Jefferson County Family Drug Court
Evaluation of Outcomes – April 29, 2015
A mixed-methods evaluation of the Jefferson County Family Drug Court Program was conducted
in order to determine outcomes of the program. During the course of the program, the JCFDC served
183 adults with 435 children with 156 referrals to substance abuse treatment from February 2010 –
October 2014. The average age of adult participants was 29.5 years with 91% being female. Around a
quarter of the participants (26.8%) were employed at intake, around 82% were single parents, and half
of the families (49.2%) used food stamps. The average number of children in each family was 2.5 and
the median annual income range was $0 to $5,999. In terms of drug use, marijuana, cocaine, and
opiates were the top three drugs of choice with the average age of first use of alcohol or drugs being
16.3 years. Around 80% of the participants had at least one positive drug test during their participation
period with the average number of positive tests being 2.75. During the evaluation period, there was
one new report of child abuse or neglect for a program graduate. Fifteen drug free children were born
to clients in the program.
A between groups comparison of JCFDC clients and non-JCFDC clients was conducted to assess
the outcomes of the program. Three evaluation/research questions were assessed: 1.) Was there a
difference in time to permanency between children of JCFDC clients and non-JCFDC clients, 2.) Was
there a difference in the type of permanency between children of JCFDC clients and non-JCFDC clients,
and 3.) Was there a difference in percentage of positive drug tests between JCFDC clients and nonJCFDC clients over time?
To answer the first two questions, data on client outcomes were collected with help from
Alabama DHR. After cleaning data and throwing out questionable entries, two sets were retained. The
first set, Treatment Data, consisted of 86 program children. These data were from JCFDC clients during
February of 2010 to August of 2014. The second set, Comparison Data, consisted of 30 children. This
data set contained information from parents and children during the three years prior to the JCFDC
program. The 30 comparison children were children of DHR clients who would have been eligible for
family drug court participation if it had been available at the time of DHR intervention. Eighteen of
these children had parents who did eventually benefit from JCFDC services, but since the parents did not
have full access to services during the entire time the children were in DHR care, they were placed in the
comparison group. Children who had permanency established within 14 days of intake were excluded
from the data sets.
An analysis of number of days from DHR intake to close indicate that for the JCFDC Treatment
children, the mean number of days children were under DHR supervision was 408.94. For the Pre-JCFDC
Program data, the mean for comparison children was 1254.80 for a difference of 845.86 days.
Average Number of Days Until Permanency
Comparison Children
1254.8
JCFDC Program Children
408.94
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
The results suggest that children of JCFDC program clients had permanency established on
average 28 months earlier than children of comparison parents.
Given a foster care reimbursement rate of $15 per day per child (DeVooght, Trends, & Blazey,
2013), the difference in days above can be converted to an estimate of savings to the State. On average,
care for comparison children cost the State on average $12,687.90 more per child.
In terms of percent returning to parents or family member, for JCFDC Program Period Children,
74.4% of program children were reunited with parents or family members. For pre-program comparison
data, 63.3% of pre-program comparison children were reunited with parents or relatives.
Placed with Parent or Relative
Comparison Children
63.3%
JCFDC Program Children
0.0%
74.4%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
These results indicate that an additional 11.1% more program children were reunited with
parents or family members than comparison children. The results suggest that when looking at
comparison children the JCFDC program had a superior parent/family member placement rate.
For the third evaluation question, drug testing data were gathered from TASC databases for all
program clients during the JCFDC program period (n=183) and for a set of comparison clients. The
comparison data came from drug testing data of DHR monitored clients during the three years prior to
the JCFDC program (n=5470). This set is considered to be the pre-program period comparison group.
This group is reflective of all DHR clients, not just potential family drug court clients.
Drug test results were grouped into 17 units from intake to the 12-month period after intake.
Positive tests for any tested drug or alcohol were tallied for all individuals in the time period and divided
by the total number of tests given in the time period for a percentage of positive tests. Table 1 below
details the grouping of days after intake into time points:
Table 1: Drug testing time categories
Category Name
Intake
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month 11
Month 12
Number of days after intake
Intake date and/or first test
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-30
31-60
61-90
91-120
121-150
151-180
181-210
211-240
241-270
271-300
301-330
331-365
366-390
An analysis of the percentage of positive tests in each of the time categories indicates that
JCFDC clients had lower percent positive drug tests than those in the overall DHR group in almost every
category. There were three exceptions when JCFDC positive drug testing rates were compared to the
DHR clients. These three exceptions were all in the first three testing periods with the DHR clients
having 7% fewer positive tests at intake and during Week 1, and 1% fewer positive tests at Week 2.
The results suggest that while there is a steady decline up to Month 1 for both groups, that
decline continues for the JCFDC clients to a rate of 1% positive tests at Month 12. For the DHR groups,
the rate of positive tests seem to hold steady around 25% positive tests from Month 4 through Month
12.
FDC
All DHR 3-Years Prior to FDC
Month 12
Month 11
Month 10
Month 9
Month 8
Month 7
Month 6
Month 5
Month 4
Month 3
Month 2
Month 1
Week 4
Week 3
Week 2
Week 1
Intake
Percent of Positive Drug Test Results
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In addition to quantitative data, qualitative data were collected from five participants who had
successfully completed the program. Three themes were generated from these interviews: Success in
becoming drug free, judicial care, and case manager care. Participants were quite clear that a primary
reason for their success at becoming drug free was the JCFDC program in its entirety. Many had tried
other programs without success and had seen peers try other programs without success. They indicated
that the reason this program was successful was in the approach to them as individuals. Respondents
trusted both the program and personnel in the program in a manner that they never had experienced
before. They credited the non-judgmental attitude of everyone involved and support obtained from
peers and staff alike. In addition, the respondents singled out the judge and the case managers as
significant contributors to success. The judge was highly respected due to his caring demeanor and
thoughtful approach. The general belief about the judge was summed up by one respondent when she
said, “He is the greatest judge in the world. He gave me a second chance. He didn’t have to but he
trusted me enough to give me a second chance at life. He’s a good judge.” Similarly, the case managers
received a bulk of support from respondents. They indicate that the manner in which case managers
approached them non-judgmentally was a primary reason for success. One respondent said about the
success of the program, “[The case managers] being such a support. Knowing that my case managers
were right behind me – they weren’t telling me ‘You gotta do this!’ They let me be where I was at, they
let me realize that I’m going to end up dying or losing my kids. They helped me get there.”
An integration of both the quantitative and qualitative data point to a successful program that
establishes quicker permanency for children, provides for a larger percent of children reunited with
parents, and saves money for the state. The program is roundly praised by clients with the key
components being the judge and case managers. Final evaluation data suggest that the Jefferson
County FDC model is predictive of success in terms of both positive child and adult outcomes.
In summary:






JCFDC children achieved permanency 28 months sooner than a group of comparison children
Estimated average cost savings to the state was $12,687.90 per child.
Drug testing of parents:
o JCFDC parents had a 99% negative testing rate by 12-months
o JCFDC parents had a continual decline in positive test rates from intake to 12-months
o DHR clients had a steady positive test rate of around 25% from 4-months to 12-months
15 drug free births equates to an estimated $324,630 cost savings to the State ($21,642 per
drug addicted child for treatment)
Self-reported factors for success were caring and competent case managers, and caring judge.
All clients interviewed indicated that the Jefferson Family Drug Court Program was the single
largest factor in their success in becoming drug free and becoming reunited with their families.