Sentencing to Treatment Records Investigation

1
Sentencing to Treatment Records Investigation

• W. Gill Woodall, Ph. D.
• Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and
  Addictions CASAA
• Jim Davis, M.A.
• Division of Government Research
• Paul Guerin, Ph. D.
• Institute for Social Research
• The University of New Mexico

2
Purpose of the Investigation and Methods

• The purpose of the investigation was to determine
  the extent to which 2nd and 3rd DWI offenders are
  being sentenced to Screening and Treatment of
  some form, as the law mandates.
• A random sample (N1998) of 2nd offense and above
  DWI offenders adjudicated between Jan. 1, 2006
  and Dec. 31, 2007 was drawn from the DWI Citation
  Tracking System (CTS) database.
• Data records were drawn from seven key
  geographically representative New Mexico
  counties Bernalillo, Chaves, Dona Ana, McKinley,
  Santa Fe, San Juan, and Rio Arriba.
• This sample represents approximately 25 of the
  event cases available in the DWI CTS for the
  study time period.

3
The Law NMMVL 66-8-102 K-L

• K. Upon any conviction pursuant to this section,
  an offender shall be required to participate in
  and complete, within a time specified by the
  court, an alcohol or drug abuse screening program
  approved by the department of finance and
  administration and, if necessary, a treatment
  program approved by the court. The requirement
  imposed pursuant to this subsection shall not be
  suspended, deferred or taken under advisement.

4
The Law NMMVL 66-8-102 K-L

• L. Upon a second or third conviction pursuant to
  this section, an offender shall be required to
  participate in and complete, within a time
  specified by the court
• (1) not less than a twenty-eight-day inpatient,
  residential or in-custody substance abuse
  treatment program approved by the court
• (2) not less than a ninety-day outpatient
  treatment program approved by the court
• (3) a drug court program approved by the court
  or
• (4) any other substance abuse treatment program
  approved by the court.
• The requirement imposed pursuant to this
  subsection shall not be suspended, deferred or
  taken under advisement.

5
The Law NMMVL 66-8-102 M

• Upon a felony conviction pursuant to this
  section, the corrections department shall provide
  substance abuse counseling and treatment to the
  offender in its custody. While the offender is
  on probation or parole under its supervision, the
  corrections department shall also provide
  substance abuse counseling and treatment to the
  offender or shall require the offender to obtain
  substance abuse counseling and treatment.

6
Match-Merge Methods

• The randomly drawn data records were match merged
  against the online Judgment and Sentencing
  records at nmcourts.com and metrocourt.state.nm.us
  
• These data records were also match merged against
  the ADE database for New Mexico
• In addition, a sub-sample of the online Court
  records were hand compared to paper court records
  for Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Aztec
  Magistrate Court, Dona Ana County Magistrate
  Court, Gallup Magistrate Court, and the Eleventh
  Judicial District Court in San Juan County to
  verify accuracy.

7
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

• The Sample was comprised of 1651 Males (82.6)
  and 347 Females (17.4)

8
Three Questions were addressed in this
Investigation

• What percentage of DWI Second and Third offenders
  are mandated treatment in the judgment and
  sentencing document?
• What percentage of DWI Second and Third offenders
  are attending or receiving the court mandated
  treatment?
• What kind of treatment did the offenders in the
  sample receive?

9
Initial Sample
Initial Random Sample of DWI Offenders, 2nd and
above Offense N1998 Selected Counties Bernalill
o, Chaves, Dona Ana, McKinley, Santa Fe, San
Juan, Rio Arriba
10
Loss in Sample
Loss 1120 (56.1) Court disposition did not
match conviction count in CTS, reduction in final
charge from original charge, unknown level of
charge, other factors.
Adjudication
Remaining Sample 878 Second and above
Convictees 43.9 of Initial Sample
11
Ancillary AnalysisExamination of Screening in
JS Documents

• We examined mention of screening in JS documents
  for the remaining sample of all second and above
  convictees

12
Screening Mandated in JS

• Screening Mandated in JS n729
• 83 of True Second and above offenders
• 94 of offenders in Magistrate or Metro Court
  system Screened
• 57.5 of offenders in District Court system
  Screened

13
Results of Questions 1-3 for Second and Third DWI
Offenders

• Statutes K-L apply to Second and Third Offenders
  Results for Questions 1-3 are reported for
  Second and Third time DWI Offenders

14
Question 1

• What percentage of DWI Second and Third offenders
  are mandated treatment in the Judgment and
  Sentencing document?

15
Treatment Mandated in JS

• Treatment Mandated in JS
• A total of n659 Second and Third Offenders in
  the Remaining Sample
• 48.4 of Second and Third offenders have
  treatment mandated in their JS document, with
  51.6 who do not have Treatment Mandated in the
  JS

16
Questions 2 3

• What percentage of offenders are attending or
  receiving the court mandated treatment?
• What kind of treatment did the court mandate for
  the individuals contained in sample?

17
Match of Remaining Sample to ADE Database

• ADE Search and Match Results
• 489 Cases of the 659 2nd and 3rd Offender cases
  Match
• This is 74.2 of the 2nd and 3rd Offender Sample

Loss 170 (25.8) of 2nd and 3rd Offender Cases
due to Failure to Screen or Record in ADE
18
Treatment indicated in ADE
Treatment indicated in ADE database 45.8
indicate treatment of some type (302 2nd and 3rd
Offender cases) 54.2 have no record of
Treatment
Loss 28.4 (187 cases) of ADE Matched Cases had
no Treatment Record in ADE 25.8 (170 cases)
missing
19
Percentage of Treatment Categoryof Second and
Third Offenders
20
Study Conclusions and Qualifications

• A substantial number of 2nd and 3rd DWI offenders
  do not have treatment (51.6) mandated in their
  JS by the courts
• 45.8 of Second and Third convictees actually
  accessed some form of treatment that is known
  about
• There is significant loss along the client flow
  from sentencing to treatment

21
Study Conclusions and Qualifications

• The conclusions of the investigation are limited
  by the time frame of the study (Jan. 1, 2006-Dec.
  31 2007), and by the counties chosen (though
  these counties are likely to be representative)
• Loss of client explanations post adjudication can
  be explained either by failure to enter and
  record data, or failure to maintain offender
  participation in the screening and treatment
  system
• The results call for better communication and
  cooperation among all who are part of DWI
  tracking and treatment system, including the
  Courts, Treatment Providers, and the Dept. of
  Finance and Administration County Screeners and
  Trackers

22
Your Questions??