Information on Recidivism in Drug Court 

With the exception of the first and last bullets, the following information was compiled from the articles entitled “Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update” and “Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 2001 Update,” written by Steven Belenko, Ph.D., from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

• In the twenty-third Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia, which serves the county and city of Roanoke, Salem and town of Vinton, the post-program felony reconviction rate for graduates is 3.2% and 34.5% for non-graduates.  The overall conviction rate, including misdemeanors, for graduates, is 12% and 55.9% for non-graduates.[1]

• In King County, Washington, 7% of graduates and 27% of failures were rearrested during the drug court program.

• In Delaware, evaluations were completed for two urban drug court tracks.  The percentage of clients rearrested for each of these tracks are as follows: for track 1, 12% of the graduates and 52% of failures were rearrested during the program. For track 2, 8% of the graduates and 41% of the failures were rearrested.

• In Suffolk County, New York, 29% of drug court participants were rearrested during the program.  Of this 29%, only 19% were for drug charges. The average number of in-program arrests per-client, per-year were 0.77 overall: 0.28 for graduates, 1.72 for failures, and 0.56 for active clients. 

• Graduates of Santa Barbara drug court had an average of 0.69 arrests per year while in the program compared with an average of 2.49 arrests for the year prior to entering drug court.  The average number of rearrests for the failures was 1.74 during the program and 2.45 the year prior to admission. 

• Over a 30-month follow-up period, 43% of Oskaloosa County, Florida drug court participants were rearrested compared with 50% of matched probation cases not in the drug court.

• In Los Angeles County, 24% of drug court participants were rearrested up to 12 months post-drug court, compared with 37% of defendants in standard diversion and 51% of felony drug defendants not diverted. 

• The average number of arrests 12 months after drug court entry decreased in Madison County, Illinois by 69% for drug court participants (from 1.3 arrests to 0.4), compared with a 50% reduction for the comparison group (1.0 arrests prior to drug court screening to 0.5 after). Among dropouts, the reductions were greater for those who stayed in the program at least 3 months: their average number of arrests decreased from 1.2 arrests to 0.5 (a 58% reduction), compared with a small decrease in arrests for those who dropped out within three months (0.9 to 0.7, a 22% decrease).

• Looking at felony rearrests only, participation in the Escambia County drug court decreased felony recidivism from an expected 40% to 12% within two years of leaving the drug court.

• In Jefferson County, Kentucky, 13% of graduates were reconvicted for a felony as compared to 60% of non-graduates, and 55% of the comparison group of eligible offenders who declined to participate. 

• Felony rearrest rates for a one-year post-drug court period were 6% for graduates and 55% for dropouts, compared with 47% of the comparisons (over an 18-month post-arrest follow-up period) in Monteray, California.

• After a 30 month follow up period from the date of program admission, there was a 48% recidivism rate for graduates, 86% for non-graduates, 63% for the comparison sample of offenders sentenced to probation and matched to the graduates, and 71% for the comparison sample matched to the non-graduates in Escambia, Florida.

• During the first phase of a three year evaluation for a juvenile drug court in Ogden, Utah, the average number of arrests per drug court juvenile decreased from 1.8pre-drug court to 0.7 post-drug court, a 61% decrease.  For the comparison sample, average arrests decreased from 1.1 to 0.5, a 55% decrease.

• In Chester County, Pennsylvania, 5.4% of the drug court participants were rearrested for any offense compared to 21.5% of matched offenders sentenced to probation prior to the drug court implementation.

• In Polk County, Iowa 19% of the participants were reconvicted  on a new offense during the program, compared to 38% of a comparison sample of similar offenders referred to the drug court but who did not enroll.

• Using reconviction as the recidivism measure in Polk County, Iowa, 37% of drug court participants were reconvicted after leaving the drug court, compared to 75% of the pilot group sample. Felony reconviction prevalence was 6% for the drug court participants and 25% for the pilot comparison.

• Compared to a matched sample of offenders sentenced to probation, clients admitted in 1997 and 1998 to the Orange County, California drug court had lower rearrest rates while in the program (17% vs. 35%).

• Also in Orange County, for low- and medium-risk offenders the in-program rearrest rate of 16% was lower than the probation comparison sample of 22%. The high risk clients in the drug court program also had significantly lower rearrest rates than those on probation: 19% vs. 38%.

• During the 12 months following drug court completion in Salt Lake County, Utah, participants had an average of 3.2 new bookings and 29.2 new jail days compared to 6.6 new bookings and 54 new jail days for the comparison sample.

• In the Jackson County (Missouri) drug court recidivism for felonies was reduced from 50% to 35%, and for any type of rearrest from 65% to 45%.

• Among the Tarrant county (Texas) drug court participants, 13% were rearrested within one year of leaving the program compared with 17% of a comparison sample of offenders who were eligible for the drug court but opted out of participation.

• The Baltimore City Drug Court sample had a significantly lower prevalence of both rearrest (48% vs. 64%) and average number of rearrests (0.9% vs. 1.3%). The percentage reconvicted on new charges was also slightly lower: 31% vs. 35%.

• In Summit County, Ohio, the drug court group averaged one rearrest and the control group averaged 2.3.

• 36% of the drug court participants were rearrested after admission in contrast to 69% of a comparison sample of rejects and refusals deemed eligible for the drug court program in Erie County, Ohio.

• In Portland, Oregon, rearrest rates were lower for drug court participants overall for the 1991-1997 period: 37% vs. 53%.

• Over a 27-month period, participants of the Dallas County Drug Court (DIVERT program) had a 15.6% rearrest rate, as compared to 39.5% of those who dropped out of the program and 48.7% of those in the traditional court system.[2]