WHAT WORKS
A Look at Diversion Programs in Alabama and Arizona
Alabama
In 1985, the Court Referral Officer Program was established to address the devastating problem of drunk driving. It was first a pilot program to assist judges to identify and refer for services people charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. In April 1990, the Alabama Legislature unanimously passed the Mandatory Treatment Act of 1990 (MTA). Since then, court referral officers (CROs) have provided services to defendants in a broad spectrum of cases related to alcohol and drug use. From 1990 to 2000, CROs evaluated, referred, monitored and provided drug testing services for more than 150,000 defendants. This program is run by the Administrative Office of Courts (AOC).
The most important change brought by the MTA is pretrial diversion from alcohol and drug prosecution. Any person arrested or charged with violating illegal drug laws has the option to enroll in a drug abuse treatment program in lieu of undergoing prosecution, if the district attorney agrees. A defendant who is determined to be eligible for the CRO Diversion Program must complete a drug or alcohol testing program.
According to the MTA, the prosecutor must initiate charges against a defendant who fails to complete treatment and pay the required costs. The diversion program is not intended to allow defendants to elude punishment. An independent evaluation was completed in September, 2000. The authors of the report surveyed CRO program participants received 284 responses, of which:
· 80 percent report that the program has made a difference in their lives.
· 75 percent do not feel that they currently have a drug problem.
· 62 percent report not drinking any alcohol since completing treatment.
· 96 percent state that they are no longer using illegal substances on a weekly basis.
· 90 percent reported no arrests after completing the program.
· 79 percent state that their family relationships have improved.
· 66 percent feel that their friendships have greatly improved.
· 62 percent feel that their health problems have been significantly reduced.
· 78 percent are presently employed.
· 31 percent state that their current job is better than the one they had before treatment.
· 56 percent feel that their particular job situation has improved.
Participants are placed in treatment programs according to the severity of their addiction; level I is the least and level III is the most intensive. Participants in the level III program reported significantly higher improvement in their jobs and with their friendships. Level III participants also reported the lowest alcohol consumption and substance abuse after treatment than those who graduated from levels I and II.
Overall, very few differences were seen in the results between recent program participants and individuals who had completed the treatment program more than one year ago. This suggests that the results of the CRO treatment program are of long-term duration. However, the few differences were that individuals who had been out of the program for more than one year had significantly higher arrests and convictions, were significantly less likely to be employed, and were significantly less likely to feel that the program had helped them than recent participants.
A survey of 224 former program participants yielded the following data on repeated alcohol and drug offenses:
· 197 had no more arrests after completing the program.
· A 12 percent re-arrest rate was noted for individuals who completed the CRO Program in 1996 to 1999.
Arizona
In November 1996, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act. The act called for increased drug treatment and education services for drug offenders and diversion of nonviolent offenders from prison to probation. It also established the Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF) to be administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
In March 1999, the AOC prepared an evaluation of the treatment provided to people on parole and an analysis of the cost savings that have resulted from the new approach. The report found that the state saved $5 million in prison costs, spent $2.1 million on substance abuse treatment and yielded a net savings of $2.6 million per year. The courts also found that funds were adequate to accomplish the treatment and education goals of the program and that the majority of people who entered the diversion program successfully completed treatment and stayed free of drugs. In 1998:
· 98 percent of people on probation were ordered to be placed in the treatment program recommended by an addiction professional.
· 932 probationers completed a treatment program, representing a 36 percent completion rate.
· 61 percent of the completions (or 22 percent of those placed) were successful. Successful completion is defined as compliance with treatment program requirements, not being transferred to another placement, and not leaving treatment, being re-arrested or having a petition filed to revoke probation.
· Great variation existed in the success rates between counties. The counties' success rates ranged from 93 percent in Cochise County to 40 percent in Graham and 33 percent in Navajo.
· Successful placements averaged 94 days in treatment.
· Unsuccessful placements averaged 74 days in treatment.
· 76 percent of the urinalyses to check that people were complying with the conditions of their probation were negative.
· 78 percent of probationers were drug free during FY 1998.
· 77 percent of probationers made at least one payment toward the cost of their treatment.
TO NEXT SECTION (ON THE HORIZON)
BACK TO MAIN
|
