G. Part Seven: Participant Comments (Volume Four)

1. Introduction

As part of the 1997 Drug Court Surveyundertaken by the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse, each drug court judge wasasked to distribute a brief questionnaire to at least five participantsin the final phase of his/her drug court. Responses were received from 256participants from 53 drug courts in 23 states plus the District of Columbia.A profile of the respondents and their perspective on generic componentscommon to all drug courts are provided below.

2. Background of Respondents

Prior Treatment Program Experience

Over half of the respondents had never previouslybeen enrolled in a drug treatment program. The following is a breakdownof the treatment program experience of the respondents:

· no prior treatment program experience58%

· one prior treatment program 26%

· two previous treatment programs 8%

· three or more prior treatment programs5%

For those participants who had enrolled in treatmentprograms previously, the period of their prior program participation rangedbetween 1982 and 1996 -- one to fourteen years prior to their current drugcourt treatment program participation..

Time Between Arrest and Entry intoProgram

Not all responding participants entered thedrug court immediately after arrest, as is characteristic of most drug courtprograms. The timeframe between their arrest and entry into the programwas as follows

· 1 - 7 days 24%

· 8 - 15 days 14%

· 16 - 30 days 22%

· 31 - 60 days 16%

· more than 60 days 34%

Age

The average age of all respondents was 32.1years. The average age for male respondents was 31.8 years, for female respondents32.2 years. Average age of respondents by program ranged between 25.2 yearsin St. Joseph Michigan, 26.2 years in Kansas City, and 27.5 years in SantaBarbara to 38.8 in Edwardsville, Illinois, 39.25 in Macon, Georgia and 39.4years in the Los Angeles Municipal Court. The age of all responding participantsranged from 16 in Chicago to 64 in Edwardsville. The age categories of theresponding drug court participants were as follows:

· under 20 5%

· 21-29 30%

· 30-39 42%

· 40-49 19%

· 50-59 2%

· over 60 1%

Sex

Sixty-three percent of the respondents weremale, 37% were female. This breakdown is consistent with most program genderprofiles.

Marital Status

The marital status of the respondents and theirsex were as follows:

Marital Status of All Responding Participants:

Total Male Female

Divorced 24% 16% 8%

Single 49% 35% 14%

Married 25% 15% 10%

Widowed 2% 1% 1%

Marital Status of Responding ParticipantsBy Sex:

Of Female Of Male

Respondents Respondents

Single 41% 56%

Divorced 28% 22%

Married 28% 21%

Widowed 3% 1%

Parental Status of Respondents

Sixty-eight percent of the respondents wereparents. Below is a more detailed breakdown of their parental status:

· Participants with no children 32%

· Participants Who Are Parents 68%

Adult Children Only 6%

Adult and Minor Children 8%

Minor Children only 54%

Status of living situations of participantswho are parents with minor children

· Participants with 1 minor child 32%

lives with participant 15%

not living with participant 17%

· Participants with 2 minor children35%

both live with participant 21%

one lives with participant 5%

none live with participant 9%

· Participants with 3 minor children20%

all live with participant 10%

some lives with participant 8%

none live with participant 2%

· Participants with 4 or more minor children13%

all live with participant 6%

some live with participant 2%

none live with participant 5%

Educational Level

Thirty percent of the responding participantsdid not have a high school diploma or GED certificate when they enteredthe drug court. Approximately one-third had a high school diploma or GEDcertificate.. Approximately one third had some post high school education,with 11% having more than two years of college. A summary of their educationalbackground is presented below:

· less than an eighth grade education5%

· some high school 25%

· high school graduate or GED certificate36%

· two years post high school technicaltraining 9%

· two years of college 15%

· three to four years of college 6%

· undergraduate degree 2%

· post graduate study 3%

Military Status

Eight (3%) of the respondents were in the activemilitary and an additional 34 (13%) were veterans.

3. Participant Comments Regarding Drug CourtExperience

Most Important Reasons for EnteringDrug Court Program

Participants were asked to indicate, by relativeimportance the reason(s) they entered the Drug Court program, usingthe following rating scale:

1 = very important

2 = somewhat important

3 = not important

The following is a summary of their responses:

· chance to have my charges dropped

very important 81%

somewhat important 11%

little importance 9%

· chance not to go to jail

very important 79%

somewhat important 11%

little importance 10%

· chance to get treatment for my drugproblems

very important 82%

somewhat important 12%

little importance 6%

· chance to get a job

very important 39%

somewhat important 22%

little importance 39%

· chance to get back with my family

very important 59%

somewhat important 17%

little importance 35%

Among the additional reasons participants citedfor entering the drug court included: "to live a normal life";"to rebuild structure in my life and to learn to enjoy life withoutdrugs"; "a chance for a new start in life"; "to getalong better in society and with my family"; "to keep custodyof my children"; and "a chance to get my life back and becomea good, clean person again for my child and myself".

Most Important Reasons for RemainingIn Drug Court Program

Participants were also asked to indicate themost important reasons why they remained in the drug court program,using the following rating scale:

1 = very important

2 = somewhat important

3 = less important

Their responses indicate that the most significantreasons for participants remaining in their drug courts are (1) the opportunityto talk over progress and problems with the judge; (2) the frequency ofcounseling sessions; (3) the focus and content of the counseling sessions;and (4) the frequency of urinalysis. Below is a summary of their responses:

· the fact that I entered the programshortly after my arrest

very important 49%

somewhat important 24%

less important 26%

· the opportunity to talk over my progressand problems with the judge

very important 70%

somewhat important 20%

less important 10%

· the frequency of counseling sessions:

very important 77%

somewhat important 17%

less important 6%

· the focus and content of counselingsessions

very important 73%

somewhat important 21%

less important 6%

· the frequency of urinalysis testing

very important 61%

somewhat important 25%

less important 14%

· the possibility of sanctions whichcould be imposed for not complying with program requirements:

very important 63%

somewhat important 20%

less important 13%

· job placement opportunities:

very important 34%

somewhat important 23%

less important 42%

Most Significant Differences BetweenDrug Court and Prior Treatment Program Participation

Those participants who had been enrolled ina previous treatment program were asked to indicate the most significantdifferences between that program and the drug court, using the followingscale:

1 = very important

2 = somewhat important

3 = not important

Thirty-nine percent of the responding participantshad been enrolled in at least one previous treatment program. Their commentsreinforce the major differences between the drug court and other treatmentprograms that have been cited generally: (1) the supervision provided bythe judge; (2) the frequency of court status hearings; (3) the frequencyof counseling sessions; (4) the frequency of urinalysis; and (5) the possibilityof sanctions being immediately imposed for noncompliance. Below is a statisticalsummary of their comments.

· a judge monitors my progress

very important 75%

somewhat important 13%

not important 12%

· frequent court hearings to monitormy progress

very important 70%

somewhat important 20%

not important 11%

· frequency of counseling session

very important 55%

somewhat important 38%

not important 8%

· frequency of urinalysis

very important 71%

somewhat important 24%

not important 5%

· possibility of sanctions being imposedif didn't comply with program requirements

very important 82%

somewhat important 12%

not important 6%

4. Participants' Comments Regarding DrugCourt Components

Duration of Drug Court Program

Participants were asked to indicate the timeperiod required for their drug court participation and whether they feltthis timeframe was appropriate, too long or too short. Sixty-eight percentof the respondents participated in programs that were twelve months in duration;Sixteen percent participated in shorter programs; twenty percent participatedin programs of longer duration. Their responses however, indicate that seventy-eightpercent of the responding participants felt the length of time requiredfor program participation was appropriate. Eighteen percent felt it shouldbe shortened; four percent felt it should be lengthened.

Drug Testing Frequency

Participants were also asked whether they feltthe frequency with which they were tested for drugs was appropriate, toofrequent, or too infrequent. The frequency with which the responding participantswere tested was as follows:

· Daily 14%

· Twice Weekly 42%

· Weekly 40%

· Other frequencies 4%

(both more & less frequently)

Most participants felt that the frequency oftesting was appropriate and a number of respondents commented that theywould have been willing to be tested more frequently if the program required.

Role of Acupuncture in Participant'sRetention

Participants enrolled in programs that offeredacupuncture were asked to indicate the significance they felt acupunctureplayed in their remaining in the drug court program. Fifty-sevenpercent of the responding participants indicated that acupuncture serviceswere available in their programs. Their assessment of the significance ofacupuncture to their remaining in the drug court is summarized asfollows:

· very important 19%

· somewhat important 23%

· little importance 46%

· no response 15%

It should be noted that, in many cases, acupunctureis provided during the early period of drug court participation so thatmany of the responding participants may have been well passed the periodin which acupuncture was actively administered when they responded to thisquestion..

5. Participants' Perceptions Regarding Significanceof Potential Changes in Principal Components of Drug Court Programs on TheirRetention

Participants were asked to indicate whetherthey felt they would have remained in the drug court if major componentsof the program were changed. Their responses reinforce the significant rolethat the judge plays in their retention in the drug court program. Eightypercent indicated they would not have remained in the program if they didnot appear before a judge as part of the process. Seventy- three percentindicated they did not feel they would have remained in the program if,instead of appearing before the same judge during their period of participation,they appeared before different judges. The frequency of court appearances,however, although significant, appears to be less of a factor in their retention.One third felt they would have remained in the program if they appearedbefore the judge less frequently; fifty-eight percent felt they would nothave remained if hearings were less frequent. Approximately one half feltthey would have remained in the program if court hearings were more frequently;slightly over one third felt they would not have remained if the frequencyof hearings were increased. The following is a summary of their responses.

· if the program provided drug testingand court status

hearings but no treatment

Yes 30%

No 63%

No Opinion 7%

· if the participant appeared beforea judge less frequently

Yes 32%

No 58%

No Opinion 10%

· if the participant appeared beforea judge more frequently

Yes 49%

No 37%

No Opinion 14%

· if the participant appeared beforedifferent judges rather than the same judge

Yes 17%

No 73%

No Opinion 10%

· if the participant didn't appear beforeany judge

Yes 12%

No 80%

No Opinion 8%

Go to Appendices

Go back to Volume Three:Part Six: Treatment Provider Services and Perspectives