black/

African-American

Hispanic

Other*

Percent Graduating

45.7%

18.8%

23.5%

33.3%

Group Size

151

*The ‘Other’ category is approximately half Native American, 15% Asian, and 35% un-identified

ethnicity groups.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

186 | P a g e

Charges and Drug History

Charged or admitted offense class, and number of kinds of drugs used prior to starting a

drug court program, do not relate to program completion status (see Table 9.13).

Table 9.13: Offense Class and Drugs Used as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile Drug

Court Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.039

0.042

-0.043

p-value

.669

.637

.752

Sample size

121

128

Drug of choice is not significantly related to program completion status (F(4,51) = 0.673,

p = .614). This is possibly due to a lack of range of preferred drugs in the juvenile sample

(see Table 9.14). It is also likely due to the small sample size. Much of the data prior to

2009 was apparently not converted to the new system; hence the sample size we had

available for analysis was low.

Table 9.14: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Graduation for Juvenile Drug Court

Participants

Opioid/

Narcotic

Stimulant

Depressant*

Marijuana

Other

Percent

Graduating

0.0%

41.9%

44.4%

0.0%

Group Size

*Includes alcohol

Initial Assessments

None of the initial SSI, SRARF, Juvenile Screening Instrument, or ACDI assessments is

related to program completion status (see Table 9.15 for correlations and p-values).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

187 | P a g e

Table 9.15: SSI, SRARF, JSI, and ACDI scores as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile

Drug Court Participants

SSI

Level

SRARF

Level

Of Risk

JSI

Total

Score

ACDI

Truth

ACDI

Alcohol

ACDI

Drugs

ACDI

Violence

ACDI

Distress

ACDI

Adjustment

ACDI

Stress

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

-0.048

-0.211

-0.104

0.056

0.243

0.291

-0.301

-0.369

-0.378

-0.299

p-value

.693

.080

.483

.789

.241

.159

.143

.070

.062

.146

Sample size

Both the initial YLS/CMI level and total score are significantly related to program

completion status. Juveniles with lower initial scores for either are more likely to

graduate. Several of the YLS/CMI sub-scores have the same relationship with program

completion status including Education (EE), Family (FCP), Personality/Behavior (PB),

Leisure/Recreation (LR) and Attitudes/Orientation (AO). The initial score related to

Family was a particularly strong indicator of graduation. Only Prior and Current Offenses

(PCO), Peers (PR), and, interestingly, Substance Abuse (SA) are not related to program

completion (see Table 9.16).

Table 9.16: Initial YLS/CMI and Sub-Scores as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile

Drug Court Participants

YLS/CMI

Level

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

PCO

Score

YLS/CMI

FCP

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

-0.280*

-0.105

-0.316*

-0.215*

-0.039

-0.062

-0.183*

-0.182*

-0.240*

p-value

.002

.256

< .001

.018

.669

.499

.045

.046

.008

Sample size

120

Program Characteristics

Several programming components are related to successful program completion. The

number of PSC hearings and sanctions per month are negatively correlated with program

completion status. The more of these components per month, the less likely a person is to

graduate (see table below for correlations and p-values).

For juveniles, the more incentives per month, the more likely they are to graduate (r(109)

= 0.339, p < .001). Also, the longer a juvenile is in the program, the more likely they are

to graduate (r(213) = 0.202, p = .003) (see Table 9.17).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

188 | P a g e

Table 9.17: Time to Start, PSC Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, Drug Tests and Months

in Program as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program Start

PSC Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

-0.054

-0.196*

-0.239*

0.339*

-0.157

0.202*

p-value

.565

.045

.012

< .001

.056

.003

Sample size

116

105

110

149

214

Indicators of Success

Also, the percent of positive drug tests while in a drug court program is significantly

related to program completion status. The fewer positive drug tests a person has, the

more likely they are to graduate (r(148) = -0.190, p = .021). Change in positive drug tests

from the first three to the last three months in the program does not relate to program

completion status (see Table 9.18).

Table 9.18: Change in grade, Hour/Week, and Positive Drug Tests as Predictors of

Graduation for Juvenile Drug Court Participants

Change in

Grade

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

-0.099

0.103

-0.190*

-0.113

p-value

.317

.329

.021

.249

Sample size

105

149

107

Change in the YLS/CMI total score, but not the YLS/CMI level, is related to program

completion status. The more a juvenile’s YLS/CMI score decreases, the more likely they

are to graduate. Also, six YLS/CMI sub-scores have this same relationship with program

completion status: Prior and Current Offenses (PCO), Peers (PR), Substance Abuse (SA),

Leisure/Recreation (LR), Personality/Behavior (PB), and Attitudes/ Orientation (AO)

(see Table 9.19). The Peer score had the strongest relationship to outcomes.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

189 | P a g e

Table 9.19: Change in YLS/CMI and Sub-Scores as Predictors of Graduation for Juvenile

Drug Court Participants

Change IN:

YLS/CMI

Level

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

PCO

Score

YLS/CMI

FCP

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

YLS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

-0.190

-0.340*

-0.239*

-0.108

-0.052

-0.408*

-0.234*

-0.249*

-0.263*

-0.329*

p-value

.072

.001

.023

.307

.622

< .001

.025

.017

.012

.001

Sample size

Predictive Analysis for Douglas County Young Adult Problem-Solving Court

Only those who have completed drug court, either graduated or terminated/withdrew, are

used in the following analyses. The maximum possible sample size for each analysis is

12. The variables were the same as those used in the Adult Drug Court Analysis. The

results should be viewed with caution as the sample size is very low. As the young adult

court has more participants, future analyses may reveal more variables that predict

graduation.

Demographics and Social Functioning

None of the demographic and social functioning variables analyzed have a significant

relationship with program completion status. Marital status was not analyzed for

juveniles because all participants in the Young Adult court are single (see Tables 9.20,

9.21, and 9.22).

Table 9.20: Age and Hour/Week as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult Court

Participants

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.277

0.485

p-value

.384

.110

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

190 | P a g e

Table 9.21: Gender and Education Level as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult

Court Participants

Gender

Education Level

Male

Female

No High

School or

GED

Diploma

High

School or

GED

Diploma

Percent Graduating

57.1%

60.0%

0.0%

62.5%

p-value

.921

.236

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Table 9.22: Race/Ethnicity as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult Court

Participants

White/ Caucasian

Black/

African-American

Percent Graduating

50.0%

62.5%

Group Size

Charges and Drug History

Those with a lower admitted/plead offense class are more likely to graduate than those

with a more severe admitted offense (r(11) = 0.729, p = .007). Number of drugs used and

drug of choice cannot be analyzed because there are too few participants with data in

these fields (see Tables 9.23 and 9.24).

Table 9.23: Offense Class and Drugs Used as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult

Court Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.394

0.729*

p-value

.205

.007

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

191 | P a g e

Table 9.24: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Graduation for Young Adult Court

Participants

Opioid/ Narcotic

Marijuana

Percent Graduating

0.0%

Group Size

Initial Assessments

Both LS/CMI total score and LS/CMI level are related to program completion. A

participant with a lower initial LS/CMI score or level is more likely to graduate. The

Antisocial Pattern (AP) sub-score has this same relationship with program completion

status (see Table 9.25).

SSI and SRARF levels in relation to program completion status cannot be analyzed

because there are too few participants with data for these assessments.

Table 9.25: SSI, SRARF, and LS/CMI as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult Court

Participants

SSI

Level

SRAR

Level

Risk

LS/C

Level

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Scor

LS/CMI

Score

LS/C

ADP

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

Correlatio

n with

Program

Completio

n Status

.753

.646

-.187

-.489

-.271

.34

-.516

-.468

-.447

.637

p-value

.007

.032

.583

.127

.421

.29

.104

.147

.168

.035

Sample

size

Program Characteristics

None of the analyzed program characteristics relate significantly to program completion

status (see Table 9.26).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

192 | P a g e

Table 9.26: Time to Start, PSC Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, and Drug Tests as

Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program

Start

PSC

Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

Program

Completion Status

0.411

-0.470

-0.602

0.540

0.333

0.519

p-value

.185

.202

.153

.211

.466

.084

Sample size

Indicators of Success

Change in hours worked per week does not relate significantly to program completion

status in the Douglas County Young Adult Drug Court (see Tables 9.27). All other

indicators cannot be analyzed because there are too few participants with data on these

variables (see Table 9.28).

Table 9.27: Education Level, Hours Worked, and Drug Tests as Predictors of

Graduation for Young Adult Court Participants

Change in

Education Level

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

0.110

p-value

.734

Sample size

Table 9.28: LS/CMI and Sub-Scores as Predictors of Graduation for Young Adult Court

Participants

Change IN:

LS/CMI

Level

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

ADP

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

p-value

Sample size

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

193 | P a g e

Predictive Analysis for Scotts Bluff Driving Under the Influence Court

Only those who have completed the Scotts Bluff DUI court, either graduated or

terminated/withdrew, are used in the following analyses. The maximum possible sample

size for each analysis is 16. Variables were the same as those used in the Adult Drug

Court Analysis. The results should be viewed with caution as the sample size is very low.

As the DUI court has more participants, future analyses may reveal more variables that

predict graduation.

Demographics and Social Functioning

Age when starting the DUI Court program is significantly related to program completion

status. The older a person is when starting the DUI Court program, the more likely they

are to graduate (r(14) = 0.619, p = .014) (see Table 9.29).

Table 9.29: Age and Hour/Week as Predictors of Graduation for DUI Court Participants

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.619*

-0.333

p-value

.014

.207

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Gender and marital status, and education level when entering a program are not related to

program completion (see Table 9.30).

Table 9.30: Gender, Marital Status, and Education Level as Predictors of Graduation

for DUI Court Participants

Gender

Marital Status

Education Level

Male

Female

Not Married/

Cohabitating

Married/

Cohabitating

No High

School or

GED

Diploma

High

School or

GED

Diploma

Percent Graduating

61.5%

66.7%

58.3%

75.0%

0.0%

71.4%

p-value

.869

.551

.051

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Ethnicity does not have a significant relationship with DUI Court program completion

(F(2,13) = 1.477, p = .264) (see Table 9.31).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

194 | P a g e

Table 9.31: Race/Ethnicity as Predictor of Graduation for DUI Court Participants

White/ Caucasian

Hispanic

Other*

Percent Graduating

77.8%

50.0%

0.0%

Group Size

*The ‘Other’ category is approximately half Native American, 15% Asian, and 35% un-identified

ethnicity groups.

Charges and Drug History

Neither charged nor admitted offense class relate to program completion status in the

DUI Court (see Table 9.32). Number of drugs used, and drug of choice, cannot be

analyzed because there are too few participants with data on these variables (see Table

9.33).

Table 9.32: Offense Class and Number of Drugs as Predictors of Graduation for DUI

Court Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

-0.268

-0.195

p-value

.335

.487

Sample size

Table 9.33: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Graduation for DUI Court Participants

Marijuana

Other*

Percent Graduating

100%

0.0%

Group Size

*Includes primarily those who prefer Hallucinogens.

Initial Assessments

SRARF level of risk, but not SSI level, is related to program completion (r(13) = -0.548,

p = .043). The lower the initial SRARF level, the more likely a participant is to graduate.

None of the other initial assessments have a significant relationship with program

completion status (see Table 9.34).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

195 | P a g e

Table 9.34: SSI, SRARF, and LS/CMI as Predictors of Graduation for DUI Court

Participants

SSI

Level

SRAR

Level

Risk

LS/C

Level

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

ADP

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

Correlatio

n with

Program

Completio

n Status

.548

-.510

-.483

-.283

-.697

-.484

-.198

.240

.001

.167

-.600

p-value

.043

.243

.272

.538

.082

.271

.670

.604

1.00

.721

.154

Sample

size

Program Characteristics

None of the program components analyzed have a significant relationship with program

completion status (see Table 9.35).

Table 9.35: Time to Start, PSC Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, Drug Tests, and Time in

Program as Predictors of Graduation for DUI Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program

Start

PSC

Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

Program

Completion Status

0.041

-0.157

0.592

0.153

0.335

p-value

.888

.645

.055

.673

.223

Sample size

Indicators of Success

There is not enough variation in the data to analyze relationship to program completion

status for change in education level, change in hours worked per week, percent of

positive drug tests, and change in positive drug tests (see Table 9.36).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

196 | P a g e

Table 9.36: Change in Education, Hours Worked, and Drug Tests as Predictors of

Graduation for DUI Court Participants

Change in

Education Level

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

p-value

Sample size

Change in the LS/CMI Procriminal Attitude/Orientation (PA) is significantly related to

program completion status (r(5) = -0.905, p = .013). DUI Court participants who start the

program with a lower PA score are more likely to graduate (see Table 9.37).

Table 9.37: LS-CMI and Sub-Scores as Predictors of Graduation for DUI Court

Participants

Change IN:

LS/CMI

Level

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

ADP

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with

Program

Completion

Status

-0.728

-0.499

-0.156

0.132

-0.218

-0.469

-0.545

-0.616

-0.905*

-0.447

p-value

.101

.314

.768

.802

.678

.349

.263

.193

.013

374

Sample

size

Predictive Analysis for Lancaster County Family Dependency Court

Individuals in this analysis included only those who have completed the Lancaster

County Family Dependency Court, either graduated or terminated/withdrew. The

maximum possible sample size for each analysis is 31. The results should be viewed with

caution as the sample size is very low. As the family drug court has more participants

graduate or terminate , future analyses may reveal more variables that predict graduation.

Demographics and Social Functioning

Age at when entering the Lancaster County Family Court is significantly related to

program completion status (r(30) = 0.416, p = .020). The older a participant is when

entering the court, the more likely they are to graduate (see Table 9.38).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

197 | P a g e

Table 9.38: Age and Hour/Week as Predictors of Graduation for Family Drug Court

Participants

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.416*

p-value

.020

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Gender, marital status, and education level did not predict outcomes (see Table 9.39).

Table 9.39: Gender, Marital Status, and Education Level as Predictors of Graduation

for Family Drug Court Participants

Gender

Marital Status

Education Level

Male

Female

Not Married/

Cohabitating

Married/

Cohabitating

No High

School or

GED

Diploma

High

School or

GED

Diploma

Percent Graduating

100.0%

40.0%

33.3%

60.0%

33.3%

66.7%

p-value

.232

.280

.414

Sample size

*Significant relationship

Ethnicity does not have a significant relationship with program completion in the

Lancaster Family Court (F(2,26) = 1.030, p = .371) (see Table 9.40).

Table 9.40: Race/Ethnicity as Predictor of Graduation for Family Drug Court

Participants

White/ Caucasian

Black/

African-American

Other*

Percent Graduating

40.9%

0.0%

60.0%

Group Size

* ‘Other’ category is approximately half Native American, 15% Asian, and 35% un-identified

ethnicity groups.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

198 | P a g e

Charges and Drug History

Offense Class, number of drugs used and drug of choice are not significantly related to

program completion in the Lancaster Family Court (see Tables 9.41 and 9.42). This result

was likely influenced by the small sample size; the PSCMIS only had number of drugs

used data for eight participants who had graduated or terminated from drug court. With

higher numbers, this will likely be a predictor in the future.

Table 9.41: Offense Class and Number of Drugs as Predictors of Graduation for Family

Drug Court Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with Program

Completion Status

0.577

p-value

.134

Sample size

Table 9.42: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Graduation for Family Drug Court

Participants

Opioid/ Narcotic

Stimulant

Marijuana

Percent Graduating

0.0%

66.7%

0.0%

Group Size

Initial Assessments

No one in the Lancaster Family Dependency Court has data in PSCMIS for the SSI,

SRARF, or LS/CMI assessments.

Program Characteristics

The number of PSC hearings per month is negatively correlated with program completion

status. The more PSC hearings per month, the less likely a person is to graduate. Also,

the longer a person is in the program, the more likely they are to graduate (r(30) = 0.435,

p = .014) (see Table 9.43).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

199 | P a g e

Table 9.43: Time to Entry, PSC Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, Drug Tests, and Time in

Program as Predictors of Graduation for Family Drug Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program

Start

PSC

Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

Program

Completion Status

-0.097

-0.590*

-0.114

0.435*

p-value

.712

.001

.612

.014

Sample size

Indicators of Success

Neither the percent of positive drug tests while in a drug court program, or change in

positive drug tests from the first three to the last three months, are significantly related to

program completion status in the Lancaster Family Dependency Court (see Table 9.44).

Table 9.44: Change in Education Level, Hours Worked and Positive Drug Tests as

Predictors of Graduation for Family Drug Court Participants

Change in

Education Level

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

Program Completion

Status

-0.288

-0.060

p-value

.194

.860

Sample size

PREDICTORS OF RECIDIVISM

Criteria for identifying problem-solving court participants (either graduated or terminated

from the program) were provided to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and

Criminal Justice, who identified participants who recidivated within one year of leaving

the problem-solving program. The definition of recidivism used was the same as that

identified in the Development of Statewide Drug Court Performance Measures document,

with follow-up limited to a one year time period. This was necessary in order to have data

available on conviction, as noted in the definition (“an arrest that occurs after program

exit for a new offense if, and only if, that arrest eventually results in conviction…”).

Variables provided in order to identify participants were: name, gender, birth date,

driver’s license number, and all available case and docket numbers. Program leave date

was also provided in order to establish recidivism within a one year time frame. Because

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

200 | P a g e

of the relatively low number of recidivists during the study period, there are fewer

variables that predicted recidivism in comparison to variables that predicted graduation.

Predictive Analysis for Adult Drug Courts

Selected Participants

Only those who have completed drug court, either graduated or terminated/withdrew, are

used in the following analyses. The maximum possible sample size for each analysis is

1061.

Demographics and Social Functioning

Age when starting a drug court program is significantly related to recidivism. The

younger a person is when starting a drug court program, the more likely they are to

recidivate (r(1031) = -0.071, p = .022) (see Table 9.45).

Table 9.45: Age and Hours Worked as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court

Participants

Age at

Program Start

Hours Worked

Per Week

Correlation with

One-Year Recidivism

-0.071*

0.038

p-value

.022

.228

Sample size

1032

1006

*Significant relationship

Marital status when entering a drug court program has a significant relationship with one-

year recidivism (χ

(1) = 4.195, p = .041). Those who are married or cohabitating are less

likely to recidivate. Although males had a higher recidivism rate than females and

persons with lower education levels had higher recidivism rates than individuals with

more education, these differences were not statistically significant. (see Table 9.46).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

201 | P a g e

Table 9.46: Gender, Marital Status and Education Level as Predictors of Recidivism for

Adult Drug Court Participants

Gender

Marital Status

Education Level

Male

Female

Not Married/

Cohabitating

Married/

Cohabitating

No High

School or

GED

Diploma

High

School or

GED

Diploma

Percent Recidivating

6.6%

3.9%

6.1%

2.0%

7.9%

5.1%

p-value

.065

.041*

.128

Sample size

1061

986

945

*Significant relationship

Ethnicity does not have a significant relationship with post-program recidivism

(F(3,1056) = 1.148, p = .329) (see Table 9.47).

Table 9.47: Race/Ethnicity as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court

Participants

White/ Caucasian

Black/

African-American

Hispanic

Other*

Percent Recidivating

6.4%

4.1%

3.4%

2.0%

Group Size

760

193

* ‘Other’ category is approximately half Native American, 15% Asian, and 35% un-identified

ethnicity groups.

Charges and Drug History

Neither charged nor admitted offense class relate significantly to one-year recidivism.

The number of drugs used prior to starting a drug court program is also not significantly

related to recidivism (see Table 9.48).

Table 9.48: Offenses and Number of Drugs as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug

Court Participants

Charged

Offense Class

Severity

Admitted/Plead

Offense Class

Severity

Number of

Drugs Used

Correlation with

One-Year Recidivism

0.005

-0.016

-0.003

p-value

.892

.694

.956

Sample size

628

630

477

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

202 | P a g e

Drug of choice is not significantly related to program completion status (F(4,472) =

0.188, p = .298) (see Table 9.49).

Table 9.49: Drug of Choice as Predictor of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court Participants

Opioid/

Narcotic

Stimulant

Depressant

Marijuana

Other*

Percent

Recidivating

4.3%

10.3%

3.4%

Group Size

234

174

*Includes primarily those who prefer Hallucinogens.

Initial Assessments

Of the initial assessments, only the Companions (CO) sub-score of the LS/CMI is

significantly related to one-year recidivism. The lower a participant’s initial CO score,

the more likely they are to recidivate within one year of leaving an adult drug court

(r(354) = -0.171, p = .001) (see Table 9.50). It should be noted the Procriminal

Attitude/Orientation (PA) sub-score was just short of reaching statistical significance;

conducting this study in the future with a larger sample size may find this variable

predicts recidivism.

Table 9.50: SSI, SRARF, and LS/CMI as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court

Participants

SSI

Level

SRAR

Level

Risk

LS/C

Level

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Scor

LS/CMI

Score

LS/C

ADP

Score

LS/C

Score

LS/C

Score

Correlation

with

One-Year

Recidivism

.016

.008

-.006

-.033

.049

.026

.042

-.002

-.171

-.043

-.104

-.023

p-value

.770

.889

.908

.539

.360

.630

.426

.968

.001

.424

.051

.662

Sample size

341

337

352

355

*Significant relationship

Program Characteristics

None of the programming components examined are related to one-year recidivism. See

table for correlations and p-values (see Table 9.51).

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

203 | P a g e

Table 9.51: Time to Admission, Hearings, Sanctions, Incentives, Number of Drug Tests

and Length in Program as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court Participants

Weeks -

Arrest to

Program

Start

PSC

Hearings

per Month

Sanctions

per Month

Incentives

per Month

Drug Tests

per Month

Months in

Program

Correlation with

One-Year

Recidivism

-0.019

0.003

0.060

-0.062

0.007

-0.030

p-value

.649

.929

.128

.113

.829

.333

Sample size

592

975

649

651

992

1025

Indicators of Success

Changes in the social functioning variables of education level and hours worked per week

are not significantly related to one-year recidivism. Also, neither the percent of positive

drug tests while in a drug court program, nor change in positive drug tests over time, are

significantly related to recidivism (see Table 9.52).

Table 9.52: Changes in Education Level, Hours Worked, and Positive Drug Tests as

Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court Participants

Change in

Education Level

Change in

Hours Worked

Per Week

Percent of

Positive

Drug Tests

Change in

Positive

Drug Tests

Correlation with

One-Year Recidivism

0.039

0.029

0.061

-0.026

p-value

.233

.365

.054

.457

Sample size

945

1001

1000

806

Change in LS/CMI level, LS/CMI total score, and all LS/CMI sub-scores is not

significantly related to one-year recidivism. Table 9.53 shows correlations and p-values

for the LS/CMI level, total score and sub-scores.

Table 9.53: Changes in LS/CMI as Predictors of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court

Participants

Change IN:

LS/CMI

Level

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

ADP

Score

LS/CMI

Score

LS/CMI

Score

Correlation

with One-Year

Recidivism

0.082

0.094

0.047

0.055

0.004

0.059

0.088

0.061

0.046

0.031

p-value

.211

.146

.465

.397

.950

.362

.174

.341

.478

.630

Sample size

233

242

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

204 | P a g e

Graduated vs. Terminated Status

Across all adult drug court programs, graduates are less likely to recidivate within one

year of leaving the program than are those who were terminated (χ

(1) = 3.873, p = .049)

(see Table 9.54).

Table 9.54: Graduation Status as Predictor of Recidivism for Adult Drug Court

Participants

Graduated

Terminated

Recidivated

4.4%

7.3%

Did Not Recidivate

580

95.6%

421

92.7%

Sample Size

607

454

Predictive Analysis for Juvenile Drug Courts

Selected Participants

The number of juvenile recidivists is too low to conduct a meaningful statistical analysis.

Table 9.55 compares graduated vs. terminated juvenile drug court participants on one-

year recidivism rates. Across all juvenile drug court programs, there is no difference

between graduated and terminated participants in the rate of recidivism (χ

(1) = 0.223, p

= .637).

Table 9.55: Graduation Status as Predictor of Recidivism for Juvenile Drug Court

Participants

Graduated

Terminated

Recidivated

6.0%

7.6%

Did Not Recidivate

94.0%

121

92.4%

Sample Size

131

Predictive Analyses for Other Courts: Douglas County Young Adult;

Scotts Bluff DUI; and Lancaster Family Dependency

The sample sizes for these three courts are too small to evaluate potential predictive

factors on one-year recidivism. Sample sizes are: 12 for the Douglas County Young

Adult Drug Court; 16 for the Scotts Bluff DUI Court; and 31 for the Lancaster County

Family Dependency Court.

Nebraska Problem Solving Court Evaluation

205 | P a g e

In this Chapter we summarize evaluation results for each of the original evaluation

questions and provide recommendations for improving problem solving courts in

Nebraska. We group the findings and recommendations into four categories: participant

characteristics, program implementation, outcomes and evaluation capacity.

PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

The original evaluation questions related to participant characteristics were: