Beckham County Juvenile Drug Court: Phase II Analysis and Evaluation

• NCJ Number: 203901
• Author(s): Paul O'Connell M.S.; David Wright Ph.D.; Bob Clymer M.A.
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 25 pages
• Corporate Author: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Ctr
• Sale Source: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Ctr
• Publication Format: Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded on January 6, 2004.

Annotation

This report is phase II of the analysis on the Beckham County, Oklahoma Juvenile Drug Court with updated information on clientele status and recommendations.

Abstract

The Beckham County, Oklahoma Juvenile Drug Court was designed for non-violent first or second time offenders with substance abuse issues or those adjudicated in need of supervision (INS). A preliminary analysis was conducted in 1999 comparing the structure of the drug court to guidelines published by the National Drug Court Programs Office. This report presents the phase II analysis and evaluation of Beckham County's Juvenile Drug Court. Information is updated on a variety of factors, such as selected demographic variables of clients/participants, relapse, relapse drug, phase level, status, retention, and recidivism data in the case of graduates. Comparisons are made on a variety of variables between the first and second evaluation cohorts. Overall, evaluation findings indicate that: (1) the retention rate for the drug court was 51 percent compared to a 56 percent nationwide; (2) the employment rate for participants before drug court entry was 31 percent while in drug court the rate increased to 56 percent; (3) 63 percent of the respondents stated the drug court encouraged parent participation; (4) 53 percent of the respondents have a better relationship with their parents; (5) 63 percent of the respondents stated improvement in their grades; (6) 58 percent of the respondents felt better about themselves; and (7) 44 percent were satisfied with the drug court experience. Recommendations are presented and include: (1) promoting the juvenile court more among referral agencies; (2) more consideration directed to pre-graduation/release planning, providing aftercare services, and formal post-program supervision; (3) the development of a management information system (MIS); (4) on-going research and evaluation on the Beckham County Juvenile Drug Court; and (5) tracking recidivism rates of the juvenile drug court participants over time and compared to other groups. Tables and references