Here is the text we could read:
P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e w i d e
E v a l u a t i o n o f T r e a t m e n t
C o u r t s
O U T C O M E & C O S T E VA L U AT I O N
K E Y F I N D I N G S R E P O R T
R E V I S E D
D U I | ATC
20 13 - 20 1 8
Submitted by NPC Research
For questions contact:
Marny Rivera, Ph.D.
rivera@npcresearch.com
J u n e 2 0 2 2
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EVALUATION BACKGROUND…………………………………………………….………………………………………..………….… 3
METHODS……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………….………...… 4
KEY FINDINGS: DUI Courts Statewide……………………………….…………………………….……………….………….….. 5
DUI Courts: Statewide Recidivism ……………………………………………………….….…………………………..….. 6
DUI Courts: Statewide Costs Results…………………………………………………….………..………………….….… 9
DUI COURTS: FOCUS SITES …………………………………………………………………………………………….………….….... 10
Blair County DUI Court: Recidivism……………………………………………….…………………….…………….…..… 11
Blair County DUI Court: Program Investment Costs……………………………………………..…………….....… 12
Blair County DUI Court: Outcome Costs………………………………………………………………….…………..…... 13
York County DUI Court: Recidivism……………………………………………………….……………………………….... 14
York County DUI Court: Program Investment Costs……………………………..…………………….……..…..… 15
York County DUI Court: Outcome Costs………………………………………………………………….……………..… 16
KEY FINDINGS: Adult Treatment Courts Statewide………………….…………………………………………………...… 17
ATC: Statewide Recidivism ……………………………………………………….…………………………………………...… 18
ATC: Statewide Costs……….……………………………………………………….……………………………………….……… 21
ATC: FOCUS SITES …………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….……………..... 22
Erie County ATC: Recidivism………………………………………………………………………………………………....…. 23
Erie County ATC: Program Investment Costs………………………………..…………………………….………....… 24
Erie County ATC: Outcome Costs…………………………………………………………………………….……….…..….. 25
York County ATC: Recidivism…………………………………….……………..…………………………………..………..... 26
York County ATC: Program Investment Costs………………………………….………………………….………...…. 27
York County ATC: Outcome Costs…………………………………………………………………………….………..…….. 28
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS……….………………………..…………………………..…….. 29
Data Improvements Needed……………….………………………………………………………………………………..…. 30
Expunging Cases……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………...…... 32
Improving Data Practices………………………….…………………………..………………………….…………………..…. 33
SUMMARY
Key Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...… 35
Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...… 36
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
2
EVALUATION BACKGROUND
As of October 2021, the State of Pennsylvania has over 120 problem-solving courts, also known as treatment
courts, with some dating as far back as 1997. These programs serve individuals charged with crimes related to
substance use and/or mental illness. Treatment courts provide integrated substance use treatment, behavioral
health services, and intensive judicial supervision as an alternative to incarceration. The ultimate goals of these
courts are to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and provide treatment and other recovery support
services to justice-involved individuals with substance use or mental health disorders to promote long-term
recovery and enhance the quality of life for participants and their families.
In March 2017, supported by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Administrative Office of
Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) contracted with NPC Research to perform a statewide study of four treatment court
types in Pennsylvania: Adult Drug Treatment Courts (ATC), DUI Courts (DUI), Mental Health Courts (MHC), and
Veterans Treatment Courts (VTC). This report presents the outcome and cost evaluation of Pennsylvania’s Adult
Drug Treatment Courts and DUI Courts. Outcome and cost evaluation results for MHCs and VTCs will be
completed in 2022.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
3
METHODS
Pennsylvania Statewide ATC and DUI Court Evaluation Methods
This report highlights the key findings of the outcome and cost evaluation of 38 ATC programs and 14 DUI court
programs in Pennsylvania. The outcome evaluation measured whether the ATCs and DUI courts met their goals
of reducing recidivism. The economic impact of the programs was evaluated through a detailed cost-benefit
analysis. The ATC and DUI court outcomes and costs were measured against matched comparison groups of
defendants who had been arrested and charged with a treatment court eligible arrest. The comparison group
constructed for each ATC and DUI court program were matched to the treatment court participants (using
propensity scores) on age, gender, race, and criminal history, including a variety of charges.
To assess the extent to which Pennsylvania’s ATC and DUI court programs were meeting the goal of reducing
recidivism, we followed all individuals who participated in an ATC (N = 5,960) or a DUI court program (N = 2,529)
between 2013 and 2018 (total N = 8,489) that were entered into the PAJCIS program database and the matched
comparison groups from the same time period. The individuals in these groups were tracked through existing
statewide databases for a follow up period of at least 2 years after ATC or DUI court program entry (or
equivalent for the comparison groups). In addition, four focus sites were selected for a more detailed
examination of program practices and the collection of data on county incarceration and probation.
The cost evaluation was conducted using the transactional
and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach in the four
focus sites by analyzing the costs of program activities as
well as outcome activities including arrests, new court
cases, time in county incarceration, and time on probation.
In addition, statewide data on court cases and time
incarcerated along with the cost results from the focus sites
were used to create statewide cost estimates.
This report presents the study findings starting with
statewide outcome and cost results for DUI courts followed
by results for two focus site DUI courts. The outcome and
cost results for ATC programs are then presented and are
followed by results for two focus site ATCs. Lessons learned,
a summary of key findings, and recommendations are
provided at the end of the report.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
4
5
KEY FINDINGS:
DUI COURTS STATEWIDE
5
9
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Statewide Recidivism
ALL PENNSYLVANIA DUI COURTS SHOWED REDUCTIONS IN
RECIDIVISM FOR ALL CHARGE TYPES
Program participants showed reductions in recidivism across
all charge types and severities up to 3 years post entry.
Statewide, the combined rearrest rates for any charge in all
programs averaged 16% for DUI court participants at 3 years
post entry compared to 25% for the matched comparison
group.
Fewer DUI Court Participants
Were Rearrested for Any
Offense 1, 2, and 3 Years Post
Entry
The percent reduction in recidivism between DUI court
participants and the comparison group was also computed.
While all DUI courts showed lower recidivism than the
comparison group, the reductions in recidivism for individual
DUI courts varied widely, ranging from 87% to 29%. The
overall reduction in recidivism for DUI court participants
statewide was 36%. Although most of the individual DUI
courts had reductions in recidivism that were much higher
than 36%, the programs with larger sample sizes had smaller
reductions that lowered the statewide average.
25%
19%
16%
11%
10%
5%
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
DUI Court
Comparison
At 3 Years Post Entry, Fewer DUI Court Participants Were Rearrested,
Across all Charge Types and Severities
25%
16%
25%
16%
6%
7%
10%
5%
8%
3%
10%
5%
Any rearrest
DUI charge
Person charge
Property charge Misdemeanor
Felony
DUI Court
Comparison
Note. DUI Court N at Years 1, 2, and 3 is 2,529; 2,529; and 2,057; respectively. The comparison group
N at Years 1, 2, and 3 is 2,529; 2,529; and 2,269; respectively.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
6
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Statewide Recidivism
STATEWIDE, DUI COURT PARTICIPANTS HAD LOWER DUI
RECIDIVISM RATES
Program participants showed reductions in DUI
rearrests up to 3 years post entry.
Statewide, the combined rate for DUI rearrests in all
programs averaged 5% for DUI court participants at
3 years post entry compared to 7% for the
comparison group.
DUI arrests for program participants in each DUI
court relative to their matched comparison groups
revealed reductions in recidivism from 100% in
several DUI courts to -17% in one program (DUI
court participants in only one program had more
new DUI arrests than the comparison group).
Fewer DUI Court Participants Were
Rearrested with a DUI Charge 1, 2,
and 3 Years Post Entry
5%
5%
7%
3%
3%
1%
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
DUI Court
Comparison
UNDERSTANDING THE EVALUATION FINDINGS
Key Data Limitations
Some treatment courts deleted graduates and other participants who received treatment court
services from their database, resulting in participant samples that include fewer successful
participants and the possibility that DUI court graduates were included in the comparison
group. Therefore, these evaluation findings are conservative estimates and likely underreport
the success of these programs. More detail is provided later in this report.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
7
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Statewide Recidivism
DUI COURTS IN PENNSYLVANIA DEMONTRATED
REDUCED RECIDIVISM
Despite the conservative estimates for the recidivism results due to the deletion of some graduates from
the program dataset, the majority of DUI courts in Pennsylvania demonstrated lower rearrest rates in
their participants for all charge types studied.
10 OUT OF 14 DUI COURTS
SHOWED REDUCTIONS IN NEW DUI
ARRESTS 3 YEARS POST ENTRY
While most of Pennsylvania’s DUI courts
showed lower DUI recidivism than the
respective comparison groups, three
programs had similar rates of new DUI
arrests between their participants and
matched comparison groups. One
program had more DUI-related arrests for
their participants by 3 years post entry
than their matched comparison group.
13 OUT OF 14 DUI COURTS
SHOWED REDUCTIONS IN NEW
FELONY ARRESTS
Aside from one DUI court showing
similar reductions in felony-level
recidivism as its comparison
group, most programs showed
effectiveness, ranging from 10% to
100% reductions in new felony
arrests across DUI courts.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
8
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Statewide Cost Results
DUI COURTS SAVED OVER $8.5 MILLION STATEWIDE
The difference in the 3-year outcome cost between all DUI court participants and the comparison group was
$4,134 per participant, indicating that DUI court participants cost the criminal justice system less than the
comparison group. This difference shows that there is a benefit, or savings, to Pennsylvania taxpayers and to
society at large due to DUI court participation, mainly due to fewer rearrests, court cases, and person and
property victimizations. If this cost offset (or savings) is multiplied by the number of DUI court participants in
the study sample (N = 2,057), the total savings comes to $8,503,638 for the 3 years after program entry. It is
important to restate that these results are likely conservative and actual cost savings may have been even
greater, if data for all graduates were available for evaluation.
The figure below shows all costs that were related to, and available for, the outcomes reviewed across groups.
As county incarceration and probation are distributed and managed locally, those data were not included in
statewide cost calculations. However, as more comparison group members were rearrested, it is reasonable to
conclude that they may also have increased costs associated with related county incarceration and probation
time.
Statewide DUI Court Cost Savings Per Participant Over 3 Years = $4,134
$10,010
$14,144
$78
$738
$5,354
$6,323
$1,651
DUI Participants
Comparison Group
Rearrests
Court Cases
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
$37
$358
$6,096
$2,918
$601
Note. $8,503,638 = $4,134 cost per participant X 2,057 participants.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
9
10
DUI COURTS: FOCUS SITES
10
9
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - Blair
BLAIR COUNTY DUI COURT REDUCED RECIDIVISM
Blair County DUI Court, implemented in 2005, reported a capacity of 50 participants at the time of the Best
Practices Assessment in 2017.
• Eligibility criteria includes only high-risk and high-need participants
• Most participants were referred post plea/pre-sentence
•
In addition to alcohol, 2 out of 5 participants had a history of opioid use (prescription opioids as well as
heroin)
Analysis of Blair County DUI Court program data showed a graduation rate of 78%, which is slightly higher than
the national DUI court rate of 76%. Data also revealed that most participants were high functioning with over
90% completing 12th grade or above and over half employed.
While the program implemented many research based best practices, results from the 2017 assessment
showed that the program used county incarceration as a sanction more than recommended and did not
accept participants who were using medications for substance use disorders (SUD). Note: Blair County DUI
Court no longer denies entry to participants who use medications for SUD.
Results of the recidivism evaluation revealed that participants in Blair County DUI Court had substantially
lower recidivism than the matched comparison group at every time point – 1-, 2-, and 3-years post-entry. At 3
years post-entry, three times fewer DUI court participants had been rearrested compared to individuals in the
comparison group.
Fewer Blair DUI Court Participants Were
Rearrested for Any Offense 1, 2, and 3 Years
Post Entry
35%
28%
18%
4%
7%
11%
Blair DUI Court Participants Had Fewer
Blair DUI Court Participants Had Fewer New
New Arrests With DUI Charges at 1, 2,
Arrests With DUI Charges at 1, 2, and 3 Years
and 3 Years than the Comparison Group
than the Comparison Group
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0
0.01
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
DUI Court
Comparison
DUI Court
Comparison
Note. DUI Court N at Years 1, 2, and 3 is 107; 107; and 90; respectively. The comparison group N at
Years 1, 2, and 3 is 107, 107 and 95; respectively.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
11
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - Blair
BLAIR COUNTY DUI COURT PROGRAM INVESTMENT
COSTS = $23,790 PER PARTIPANT
Program costs, also called investment costs, were calculated for each event (or “transaction”) experienced
by those participants who exited the Blair County DUI Court (N = 76). Based on program data entered in
PAJCIS, the following transactions resulted in an overall cost of just under $24,000 per participant.
•
•
•
•
Treatment, outpatient and inpatient, represented the greatest cost
Court sessions and case management, housed in the court, represented most of the remaining costs
A small amount of costs were redeemed from program fees
The cost of the Blair County DUI program is primarily due to its use of inpatient treatment
Blair County DUI Court Total Cost = $23,790 Per Participant
Court Sessions
Case Management Days
$4,730
$4,625
Outpatient Treatment Day
$3,750
Inpatient Treatment Days
$10,156
UA Drug Tests
$461
Tether Days
Alcohol Enzyme Tests
County Incarceration Sanction Days
Program Fees
$46
$75
$545
($598)
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
12
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - Blair
BLAIR COUNTY DUI COURT SAVED ALMOST HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS OVER 3 YEARS
Outcome costs are those costs pertaining to each event (or “transaction”) experienced after program entry,
not related to program activities. Over 3 years post entry, Blair DUI participants had fewer rearrests, court
cases, and person and property victimizations than the comparison group, but more county incarceration
days, probation/parole days, and prison days than the comparison group.
When victimizations were not included, DUI court participants cost the taxpayer $1,545 more than the
comparison group due to extensive time incarcerated. However, when the costs of victimizations were
included, estimated savings per participant were $6,243 due to fewer person and property crimes. When the
savings per participants were multiplied by the number of participants in the study (N = 76), total savings
came to $474,468.
Blair County DUI Court Cost Savings Over 3 Years = $6,243 per Participant
$12,702
$16
$320
$4,353
$630
$3,978
$3,405
$0
Rearrests
Court Cases
County Prison Days
Probation and Parole Days
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
Participants
Comparison
$18,945
$64
$872
$2,680
$293
$3,843
$9,241
$1,952
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
13
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - York
YORK COUNTY DUI COURT REDUCED ARRESTS WITH ALL
CHARGES BUT NOT ARRESTS WITH DUI CHARGES
York County DUI Court, implemented in 2010, had a capacity of 150 participants at the time of the Best
Practices Assessment in 2017. The program takes low-, moderate-, and high-risk participants but does not
have separate tracks for participants at varying risk levels. The program graduation rate is 72%, which is
slightly lower than the national average of 76%. Most participants were high functioning with over 80%
completing 12th grade or higher and two-thirds employed.
• Most participants were referred post-sentence
•
In addition to alcohol, about 1 in 5 participants also used opioids/heroin
While the program implemented many research based best practices, assessment results showed that the
program reported that they did not use a standardized assessment to determine level of care and used
county incarceration as a sanction more than recommended.
Recidivism results for York County DUI Court demonstrated that although participant rearrest rates in general
were lower than the comparison group in Years 1 and 2 after program entry, this difference became smaller by
Year 3. DUI rearrests were not significantly different between the participants and the comparison group at
any time point.
It is important to note that, during the evaluation, it was discovered that York County DUI Court deleted some
individuals from their electronic data system who had begun receiving DUI court services but were
subsequently “rejected” for various reasons, usually within a few months of program entry. Deleting some
participants who received program services may have led to those individuals appearing in the comparison
group, and possibly skewed the results toward more positive outcomes for the comparison group.
York County DUI Court Participants Were
Rearrested for Any Charge Less Often Than
the Comparison Group
York County DUI Court Participants Had
Similar Numbers of DUI Arrests as the
Comparison Group at Most Timepoints
16%
20%
17%
0.07
0.07
9%
9%
5%
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
DUI Court
Comparison
DUI Court
Comparison
Note. DUI Court N at Years 1 and 2 is 417 and at Year 3 is 353. The comparison group N at Years 1 and
2 is 417 and at Year 3 is 392.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
14
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - York
YORK COUNTY DUI COURT PROGRAM INVESTMENT COSTS
= $12,940 PER PARTICIPANT
Program costs, also called investment costs, were calculated for each event (or “transaction”)
experienced by those participants who exited York County DUI Court (N = 323). Based on program
data entered in PAJCIS, the following transactions resulted in an overall cost of just under $13,000
per participant.
Treatment, outpatient and inpatient, represented the greatest cost
Court sessions and case management, housed in the court, represented most of the remaining
costs
A small amount of costs were redeemed from program fees
•
•
•
York County DUI Court Total Program Cost Per Participant = $12,940
Court Sessions
Case Management Days
Outpatient Treatment Day
Inpatient Treatment Days
$3,898
$2,676
$2,375
$2,212
Mental Health Treatment Days
$18
UA Drug Tests
$1,700
County Incarceration Sanction Days
$476
Program Fees
($415)
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
15
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
DUI Courts: Focus Site - York
YORK COUNTY DUI COURT PARTICIPANTS COST
MORE THAN THE COMPARISON GROUP
Outcome costs are those costs pertaining to each event (or “transaction”) experienced after program entry,
including new arrests, court cases, probation, incarceration, and victimizations (person and property crimes).
The difference in the 3-year outcome cost between all York County DUI Court participants and the comparison
group was -$1,440 per participant, indicating that York County DUI Court participants cost the criminal justice
system more than the comparison group. This result is entirely due to York County DUI Court participants
spending more time in prison than the comparison group. All other costs are lower for the DUI court
participants.
As described earlier, York County DUI Court deleted some individuals from their electronic data system who
had begun receiving DUI court services but were subsequently “rejected”. Deleting some participants who
received program services may have led to those individuals appearing in the comparison group, and possibly
skewed the results toward more positive outcomes for the comparison group.
York County DUI Court Costs $1,440 More Per Participant Than the
Comparison Group Over 3 Years
$21,939
$20,499
Participants
Comparison
Rearrests
Court Cases
County Prison Days
Probation and Parole Days
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
$48
$427
$4,049
$212
$14,507
$1,945
$751
$67
$597
$4,195
$466
$10,568
$3,405
$1,201
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
16
17
KEY FINDINGS
ADULT TREATMENT COURTS:
STATEWIDE
17
9
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
ATCs: Statewide Recidivism
ADULT TREATMENT COURT PROGRAMS HAD VARIED SUCCESS
Many ATCs had significant reductions in recidivism while others did not, leading
to slight reductions when averaged across all programs statewide
ATC participants in each jurisdiction were compared to individuals who were eligible for the ATC but did not
participate. Reductions in recidivism in individual ATC programs ranged from 77% to -58%, indicating that
some programs are having significant impacts by reducing recidivism (up to 77% lower recidivism in ATC
participants than the matched comparison group), while others had higher recidivism (up to 58% higher in
ATC participants).
When all Pennsylvania ATCs are combined, the average recidivism rate was slightly lower for ATC participants
than for the comparison group in Years 1 and 2, but not in Year 3. This pattern might indicate that program
participants are beginning to recidivate as time passes post program exit. This indicates that these programs
may benefit by focusing on “recovery capital” for their participants to provide them with connections in their
community that support recover beyond their time in the programs. It is also important to note that when all
participants are combined in the statewide recidivism analysis, smaller recidivism reductions in larger
programs (with many participants) offset larger recidivism reductions in smaller programs.
While 1 and 2 Years Post Entry Showed Slightly Smaller Proportions of
Rearrests in the ATC Group, Rearrest Rates for All Offenses Were Similar
Across Program and Comparison Groups by 3 Years Post Entry
38%
37%
30%
26%
19%
16%
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
ATC
Comparison
Note. ATC N at Years 1 and 2 is 5,960 and at Year 3 is 5,033. The comparison group N at Years 1 and 2
is 5,960 and at Year 3 is 4,975.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
18
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
ATCs: Statewide Recidivism
The average rearrest rates 3 years post entry for all ATC participants combined were similar to the
comparison group members for all charge levels and charge types. In addition to these statewide figures, it is
important to review individual site results. The rearrest rate 3 years post entry ranged by ATC site from 10%
to 62% for ATC participants. As described previously, rearrest rates for individual courts varied, with most
ATCs showing lower rearrests for all charges than their matched comparison group.
ATC Participants and Comparison Group Members Were Rearrested
for a Criminal Offense At a Similar Rate 3 Years Post Program Entry
36%
35%
21%
20%
Rearrested for misdemeanor
Rearrested for felony
ATC
Comparison
ATC Participants and Comparison Group Members were Rearrested at
Similar Rates for DUI, Person, Property, and Other Offenses 3 Years Post
Program Entry
38%
37%
24%
23%
11%
12%
14%
15%
18%
17%
Rearrested for
any offense
Rearrested for
drug/DUI
Rearrested for
person offense
ATC
Comparison
Rearrested for
property offense
Rearrested for
other offense
Note. ATC N at Year 3 is 5,033. The comparison group N at Year 3 is 4,975.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
19
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
ATCs: Statewide Recidivism
UNDERSTANDING THE EVALUATION FINDINGS
Key Data Limitations
As described in the DUI court section of the report, some Pennsylvania problem-solving courts
deleted graduates and other participants who received treatment court services from their
database, resulting in participant samples that include fewer successful participants and the
possibility that treatment court graduates were included in the comparison group. Therefore,
these evaluation findings are conservative estimates and likely underrepresent the success of
these programs. More detail about why graduates and other participants were deleted and how
this was discovered is provided later in this report.
THE MAJORITY OF PENNSYLVANIA’S ATCs SHOWED
REDUCTIONS IN RECIDIVISM
Despite deletion of graduates from the problem-solving court database in some programs, the individual site
results showed that 21 out of 34 ATCs in Pennsylvania fared better than their respective comparison groups
for all rearrests. The sizes of ATC programs varied and larger programs with the most participants influenced
the statewide results. One of the sites with the highest participant recidivism also had the largest number of
participants.
6 OUT OF 10 ATCs SHOWED REDUCTIONS IN
DRUG/DUI REARRESTS
Most ATCs in Pennsylvania fared better than their respective comparison groups for drug- and DUI-related
rearrests. However, in roughly 40% of ATC programs, participants had more drug- and DUI-related arrests by 3
years post entry than their matched comparison groups.
HALF OF ATCs SHOWED REDUCTIONS IN
FELONY REARRESTS
About half of Pennsylvania’s ATC programs showed reduced recidivism in arrests with felony charges (ranging
from 9% to 84%). However, the number of felony arrests across participants statewide is small (averaging less
than 1 felony rearrest per participant by 3 years post entry).
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
20
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
ATCs: Statewide Costs
STATEWIDE ATCs SAVED OVER $46 MILLION IN 3YEARS
Over 3 years, average costs due to ATC participant outcomes in Pennsylvania were $9,036 less per ATC
participant than costs for comparison group members. Outcome costs measured statewide include arrests,
court cases, days incarcerated, and victimizations due to person or property crimes. These were the
outcome costs that accrued during the 3 years after program entry and did not include local county
incarceration or probation and parole costs (which may have increased the benefit had they been included).
If this cost-offset (or savings) per person is multiplied by the number of participants in the study sample (N =
5,119), the total savings comes to $46,255,650 over just 3 years. Results are likely conservative and actual
cost savings may have been even greater, if data for all graduates were available for evaluation.
The figure below shows all available costs related to outcomes reviewed across groups. As county
incarceration and probation are distributed and managed locally, those data were not included in statewide
cost calculations. However, as more comparison participants were rearrested, it is reasonable to conclude
that they may also have increased costs associated with related county incarceration and probation time.
Statewide ATC Cost Savings Per Participant Over 3 Years = $9,036
$26,582
$127
$1,454
$15,375
$6,323
$3,303
$35,618
$127
$1,497
$23,245
$7,296
$3,453
ATC Participants
Comparison Group
Rearrests
Court Cases
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
21
22
ADULT TREATMENT COURT:
FOCUS SITES
22
9
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site - Erie
ERIE COUNTY ADULT TREATMENT COURT DEMONSTRATED
REDUCTIONS IN RECIDIVISM
Erie County Adult Treatment Court (ATC), implemented in 2000, reported a capacity of 40 participants at the time
of the Best Practices Assessment in 2017. The program reports taking only moderate- to high-risk and high-need
participants and having separate tracks for varying levels of risk or need, but not using a standardized risk or
needs assessment tool. The program graduation rate is 46%, which is lower than the national average of 59%.
• Based on PAJCIS data, most participants appeared to be educated as over 80% had completed 12th grade or
above though fewer than 20% were employed.
• Participants were split between post plea/pre-sentence and post-sentence
• About two-thirds of participants used opioids/heroin
While the program implemented many research based best practices, assessment results showed that the
program used county incarceration as a sanction more than recommended.
Recidivism results for the Erie County ATC demonstrated lower rates of recidivism for any type of charges and for
drug and DUI charges than the comparison group all 3 years after program entry. However, this difference gets
smaller by Year 3. This finding indicates that Erie County should consider building more recovery capital for
participants in the community so that community supports for participants continue after graduation.
Erie County ATC Participants Were
Rearrested at Lower Rates Than the
Comparison Group
Erie County ATC Had Fewer Rearrests for
Drug and DUI Charges than the
Comparison Group
29%
28%
34%
0.15
0.16
0.13
22%
13%
18%
0.11
0.04
0.06
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
ATC
Comparison
ATC
Comparison
Note. ATC N at Years 1 and 2 is 112 and at Year 3 is 109. The comparison group N at Years 1 and 2 is
112 and at Year 3 is 99.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
23
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site - Erie
ERIE COUNTY ATC PROGRAM INVESTMENT COSTS =
$37,377 PER PARTICIPANT
Program costs, also called investment costs, were related to each event (or “transaction”) experienced by
those participants who exited the Erie County ATC (N = 96). Based on program data entered in PAJCIS, the
following transactions resulted in an overall cost of just under $38,000 per participant.
• Treatment, particularly inpatient, represented the greatest cost
• Court sessions and case management, housed in the court, represented most of the remaining costs
• The cost of the Erie County ATC program is primarily related to its use of inpatient treatment
Because the Erie County ATC reported that it does not use a standardized assessment to determine level of
care or type of service needed, it is recommended that the program implement an assessment as soon as
possible to ensure that participants receive services that match their needs and are not receiving expensive
inpatient care unnecessarily.
Erie ATC Total Program Cost Per Participant = $37,377
Court Sessions
$7,090
Case Management Days
$3,311
Outpatient Treatment Day
$841
Inpatient Treatment Days
$21,085
Mental Health Treatment Days
$32
UA Drug Tests
$1,730
Jail Sanction Days
$3,288
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
24
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site - Erie
ERIE COUNTY ATC SAVED MORE THAN $4.6 MILLION OVER 3YEARS
Outcome costs are those costs pertaining to each event (or “transaction”) experienced after program entry,
not related to program activities. Over 3 years post entry, Erie County ATC participants had fewer rearrests,
court cases, person victimizations, county incarceration days, and (notably) prison days than the comparison
group. Conversely, Erie County ATC participants had more time on probation and committed more property
crimes (resulting in more victimizations).
Not including victimizations, ATC participants in Erie County cost the taxpayers $44,271 less than the
comparison group. Once costs for person and property crimes were included, the estimated savings per
participant were $48,084. Overall, the main driver of these very large savings is the number of prison days
experienced by individuals in the comparison group. When the savings per participant are multiplied by the
number of Erie County ATC participants in the study (N = 96), total savings are $4,616,064.
Erie ATC Total Cost Savings Per Participant Over 3 Years = $48,084
$85,036
$36,952
$102
$978
$4,869
$7,329
$13,334
$5,836
$4,504
Rearrests
Court Cases
County Prison Days
Probation and Parole Days
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
Participants
Comparison
$115
$1,312
$6,765
$3,330
$59,361
$10,700
$3,453
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
25
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site – York
YORK COUNTY ATC PARTICIPANTS HAD SIMILAR RECIDIVISM
AS THE COMPARISON GROUP
York County Adult Treatment Court, implemented in 1997, reported a capacity of 150 participants at the time of
the Best Practices Assessment in 2017. The program used a validated risk screen (the RANT) to assist in
determining eligibility and accepted only high-risk, high-need participants. In 2018, in response to the opioid crisis,
York County ATC began a primary focus on participants using opioids. The graduation rate for participants in the
study sample (those who entered the ATC between 2015-2018) was 42%, which is much lower than the national
average of 59%.
• The majority of participants were referred post
plea/pre-sentence
12th grade or higher
• Most participants (over 75%) had education levels of
• One-third of participants were employed
• Roughly 80% of participants used opioids/heroin
While the program implemented many best practices, the
ATC reported the use of county incarceration as a
sanction more than recommended.
Recidivism results for ATC demonstrated that although
participant rearrest rates for any charge and for drug
charges were slightly, though not significantly, lower than
the comparison group in Years 1 and 2 after program
entry, this difference reverses in Year 3 with ATC
participants having higher recidivism than the
comparison group. The Year 3 finding indicates that York
County ATC participants may benefit from the program
building more recovery capital for participants so that
community supports for participants continue after
graduation.
In addition, it is important to note that opioid users
consistently show lower graduation rates and higher
recidivism rates than participants who use other
substances, and those with opioid use disorder require
extensive and specialized services, particularly benefitting
from medication for addiction treatment (MAT). Although
the program focused on opioid users, they reported not
adjusting services specifically for this population.
Slightly Fewer York County ATC Participants
Were Rearrested 1 and 2 Years Post Entry
but More Were Rearrested in Year 3
41%
36%
30%
27%
16%
17%
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
ATC
Comparison
York County ATC Participants Had Slightly Fewer
Rearrests 1 and 2 Years Post Entry but Had
Higher Numbers of Rearrests in Year 3
0.33
0.3
0.22
0.18
0.12
0.09
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
ATC
Comparison
Note. ATC N at Years 1 and 2 is 423 and at Year 3 is 3792.
The comparison group N at Years 1 and 2 is 423 and at
Year 3 is 372.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
26
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site – York
YORK COUNTY ATC PROGRAM INVESTMENT COSTS =
$19,574 PER PARTICIPANT
Program costs, also called investment costs, were related to each event (or “transaction”) experienced by those
participants who exited the York County ATC (N = 351). Based on program data entered in PAJCIS, the following
transactions resulted in an overall cost of just under $20,000 per participant.
•
•
•
•
Treatment, inpatient and outpatient, represented the greatest cost
Court sessions and county incarceration sanctions represented most of the remaining costs
A small amount of costs were redeemed from program fees
The cost of the York County ATC program is primarily related to its use of inpatient treatment
Because the York ATC reported that it does not use a standardized assessment to determine level of care or type
of service needed, it is recommended that the program implement an assessment as soon as possible to ensure
that participants receive services that match their needs and are not receiving any expensive inpatient care
unnecessarily.
York ATC Total Program Cost Per Participant = $19,574
Court Sessions
$3,042
Case Management Days
$939
Outpatient Treatment Day
$2,348
UA Drug Tests
$1,125
Jail Sanction Days
$2,787
Program Fees
($348)
Inpatient Treatment Days
$9,681
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
27
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
KEY FINDINGS
Adult Treatment Courts: Focus Site – York
YORK COUNTY ATC SAVED OVER $8.6 MILLION IN 3 YEARS
Outcome costs are those costs pertaining to each event (or “transaction”) experienced after program entry, not
related to program activities. Over 3 years post entry, York County ATC participants had fewer rearrests, probation
and parole days, county incarceration days, and (notably fewer) prison days than the comparison group. York
County ATC participants had similar (though very low) numbers of person and property crimes (resulting in
victimizations).
ATC participants in York County cost the taxpayer over $24,000 less than the comparison group, mainly due to
spending less than half the number of days in prison than the comparison group. When the savings per
participant are multiplied by the number of York County ATC participants in the study (N = 351), total savings
come to $8,677,071 over a 3-year period.
York ATC Cost Savings in 3 Years = $24,721 Per Participant
$32,503
$161
$1,451
$5,653
$714
$14,184
$5,836
$4,504
Rearrests
Court Cases
County Prison Days
Probation and Parole Days
State Prison Days
Person Victimizations
Property Victimizations
Participants
Comparison
$57,224
$146
$1,430
$7,940
$809
$37,009
$5,836
$4,054
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
28
29
Lessons Learned from the
Evaluation Process
Summary, Recommendations, and
Improvements Made
29
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Data Improvements Needed
Improvements in Data Entry Practices Will Increase the Timeliness
and Accuracy of Evaluation Results
PAJCIS data are self-reported and only 4 data elements undergo statewide validation. As a result, PAJCIS
program data and inconsistent data entry practices hindered more robust program analyses and the ability
to answer some research questions. While it is impossible to reduce data entry errors to zero, there are
certain areas (outlined below) where improvement in PAJCIS data entry will enhance program case
management as well as the ability to conduct useful evaluations. More consistent and reliable data entry
will improve the ability of the treatment court teams to perform quality case management and for
evaluators to understand how the programs are operating and why treatment courts are showing positive
(or negative) outcomes for their participants. Improving data collection will ultimately allow Pennsylvania to
further improve treatment court processes and outcomes, and ultimately the lives of their participants.
RECOMMENDATION: Have agreements for data sharing among agencies in place
for treatment court staffing AND for evaluation
Lack of response to data requests and delays in the provision of data after some agreements were signed led to
postponements in completing this study. In particular, data from county prisons and probation at many of the
focus sites were difficult to access and resulted in months-long delays in completing the ATC and DUI court
study. Further, lack of available statewide data on veteran status required the evaluators to find and access data
from the federal government, resulting in the veteran court evaluation occurring later than the ATC and DUI
court study.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
30
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Data Improvements Needed
RECOMMENDATION: Ensure consistent and reliable data entry of the following
data elements:
Demographics and Participant Characteristics: Missing or incomplete data included participant substances
used, substance use disorder or mental health diagnoses, and housing status information, resulting in an
inability to accurately measure the impact of the program on participants with different substances of use
and different diagnoses, and whether the program improved housing status. These data are not only
important for evaluation but are crucial for effective case management and matching services to participants’
needs.
Case Tracking: Tracking participant case information is essential for effective participant case management
and for assessing program effectiveness in delivering intended services. Areas that need more consistent data
entry include tracking periods of inactivity (when participants are not engaging with the program), transfers
to other treatment court programs, date of treatment court eligible arrest, date of referral to the program,
and the dates of entry and exit into each phase of the program.
Responses to Participant Behaviors: Incentives and sanctions (including county incarceration) were
frequently incomplete or missing. This gap hampered meaningful analysis on the effectiveness of court
responses to participant behavior. In addition, tracking responses to participant behavior allows the team to
fine-tune their responses to each participant for more effective and long-lasting behavior change.
Drug Tests: Provide dates of all drug tests, results of drug tests, and the agency that administers each drug
test. Many of the drug tests were missing the test result. Not having this information makes it difficult to
track progress in the program. There were also many duplicate entries indicating multiple drug tests on the
same day though many of these duplicate entries noted differing results (e.g., a positive and negative drug
test result).
Court Attendance: 2,256 of the participants (11%) had no corresponding court attendance records. Tracking
whether participants were required to and attended scheduled court hearings is essential for analysis of
effective treatment court implementation and the intensity of supervision.
Treatment Services: 6,842 participant treatment episodes for participants who were no longer in their
treatment court program were missing a discharge date (67% of these were outpatient). Other important
treatment information missing from the PAJCIS database includes the dates and hours of individual
treatment sessions, dates of group treatment sessions, entry and exit dates for residential treatment, dates
of mental health services, and the agencies providing each of these services. These treatment service details
are important for measuring the dosage of treatment services and whether participants who engage in more
treatment sessions, remain in treatment longer, and successfully complete substance abuse treatment also
have better outcomes (i.e., graduation and lower rates of rearrest).
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
31
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Expunging Cases While Supporting Program Evaluation
Expunging Charges for Graduates
Some Pennsylvania problem-solving courts offer to expunge
graduates’ charges that led to program entry. Expunging charges is
an important incentive because individuals with criminal records
face barriers to obtaining employment, housing, and benefits (health
and social). Criminal records are expunged with positive intentions
to increase the continued success of graduates in the community
following successful completion of program requirements. Using the
expunge feature in PAJCIS allows for retention of key data elements
for graduates whose charges are expunged in order to compute
program graduation rates and measure recidivism of all participants.
Deleting Graduates and other participants who receive treatment
court services from PAJCIS
Treatment courts in Pennsylvania should use the feature in PAJCIS that allows users to expunge graduates’ data.
When this feature is used, an “expunged” indicator is associated with the graduate and all their program data.
Some programs in Pennsylvania approached the expungement process more vigorously by completely deleting
from PAJCIS all electronic data for graduates, as well as using the “rejected” feature to delete data for
participants who were rejected from the program but who had received substantial numbers of services. The
evaluation team at NPC Research determined this practice was being used after reviewing multiple versions of
data extracted from the PAJCIS database at different times and detecting that some participants who were
previously in the database were no longer in the database. A few focus site programs confirmed for NPC
Research that they deleted graduates from PAJCIS. Moreover, programs that deleted graduates from PAJCIS
deleted the data in its entirety and had no records of the graduates whose data were deleted; thus, these data
were not available for evaluation. While there is great value in expunging criminal records for legal purposes,
participant data must be retained to effectively evaluate treatment court programs.
Impact of Deleted Graduates on Outcomes
As a result of data deletion practices, recidivism results may be incorrect and are conservatively skewed, meaning
reductions in recidivism for court programs are likely larger than the results presented in this report. Deleting
graduates would lead to conservative recidivism results for two reasons. First, programs that deleted graduates
likely show higher average rearrest rates because non-graduates are consistently shown to be rearrested more
frequently. Second, it is likely that deleted graduates were selected into the comparison group because they would
have met program eligibility requirements, skewing comparison recidivism results lower. We are unable to
estimate the full impact of deletion practices on recidivism rates because we do not know which court programs
deleted graduates from PAJCIS, the number of graduates that were deleted, or the time periods during which
programs regularly deleted graduates from the program database. Treatment court programs can continue to
incentivize program entry by offering to expunge charges for graduates and can safely retain graduates’ program
data for evaluation purposes by using the expunge feature in PAJCIS.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
32
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Improving Data Practices
#1 RECOMMENDATION
Program participants should NEVER be deleted from the PAJCIS data.
Deleting any participant data from the PAJCIS program database, especially deleting data for graduates
or other participants who received a substantial amount of services, is a practice that negatively impacts
evaluation results, particularly the ability of the programs to demonstrate their success.
The AOPC Responded Swiftly to Graduate Deletion Practices
Detecting that treatment courts deleted electronic program data is an unintended benefit of conducting
this evaluation. The evaluation brought this problematic practice to the attention of AOPC leadership and
doing so created an opportunity to address the problem. After learning from NPC Research that some
programs deleted data completely out of PAJCIS, the AOPC modified PAJCIS to make it more difficult for
court programs to delete admitted participants and their electronic records. The expunge feature continues
to be available and courts have begun to be trained on properly using this feature. The AOPC should ensure
that team members who use the PAJCIS database are fully trained in its use and perform regular ongoing
training since team turnover in treatment courts tends to be high.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
33
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Improving Data Practices
Actions Taken to Improve Data
Practices
PAJCIS was implemented in 2013 as a data source for
Pennsylvania’s problem-solving courts. Use of the
system is voluntary, but the AOPC has made several
enhancements over the years to improve its
usefulness for the problem-solving courts to
encourage more data collection.
❑ In 2017, the AOPC began implementing data entry consistency and accuracy checks and inform problem-
solving courts when their data entry needs improvement.
❑ In 2018, the AOPC received a grant to move PAJCIS to the DCCM (Drug Court Case Management) platform.
Until this point, PAJCIS was static and had not received any software updates since its inception. Moving
PAJCIS to the DCCM platform allowed the implementation of over 50 upgrades that had been provided to
other states over the past 5 years. The upgrades also improved user accessibility and resolved browser
compatibility issues. On the DCCM platform, PAJCIS receives regular updates and can request system
enhancements to further make PAJCIS useful to the field.
❑ In 2019, AOPC implemented a grant program whereby operational problem-solving courts and those
in the planning stage could apply for a discretionary or implementation grant. One of the conditions of
an AOPC grant is the use of PAJCIS. In order to be reimbursed, programs must enter required data into
the system: admissions, drug test results, judicial status hearings attendance, treatment attendance
and sessions/dosage, probation contacts (monitoring), incentives/sanctions used, ancillary services,
and discharges. In addition, a reporting feature was added to include “Grant Report,” which makes it
easier for coordinators to submit their data to AOPC for review.
❑ In 2021, AOPC began providing individualized training on PAJCIS to coordinators and various other
team members.
Numerous additional updates and improvements have been made to increase the completeness and
accuracy of program data. Since most data improvements were implemented after data were collected for
this evaluation, Pennsylvania will benefit from an updated evaluation conducted with more robust data.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
34
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS
KEY FINDINGS: DUI COURTS
All PA DUI courts showed reductions in recidivism
Recidivism rates varied across DUI court programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10 out of 14 DUI courts showed reductions in DUI-specific recidivism
DUI courts showed reductions in felony-specific rearrests
Statewide, DUI courts saved over $8.5 million, primarily due to participants spending less time
incarcerated
KEY FINDINGS: ATCs
• Most PA ATCs showed reductions in recidivism
Recidivism rates varied widely across ATCs with most programs showing substantial decreases in
recidivism while some programs had increased recidivism
6 out of 10 ATCs showed reductions in drug/DUI specific recidivism
Half of ATCs showed reductions in felony specific recidivism
ATCs saved over $46.25 million statewide, also primarily due to participants spending less time
incarcerated
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
35
CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DOSA TREATMENT COURT
SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Continue to provide regular trainings in
incentives, sanctions, supervision, and
therapeutic responses, and reduce use of
county incarceration
• Encourage use of validated risk and need
screening tools by all courts not currently
using them, to ensure services are provided to
participants based on their assessed risks and
needs
• Explore resources for cultural competency training for staff and the availability of culturally specific
services, particularly for individuals who are Latinx. Correlations between race/ethnicity, graduation
rates, and recidivism rates (provided in previous reports) showed that individuals who were Latinx
were less likely to graduate and more likely to recidivate.
• Expunge criminal charges for graduates and train problem solving court teams on why and how to
use the expunge feature in PAJCIS. We commend AOPC for changing the PAJCIS database (in
December 2021) in a way that removed the ability to delete admitted participants from PAJCIS.
• Find ways to incentivize more complete and reliable data entry into PAJCIS. Provide training and
technical assistance in efficient and rigorous data management practices.
The results of the process, outcome, and cost evaluations should be used to inform efforts that
strengthen treatment court effectiveness. Specifically, Pennsylvania treatment courts are encouraged to
continue their efforts to implement changes to enhance adherence to best practices.
Over time, as programs continue to improve their use of best practices and program data collection and
entry have been enhanced, Pennsylvania should conduct an updated statewide evaluation. The updated
statewide evaluation should measure recidivism and compare findings to the baseline recidivism rates
presented in this report to determine improvement over time.
E V A L U AT I O N O F AT C A N D D U I C O U R T S I N P E N N S Y LV A N I A
36
For questions about this report or project, please contact
Marny Rivera at rivera@npcresearch.com
W W W. N P C R E S E A R C H . C O M
