|
Principal
Investigator:
Drew Humphries, PhD,
Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Anthropology
and Criminal Justice, and Director of the Criminal Justice
Program.
This
pilot study is partially funded by the Center for
Children and Childhood Studies
 My
research on Crack Mothers focused on social reactions to
the women who used drugs during pregnancy during the 1980s
and 1990s (Humphries, 1999a). In looking around for alternatives
to the punitive war on drugs, I came across drug courts,
a new way of combining justice and substance abuse treatment
for offenders(Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999). I am studying
drug court because this institution holds out great promise
for families and the well-being of children. The Center
for the Center for Children and Childhood Studies has funded
the first step, a pilot study designed to test research
procedures for a larger investigation of drug court clients
adjustment following drug court. Family and parenting responsibilities
are key areas of investigation.
With
a verdict or negotiated plea of guilty, non-violent offenders
whose crimes are drug-driven may apply to drug court. Alternatively,
felons who have violated the conditions of regular probation
due to drug addiction may also apply to drug court. If the
court approves, defendants are sentenced to as much as five
years probation and must successfully complete drug treatment
and all the terms of aftercare. If the defendant fails to
comply with the terms of probation, the court terminates
probation and re-sentences the defendant to a period of
incarceration (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,
1998).
Drug courts have been justified on grounds that they reduce
criminal activity, lower criminal justice costs and decrease
case pressure on criminal courts (Peters & Peyton, 1998).
The evidence suggests that reductions in criminal activity
can be expected from drug courts, although the jury is still
out on case pressures and cost savings (Belenko, 1998).
Overlooked
are clients' adjustments to drug-free life styles. Positive
adjustments include improved health; educational progress,
gainful employment; debt reduction or other signs of financial
stability; and maintenance of a sober and crime free lifestyle.
The resumption of family and parental responsibilities is
of special concern because 80% of drug court clients have
responsibilities for minor children. Whether clients succeed
in the family arena is built on stability across other areas
of life.
Has
successful completion of drug court helped these clients
adjust to civilian life as healthy human beings, who maintain
a drug-free, law abiding life style and who also work and
fulfill family responsibilities, including parenting?
The
question can be answered by using a two-group, pretest-posttest
design with subjects selected according to their eligibility
for drug court (Bernard, 2000). While this design sacrifices
control for reality, it allows us to take advantage of the
Addiction Severity Index (ASI) used to establish clinical
eligibility. Everyone eligible for drug court has been given
the ASI; the post-test will use it along with an interview
schedule.
The
Addiction Severity Index (ASI) is a widely used public domain
instrument used for screening, assessment, and drug treatment
planning (Office of Justice Programs, 1998c). It is reliable
and valid for use with a variety of substance using populations
(Office of Justice Programs, 1998c). The ASI examines functional
areas, which are commonly affected by an individual's drug
abuse. The areas include health status, employment status,
family and social relationships, and legal status. The pilot
study tests this instrument.
The
study focuses on nonviolent offenders who entered drug court
as failed probationers. Camden Drug Court has processed
95 such offenders since 1996(1998 Class of Leadership New
Jersey, 2000). It also takes advantage of eligibility test
for admission to the court in order to select comparison
group (Boyle, 2000). To be eligible for Adult Drug Court
in Camden, applicants must meet the clinical standard for
addiction. Some eligible applicants participate in drug
court; others do not. Eligible applicants who participated
in drug court make up the experimental group. Eligible applicants
who rejected drug court comprise the control group. Questions
about sampling and sample size will be resolved by the pilot
study. Addiction status and prior offenses are known for
both groups. The pilot study is designed to test recruitment
procedures.
Drug
court and its program of drug treatment define the "intervention"
that the project seeks to evaluate. Camden County Probation
records can be used to specify the intervention: counseling
sessions, 12-step meetings, sanctions, contacts with probation,
the payment of fees, fines, and penalties, and so forth
can all be quantified for each client in the experimental
group. The same records can be reviewed for the control
group.
To
provide assurances that matched comparison groups are appropriately
similar, group differences on the demographic variables
will be tested for statistical significance. If cases are
randomly selected from each group, systematic differences
can be assumed to cancel one another out. Sampling strategies
depend on the outcome of the pilot study.
Group
differences on post-test variables will be tested for statistical
significance. Outcomes may be formulated as group means,
for example, for health, the average number of emergency
room visits might be calculated for each group and then
group difference tested for statistical significant (t-test).
Other outcome variables may be expressed as percentages,
for example, the percentage of persons in each group who
have a significant problem with a child or spouse. Percentage
differences would then be tested for statistical significance
(Chi-squared).
The
level of data analysis will be determined by sample size.
If the sample consists of the minimum 30 subjects in each
group, data analysis is limited to group differences on
single variables where only the strongest effects would
be detected (Meyer, 2000). Anything beyond univariate analysis
would depend on incremental increases (60, 90) in the size
of the sample.
Potential
loss of subjects, changes in the intervention, and the diffusion
of effects from the experimental to control group are among
the threats to validity (Bernard, 2000). Most extraneous
variables can be controlled, and even though I can list
changes in Drug Court, I cannot prevent them or rule them
out as explanations. Court records can be used to prevent
diffusion of effects, but procedures designed to minimize
the impact of case mortality may not be as effective as
anticipated (see pilot study).
Because
drug court clients are under the jurisdiction of the court,
authorization to review their probation records was required.
The Chief Administrator of the Court for the State of New
Jersey (AOC) has approved the proposal, clearing the way
for the pilot to proceed. Should the pilot determine that
project is feasible, AOC has required a separate approval
process.
Drug
court clients are like prisoners in that their supervision
is a potential source of coercion. In addition to ensuring
confidentiality, every effort must be made to inform subjects
of the voluntary nature of participation and to provide
for subjects who may feel uncomfortable or distressed as
a result of being interviewed. The proposal including consent
form is pending approval by Rutgers' Institutional Review
Board (IRB). Again, should the pilot determine the feasibility
of the larger study, IRB has required a separate and ongoing
approval process.
Designed
to tests two procedures for locating subjects, the pilot
involves only 10 subjects. In the first procedure, the office
of probation will select 5 graduates who have been released
from probation, contact them on behalf of the study, and
ask if they would like to participate. If the graduate agrees,
he or she would be given the name of the interviewer, a
contact location and time, and the information that participants
will receive $25.00 for the interview.
The second approach differs only in this: Probation contacts
5 graduates who are still on probation. Results will be
used to identify effective recruitment procedures, although
one possibility is to restrict the subjects to graduates
who are close to the end, but still on probation and then
interview them following release.
If all 95 drug court clients and an equal number of non-drug
court clients can be located, and if all agree to the interview,
then a matched sample strategy is appropriate. However,
the likelihood of finding all or even most of the 95 drug
court clients and a comparison group may be quit low. Even
so, I should be able to find some. The minimum number for
each group is 30, 30 being the number of subjects needed
to analyze group differences on a single variable (Meyer,
2000). The selection of 30 out of 95 subjects makes sample
bias a significant issue. Randomizing the selection of subjects
from each pool guards against sample bias, but its utility
depends on how many times one has to return to the pool
to reach the minimum number of subjects.
While
the Addiction Severity Index is a widely used, reliable
instrument, the interviewers for this project have not used
it; consequently interviewers will be trained on the ANSI
instrument and the interview schedule. The pilot will be
a test run for the interviewers as well as use of the instruments
to assess client adjustment. In the functional area of family
and social relationships, the study is interested in: marital
status, duration of and satisfaction with marital status,
usual living arrangements, their duration, and clients satisfaction
with them; close family relationships, including those with
children; problematic family relationships, also including
those with children. The Interview schedule probes more
deeply into client's relationship with children and client's
perception of the children's well-being.
In
addition to probing family relationships, the interview
schedule will be used to check clients' truth telling, especially
in the areas of crime and drug use.
Reference
List
1998
Class of Leadership New Jersey. (2000). Drug Courts in
New Jersey: Past, Present and Future. Unpublished Manuscript.
Belenko,
S. (1998). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review.
National Drug Court Institute Review, I(1).
Bernard, H.R. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative
and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Boyle,
C. (2000). Personal Communication, June 29. Trenton,
N.J..
Hora,
P. F., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic
Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing
the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and
Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74(2), 439-538.
Humphries,
D. (1999a). Crack Mothers: Pregnancy, Drugs, and the
Media. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Meyer,
J. ( 2000). Personal Communication, August 10. Camden, N.J.
National
Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1998). Defining
Drug Courts: The Key Components January 1997. Washington,
D.C.: Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Office
of Justice Programs. (1998c). Drug Court Monitoring,
Evaluation, Management of Information Systems. Washington,
D.C.: Justice Management Institute, Drug Courts Program
Office, U.S. Department of Justice.
Peters,
R. H., & Peyton, E. (1998). Guideline for drug courts
on screening and assessment. Washington, DC: Drug Courts
Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Relevant
Web Sites:
http://www.lindesmith.org/cites_sources/0814208169_frame.html
http://www.ohiostatepress.org/s99/HUMCRA.htm
http://www.aclu.org/store/amazon/drugpolicy.html
http://ur.rutgers.edu/focus/index.phtml?Article_ID=284&Issue_ID=34
http://www.a1b2c3.com/free/aaa_aaa/dru_awom.htm
http://www.scapw.org/NAACPltr.htm
http://www.pearsonptr.com/book_detail/0,3771,0130113891,00.html
For more information on this study, please
contact Drew
Humphries, Department
of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Rutgers-Camden.
|
