Introduction

Thousands are convicted for drug possession offenses in Illinois each year and many are sent to prison. Research indicates incarceration cannot effectively reduce drug use or drug crime and is not cost effective.[1] Therefore, many states have invested in alternative sentencing or specialized programming for individuals convicted of drug crimes. Prior research found such alternative programs are promising, as they reduce recidivism and are cost effective.[2]

In this evaluation, we examined the DuPage County Illinois, First Offender Call Unified for Success (FOCUS) program. The FOCUS program serves individuals charged with a felony drug possession for the first time. The program is an alternative to prison with the dismissal of charges upon completion. The program incorporates specialized drug probation caseloads with treatment and services, a program-specific court docket with one designated judge, and drug and alcohol educational sessions. This program is fairly unique as individuals convicted of felony drug offenses are often excluded from alternative programming. [3] FOCUS differs from drug courts in that it is based on a felony drug offense charge rather than a clinical diagnosis of a substance use disorder.

We conducted this evaluation to answer the following research questions:

  • How did the FOCUS court develop, get implemented, and operate?
  • Who were the FOCUS court participants?
  • What was the feedback on the FOCUS court from participants and staff?
  • To what extent were the educational sessions helpful and informative?

This article summarizes our evaluation and its findings, please see the full report for more detailed information.

Methodology

We examined the program’s development, operations, and participants and solicited feedback from the participants and probation and court staff involved in the program. Program administrative data were analyzed to describe participant demographics and probation violations. We conducted phone interviews with participants (n = 9) and in-person interviews with probation and court staff (n = 12). Finally, we administered a survey to low-risk participants based on the Adult Risk Assessment who attended one of the two drug and alcohol educational sessions (n = 42). The study was conducted in 2019 and 2020 and was approved by the ICJIA Institutional Review Board.

Findings

The program began in September 2018 and as of April 2021, there were 231 active participants. A majority were White males with a Class 4 felony drug possession charge. A total of 22.9% of active participants accrued a technical violation and 15.1% had a new a new arrest or new arrest and technical violations. Thirty-nine participants successfully completed the two-year program, while three did not complete the probation successfully and four died of a drug overdose. Of those, 92% of those who completed the program did so satisfactorily and the court dismissed their charges.

Although the program was geared toward individuals on probation for a drug offense, the participants may not meet criteria for a clinical diagnosis of a substance use disorder which may require treatment. We asked clients about their perspectives of their own need for treatment. Of the nine participants surveyed, eight reported that it was “not at all important” to receive drug treatment. The program was made available to drug arrestees regardless of having a clinical substance use disorder diagnosis. We administered a survey on stressful and traumatic life events. Several participants reported experiencing past traumatic events, such as car accidents, unwanted sexual experiences, and the sudden death of a loved one.

Participants agreed that FOCUS probation helped them appear in court and report to their regular probation officer, but said text reminders would be helpful. Participants also agreed that FOCUS probation was more beneficial to their lives compared to other court sanctions and had a positive impact their future. Eight of nine participants said FOCUS program staff worked together in the best interest of the participants. Additionally, all indicated FOCUS clearly communicated program conditions of the program and the consequences of program non-compliance. A few participants said the program did not offer any incentives or rewards and three were unsure if any were offered; staff indicated that FOCUS did not set standards for incentives and rewards and were weak in comparison to sanctions.

Overall, FOCUS staff shared positive aspects of the FOCUS program, especially noting the program structure with specialized court docket. Staff reported good working relationships among probation and court staff working with FOCUS participants. The judge and treatment staff were supportive; law enforcement played a limited role. Staff expressed some interest in improving relapse prevention and noted high caseloads (about 80 clients per probation officer). In addition, staff expressed concern over participant program fees, which were over $2,500 without waivers.

Participants at low risk for recidivism were required to attend drug and alcohol educational sessions. In a survey following session completion, participants said they were somewhat beneficial. However, some staff recommended presenting topics that were more germane to FOCUS participants’ needs.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Based on the findings, we offer recommendations for potential programmatic improvement. We understand some recommendations may require funding, resources, and policy changes.

Modify the Educational Sessions

Reduce Additional Requirements of Low-Risk Individuals

During the interviews, several probation staff expressed concerns about requiring educational sessions for low-risk offenders. The Risk, Need, and Responsivity (or RNR) principles clearly support fewer probation requirements and services for individuals at low risk of recidivism and more intensive supervision for high-risk individuals. The model is supported by decades of research and has been proven effective to reduce recidivism.[4] Research has found programs that do not adhere to the RNR model are likely to increase recidivism risk rather than decrease it.[5] Therefore, low risk participants should have less requirements and not an additional requirement of attending educational sessions. However, the program does allow lower risk individuals report to court and drug test less frequently than high risk individuals.

Consider Content of the Educational Sessions

In terms of content, the first educational session featured speakers who were family members whose loved ones died of an opioid overdose. One FOCUS staff member said “scare tactics” used in the educational sessions were not effective.

The session was similar to victim impact panels which try to teach individuals about consequences of crime and evoke intense guilt, shame, and empathy to deter them from offending. Little is known on whether victim impact panels reduce recidivism.[6] Of the 12 post-session survey respondents, eight indicated the presentation made them “upset,” five said they felt “ashamed,” three said they felt “guilty,” and three said they felt “worried.” Research shows victim impact panels can increase feelings of shame in individuals, which can lead to future negative behavior.[7] Woodall and colleagues (2001) found victim impact panel participants felt terrible about themselves, embarrassed, ashamed, humiliated, and guilty.[8]

For those with substance use disorders, research supports safe, empathetic, and supportive relationships with probation officers using motivational interviewing[9] rather than stigmatizing individuals or reinforcing guilt and shame.[10]

The second session featured a presentation from an Addictions counselor, which did not resonate with many participants. In that session, nine of 30 participants indicated on a survey that the content “did not apply to me at all.” In addition, in the interviews, staff members had concerns about the sessions’ the topics. One staff person suggested that the topics relate more to probation struggles or offer life skills training. Based on this study’s findings, the educational sessions should be reduced or eliminated for low-risk offenders. If the presentations are to continue, the content should be applicable to, and helpful to, probation participants and not unduly evoke guilt and shame.

Offer Participants Additional Positive Reinforcement

FOCUS staff noted more sanctions were given for non-compliance and fewer rewards offered for positive behavior. In addition, of the nine participants surveyed, three reported the program did not offer any rewards and three were unsure if any were offered. The use of rewards, based on the principles of contingency management, can be a positive motivator and effective for those in recovery for substance use disorders.[11] Contingency management is an evidenced-based intervention that uses sanctions for negative behaviors (drug use) and rewards for positive behaviors (abstinence from drug use).[12] Often the justice system does not employ rewards and focuses more on sanctions.[13] The use of contingency management has been shown to reduce drug use and increase retention in substance use disorder treatment.[14] The FOCUS program should consistently offer rewards to enforce positive behaviors and compliance based on clear expectations and guidelines. Rewards may include verbal praise, a symbolic certificate, reduced reporting and drug testing, vouchers for items, and gift cards.[15]

Support Long-Term Recovery

Some staff suggested the program should explore how to support clients’ recovery after they have completed structured and monitored probation. This could include offering peer recovery coaches and connecting family members to services. Peer recovery coaches have lived experiences of recovery from a substance use disorder and can provide non-clinical support to assist individuals in recovery and engage families.[16] A systematic research review found that peer recovery coaches have a positive impact and can influence reduced recidivism, increased treatment retention, and reduced substance use.[17] Probation can further support long-term recovery by providing treatment “responsive to an individual’s temperament, learning style, motivation, culture, and gender.”[18]

Connect Law Enforcement to the Program

FOCUS staff noted law enforcement played a limited role in the program and many officers were unaware of the program. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (2011), a critical component of successful drug courts is a strong partnership with local law enforcement.[19] Police can offer support for the public safety aspect, share their unique community perspectives, and extend the connection of the drug court team in the community, even conducting home visits. Carey et al. (2008) completed a comprehensive study of 18 drug courts and found that while including law enforcement is not common, it is clearly associated with more positive outcomes, including cost-benefit.[20] Therefore, FOCUS should try to engage law enforcement.

Conduct Additional Research

There is a concern that alternative sentencing programs, such as FOCUS, “truly serve as an ‘alternative’ to incarceration or function as an enhanced form of probation instead.”[21] Some scholars argue that alternative sentencing programs have unintended consequences, serving as “net-wideners” creating more opportunities for clients to fail.[22] Scholars found a probation-prison link for individuals enrolled in alternative sentencing programs while on probation. As these individuals are required to abide by more sentence conditions, the requirements increase the chances of violating probation terms, which can result in probation revocation and ultimately incarceration.[23] Further research is needed to examine these concerns.

An outcome evaluation should be performed to identify any unintended negative consequences of the program, such as net-widening and sanctions that lead to prison. An evaluation can also measure the extent to which the program meets its goals of reducing recidivism, improving behavioral health, and increasing pro-social skills. The evaluation should include rigorous methodology (experimental or quasi-experimental design) to assess short- and long-term benefits to participation.

Conclusion

Alternative sentencing approaches such as the DuPage County, Illinois FOCUS court program have expanded significantly in recent years to help individuals avoid the negative consequences of incarceration. The FOCUS program allowed individuals with first-time felony drug possession charges to avoid prison, participate in an enhanced probation program, and get their charges dismissed upon completion. We examined how the program developed and operated; described the clients it served; and obtained feedback from participants and staff. We want to note that some of the evaluation recommendations to improve programming have since been addressed. In the future, the program may consider expanding its eligilble client pool beyond drug possession to include drug dealing, which some other courts have implemented.

  1. Caulkins, J. P., Rydell, C. P., Schwabe, W. L., & Chiesa, J. (1997). Mandatory minimum drug sentences: Throwing away the key or the taxpayers’ money? The RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR827.html; Green, D. P., & Winik, D. (2010). Using random judge assignments to estimate the effects of incarceration and probation on recidivism among drug offenders. Criminology, 48(2), 357-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00189.x; PEW Charitable Trusts. (2018). More imprisonment does not reduce state drug problems: Data shows no relationship between prison terms and drug misuse. http://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_more_imprisonment_does_not_reduce_state_drug_problems.pdf; PEW Charitable Trusts. (2015). Federal drug sentencing laws bring high cost, low return: Penalty increases enacted in 1980s and 1990s have not reduced drug use or recidivism. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2015/08/federal_drug_sentencing_laws_bring_high_cost_low_return.pdf; Schiraldi, V., Holman, B., & Beatty, P. (2000). Poor prescription: The costs of imprisoning drug offenders in the United States. Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2063 ↩︎

  2. Belenko, S., Sung, H-E., Swern, A., & Donhauser, C. (2008), Prosecutors and treatment diversion: The Brooklyn (NY) DTAP Program. In Worrall, J. L. and Nugent, M. E., Eds. The changing role of the American prosecutor. State University of New York Press; Herman, P. M., & Poindexter, B. L. (2012). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pima County’s Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program Final Report. Pima County Attorney’s Office.; Hynes, C. J. (1993). DTAP: An alternative to incarceration. Journal of Law and Policy, 1, 33-45).; LaWall, B., & Rueschhoff, M. (2013). Cumulative second year cost-benefit analysis of Pima County’s drug treatment alternative to prison program. Maimon Research LLC.; McClanahan, W. S., Rossman, S. B., Polin, M., Pepper, S. K., & Lipman, E. (2013). The Choice Is Yours: Early implementation of a diversion program for felony offenders. The Urban Institute. ↩︎

  3. Belenko, S., Hiller, M., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Treating substance use disorders in the criminal justice system. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(11), 414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0414-z ↩︎

  4. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F.T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x ↩︎

  5. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.; Lowenkamp et al., 2006 ↩︎

  6. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.; Lowenkamp et al., 2006 ↩︎

  7. Jackson, A. L (2009). The impact of restorative justice on the development of guilt, shame, and empathy among participants in a victim impact training program. Victims and Offenders, 4(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880801938185 ↩︎

  8. Woodall, W. G., Delaney, H., Rogers, E., & Wheeler, D. (2000). A randomized trial of victim impact panels’ DWI deterrence effectiveness. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 24(5 Supplement),113A. ↩︎

  9. Walters, S. T., Clark, M. D., Gingerich, R., & Meltzer, M. L. (2007). A guide for probation and parole: Motivating offenders to change. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Corrections. https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/022253.pdf; White, W. & Miller, W. (2007). The use of confrontation in addiction treatment: History, science and time for change. Counselor, 8(4), 12-30. ↩︎

  10. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2005). Substance abuse treatment for adults in the criminal justice system. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64124/ ↩︎

  11. Prendergast, M., Posus, D., Finnery, J., Greenwell, L., & Roll, J. (2006). Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 101(11), 1546-1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01581.x ↩︎

  12. Taxman, F. S., & Rudes, D. S. (2013). Implementation of contingency management in probation agencies using a case controlled longitudinal design: a PDSA study protocol. Health & Justice, 1(1), 1-11. http://doi.org/10.1186/2194-7899-1-7; Volkow, N. D. (2011). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (Vol. 12, No. 4180). DIANE Publishing. https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/podat_1.pdf ↩︎

  13. Rossman, S. B., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. H. (2011). The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Executive summary. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237108.pdf ↩︎

  14. Stitzer, M. L., Petry, N. M., & Peirce, J. (2020). Motivational incentives research in the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(Supp. 1), S61–S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.010 ↩︎

  15. Sloas, L., Murphy, A., Wooditch, A., & Taxman, F. S. (2019). Assessing the use and impact of points and rewards across four federal probation districts: A contingency management approach. Victims & Offenders, 14(7), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1656691; Trotman, A. J., & Taxman, F. S. (2011). Implementation of a contingency management-based intervention in a community supervision setting: Clinical issues and recommendations. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(5), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.585924 ↩︎

  16. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (n.d.). Peers supporting recovery from substance use disorders. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/brss_tacs/peers-supporting-recovery-substance-use-disorders-2017.pdf ↩︎

  17. Bassuk, E. L., Hanson, J., Greene, R. N., Richard, M., & Laudet, A. (2016). Peer-delivered recovery support services for addictions in the United States: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 63, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.003 ↩︎

  18. Belenko, S., Hiller, M., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Treating substance use disorders in the criminal justice system. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(11), 414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0414-z ↩︎

  19. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2011). Drug courts: A smart approach to criminal justice. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/drug_courts_fact_sheet_5-31-11.pdf ↩︎

  20. Carey, S., Finigan, M., & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the key components of drug courts: A comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes and costs. NPC Research. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223853.pdf ↩︎

  21. Mauer, M. (2018). Long-term sentences: Time to reconsider the scale of punishment. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/ ↩︎

  22. Phelps, M. S. (2017). Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment. Punishment & Society, 19(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516649174 ↩︎

  23. Doherty, F. (2016). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 291–354. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6155&context=fss_papers ; Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12002 ↩︎