Orange County Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Outcome and Recidivism Study

1. Orange County Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Outcome and Recidivism Study Orange County District Attorney’s Office Katie J.B. Parsons, Ph.D. Research Manager

2. District Attorney Evaluation • Demographics • Who is being served? • Criminal and drug histories • Are those with less serious criminal histories more likely to succeed? • Are those with more shorter drug histories more likely to succeed? • Is the existence of previous court-order treatment predictive of success or failure? • Program Progress • Do those who complete the program have lower rates of recidivism? • Do PVs and NLVs predict success and/or recidivism?

3. Methodology • Focused on 2nd year Participants (2002-2003) • Defendants • 13,000 were eligible • 3,347 sentenced • 386 completed sample • Data collected mid to late 2006 (1 year follow up) • Data • District Attorney Case Management System • Superior Court VISION • State and Federal Criminal Histories

4. Methodology (continued) • Evaluation completed early 2007 • There have been no updates to data • Definition of Success • Dismissal

5. Demographics • A typical defendant was a white male in his early 30s who had a prior criminal conviction(s) • Sample was comparable to those who were sentenced and those who were eligible

6. Criminal Histories – Prior Arrests

7. Criminal Histories – Types of Arrests

8. Drug Histories • Prior Drug Arrests • 40% had 1-2 prior drug arrests • 26% had 3-5 prior drug arrests • 13% had 6 or more prior drug arrests • Approximately 37% had a “recorded” previous court-ordered drug treatment • Average length of drug histories was 8 years

9. Progress through SACPA Program • Sentenced in Court • Assessment by Probation • Referred to Treatment by HCA • Enrolled in Treatment • Complete Treatment • Complete Program • Includes all completion of all probation terms

10. Progress through SACPA

11. Probation and New Law Violations • 80% charged with at least 1 PV • Roughly 1 in 8 (12%) were removed for PVs and resentenced. (lower that state evaluation 20%) • 50% charged with a NLV • 33% new drug • 10% new property • 7% new violence • Roughly 1 in 6 (16%) were removed for NLVs

12. District Attorney Evaluation • Demographics • Criminal and drug histories • Are those with less serious criminal histories more likely to succeed? • Are those with more shorter drug histories more likely to succeed? • Is the existence of previous court-order treatment predictive of success or failure? • Program Progress • Do those who complete the program have lower rates of recidivism? • Do PVs and NLVs predict success and/or recidivism?

13. Research Unit Suggestions to DA(any changes would have to be approved by the Over Sight Committee) • Limit violent repeat offenders • Do assessment and evaluation prior to sentencing • that way program tailored to defendant • PC 1000, P36, Drug Court • Spend limited resources on those committed to drug and crime free lifestyle • Might have an impact on PVs and NLVs