CJUS 801 Evaluability Assessment Example: Adult Drug Treatment Court Program Theory, Template and Focus Group Questions

CJUS 801 Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 1, Evaluability Assessment

Develop an evaluability assessment for your chosen problem using Vito and Higgins’s evaluability assessment approach in Chapter 4. Identify and describe the program theory by outlining the components of the program and determining which of them are measurable. Cover the purpose and scope of the assessment, develop a program template that describes the goals and objectives of the program, and create a short list of questions (5–10) for a focus group or interview that will help narrow the scope of the program. Discuss each theory that supports different aspects of the program if multiple theories are used. Do not address how the program will be analyzed (that belongs in the Program Impact Paper). Follow the outline recommended in Chapter 4.

• 5–7 pages, excluding title page, abstract and references; current APA format
• Five citations: peer-reviewed or scholarly articles published within the last five years, and textbooks
• Program examples: DARE, Scared Straight, MADD, juvenile diversion, drug court, etc.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,500 words plus the program template table, roughly 5–6 double-spaced pages). The program, “Riverside County Adult Drug Treatment Court,” is a fictional composite. Match the section headings to the outline in your Chapter 4 and add page numbers for textbook citations.

Evaluability Assessment of the Riverside County Adult Drug Treatment Court

Introduction

Drug treatment courts combine judicial supervision with substance use treatment to reduce drug use and crime among justice-involved adults. Because they require significant resources from courts, treatment providers and probation, policymakers want to know whether they work. Before an outcome evaluation can answer that question, however, evaluators must determine whether the program is ready to be evaluated: whether its goals are clear, its activities are actually delivered as intended, its theory is plausible and its outcomes can be measured. This is the purpose of an evaluability assessment (Vito & Higgins, 2015, p. __). This paper presents an evaluability assessment of the Riverside County Adult Drug Treatment Court (RCADTC), a fictional composite program based on common drug court practices.

Purpose and Scope of the Assessment

Purpose. The assessment has three purposes: (a) to describe the program’s intended design and underlying theory, (b) to determine which program components and outcomes are measurable with existing or obtainable data, and (c) to identify gaps between the program as designed and the program as implemented, so that an impact evaluation will produce valid and useful results. Vito and Higgins (2015) describe evaluability assessment as a way to avoid wasting evaluation resources on programs whose goals are vague or whose activities are not consistently delivered (p. __).

Scope. The assessment focuses on the post-plea adult track, which serves nonviolent adults charged with felony drug possession or drug-related property offenses who are assessed as high risk and high need. It covers referral and eligibility screening, the four program phases, treatment services, judicial status hearings, drug testing, incentives and sanctions and program exit (graduation or termination). The juvenile track, the DWI court and a separate veterans’ court are excluded. The intended users of the assessment are the presiding judge, the drug court coordinator, the prosecutor and defense counsel, treatment providers, probation supervisors and the county board that funds the program.

Program Description

RCADTC is a voluntary, 12- to 18-month program. Eligible defendants plead guilty, and their sentence is deferred while they participate; graduates have their charges reduced or dismissed, while participants who are terminated are sentenced on the original charge. Participants move through four phases with decreasing supervision: stabilization, intensive treatment, recovery maintenance and transition. Requirements include substance use treatment matched to assessed needs (including medication for opioid use disorder when clinically indicated), random drug testing, regular appearances before the judge, meetings with a probation officer, employment or education and community service. A multidisciplinary team meets weekly to review progress and recommend incentives (for example, praise, reduced reporting, gift cards) and sanctions (for example, increased testing, community service or short jail stays). This structure reflects the nationally recognized best practice standards for adult treatment courts, which emphasize targeting high-risk, high-need participants, equitable access, evidence-based treatment and graduated incentives and sanctions (All Rise, 2024).

Program Theory

The program combines three complementary theories, each supporting different components.

Therapeutic jurisprudence. Therapeutic jurisprudence holds that legal processes and actors can have therapeutic or antitherapeutic effects on participants’ well-being. In the drug court, the judge’s supportive, direct interaction with participants during status hearings, along with team collaboration, is expected to increase motivation, procedural fairness and engagement in treatment. This theory supports the status hearing and team components.

Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR). The RNR model proposes that interventions are most effective when their intensity matches the person’s risk of reoffending (risk), when they target criminogenic needs such as substance use and antisocial associates (need) and when they use methods suited to the person’s learning style and circumstances (responsivity). This theory supports the use of validated risk and needs assessments at entry, intensive services for high-risk participants and individualized treatment plans.

Deterrence and behavioral reinforcement. Deterrence theory proposes that punishments that are certain, swift and proportionate reduce offending, while behavioral principles suggest that consistent rewards increase desired behavior. These ideas support frequent drug testing, prompt responses to violations and the program’s graduated system of incentives and sanctions.

Together, the theories form a causal chain: accurate assessment matches participants to services (RNR), supportive judicial supervision builds engagement (therapeutic jurisprudence), and swift, certain responses shape behavior (deterrence and reinforcement), which leads to reduced substance use, program completion and, ultimately, lower recidivism.

Program Template

Assessing Measurability and Plausibility

The template shows that core outputs, including drug test results, treatment attendance and graduation, are already recorded and measurable. Recidivism can be measured through state criminal history records, and research suggests that a comparison group is essential. For example, Sheeran and Varline (2024) compared Milwaukee County drug treatment court participants with traditionally adjudicated individuals, addressing a limitation of earlier studies that lacked adequate comparison groups and methods to reduce selection bias. RCADTC should therefore identify a comparison group of similar defendants processed through traditional probation.

The assessment also reveals gaps. Equity in admission and completion is a concern documented in the literature: in a study of 587 people referred to the Milwaukee County adult drug treatment court, non-Hispanic Black individuals had significantly lower odds of admission and of graduation than non-Hispanic White individuals, although graduates of all groups were much less likely to receive new charges after exit (Sheeran & Heideman, 2021). RCADTC does not currently record referral outcomes or reasons for exclusion, so this important component is not yet measurable. Procedural fairness, a central mechanism in therapeutic jurisprudence, is not measured, and employment and housing outcomes are not collected. Finally, the timing of responses to violations, which is central to deterrence theory, is not tracked. Until these data are collected, an evaluation could measure whether outcomes changed but could not test why.

Overall, the program theory is plausible and consistent with national standards (All Rise, 2024), and the program is partially evaluable. With modest improvements in data collection, it will be ready for an impact evaluation.

Focus Group and Interview Questions

To clarify program reality and narrow the scope of the evaluation, the evaluator would conduct interviews with team members and a focus group with current participants and graduates:

1. In your own words, what is the main goal of the drug court, and how would you know if it succeeded?
2. Which eligibility criteria are applied in practice, and what are the most common reasons referred defendants are not admitted?
3. How quickly do participants typically begin treatment after admission, and what causes delays?
4. How does the team decide on incentives and sanctions, and how consistently are they applied across participants?
5. (Participants) How would you describe your interactions with the judge and team? Do you feel you are treated fairly?
6. What services, such as housing, employment or medication for opioid use disorder, are most needed but hardest to access?
7. What data does each agency currently collect, and what barriers exist to sharing it?
8. Which outcomes matter most to you and to the community: reduced drug use, fewer arrests, employment or something else?

Recommendations

Before the impact evaluation, RCADTC should (a) adopt written, measurable objectives for each component; (b) record referral outcomes and reasons for exclusion by demographic group; (c) add a brief procedural fairness survey at each phase; (d) track the time between violations and responses; (e) establish data-sharing agreements with treatment providers and state records agencies; and (f) identify a comparison group. These steps will allow a future evaluation to test both whether the program works and which components drive its effects.

Conclusion

This evaluability assessment found that the Riverside County Adult Drug Treatment Court has a plausible program theory grounded in therapeutic jurisprudence, risk-need-responsivity and deterrence, and that many of its outputs and outcomes are measurable. Gaps in data on equity, procedural fairness, response timing and long-term stability must be addressed before an impact evaluation can provide a full and fair test of the program.

References

All Rise. (2024). Adult treatment court best practice standards (2nd ed.). https://allrise.org/publications/standards/

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.

Sheeran, A. M., & Heideman, A. J. (2021). The effects of race and ethnicity on admission, graduation, and recidivism in the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court. Social Sciences, 10(7), Article 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10070261

Sheeran, A. M., & Varline, J. (2024). The effect of drug treatment court on recidivism: A comparison with traditional court intervention. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 63(6), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2024.2370286

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2015). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Routledge.

More model assignments posted today

• NRNP 6539 AI case vs. clinical guideline
• Serial killer analysis: Jeffrey Dahmer
• Profiling an alleyway homicide
• Avery's Gym ERD and normalization