The RED Tool was developed to help treatment court professionals identify and examine areas where racial and ethnic disparities may exist in their court programs. The RED Program Assessment Tool assesses treatment court programs, not specific individuals, through a series of open and closed-ended questions focused on: court information, intake, assessments, demographics, team members, training, drug choices and treatment/support services, and evaluation and monitoring.
What should you know about the RED tool?
It’s FREE, user-friendly, and uses a secure and confidential web-based platform.
It’s a comprehensive assessment for treatment court programs.
It provides recommendations to treatment court teams.
Why relaunch?
It allowed us to update the RED tool questions based on new research.
We created tracks for Family Treatment Courts, Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts, and Mental Health Courts.
It gave us an opportunity to develop e-learning modules to correspond with the eight sections of the assessment. The modules are designed to be taken as a court team.
Taking the assessment will help treatments courts identify where the gaps are and provide team members with practical recommendations.
To complete the assessment, register here or log in with your court’s ID and password.
Last week, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) celebrated their 40th anniversary. Members of the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Initiative (REDI) team at American University (AU)–Matt Collinson, Preeti Menon, and I–travelled to the U.S. Department of Justice to share in this historic occasion. We were surrounded by staff, partners, and grantees who have been essential in executing BJA’s mission of making communities safer and creating a more equitable criminal justice system. Hearing about the successes BJA has had over the years was inspiring, such as advancements in training, guidelines, and practices for the areas of law enforcement, courts, and reducing violent crime. At the ceremony, there was a video presentation that highlighted many of BJA’s accomplishments, including the creation of the Drug Courts Program Office in 1995, which awarded jurisdictions and court systems funding to establish drug courts through the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program.
Attending this event gave me the valuable opportunity to reflect on the decades-long partnership between BJA and AU. Over the past 30 years, AU has partnered with BJA on several initiatives such as Drug Treatment Courts, Right to Counsel, Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project, Differentiated Case Management Program, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness for Courts, Project Safe Neighborhoods, and numerous justice roundtables.
Specifically, this anniversary brings to mind where my journey with AU and BJA started, and where it may take me next. I vividly remember that day in 2017 when I was invited to interview for a research position at the Justice Programs Office (currently Justice Initiatives) housed in the School of Public Affairs (SPA) at AU. I hopped in a car and drove from my home state of Delaware to the District of Columbia. During the interview, I learned about the National Drug Court Resource Center (NDCRC), which was a multi-year project funded by BJA. NDCRC’s deliverables involved hosting interactive webinars, producing podcast episodes, conducting trainings at conferences, publishing research in the Drug Court Review, and administering the national treatment court survey. Overall, the mission of NDCRC was to provide resources and research to help treatment courts run more effectively. After the meeting, I felt confident that this would be a great opportunity for me, as I would be joining a team that was passionate about making the justice system more equitable for all. Sure enough, a short time later I officially started working at AU as a member of the NDCRC team. Below are a few NDCRC project highlights:
On my second day at AU, I attended the Right to Counsel (R2C) National Consortium’s Third Annual Meeting. BJA sponsored the Right to Counsel National Campaign (a campaign designed to raise awareness about the importance of effective defense counsel representation, as an important factor in ensuring equity in the system). At this annual meeting, there was a fireside chat between AU’s Senior Policy Counsel, Zoe Root, and Tracey Sewell, a former client and a survivor of human trafficking. Zoe, a former public defender at the Bronx defenders, represented Tracey and filed a successful motion to vacate Tracey’s 31 convictions that she accrued at the hands of her traffickers. Tracey shared how having an effective public defender helped her get back on the right track in life, including having her criminal record expunged, so that she could obtain better employment opportunities. I was able to witness first-hand the necessity and power of the Sixth Amendment and R2C’s achievements, including:
The last BJA-funded project that will be spotlighted is the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Initiative (REDI). In the spring of 2022, I received a phone call from Preeti about the news of a BJA open solicitation called Field Initiated: Encouraging Innovation. After our chat, we knew this would be a perfect chance for us to scale up our RED work in treatment courts at a national level. We applied and waited several months to find out about a decision. In September of that year, Preeti and I were both on campus preparing for a documentary screening and a panel discussion about the Definition of Insanity and she checked her phone and received an email notifying us that we had been awarded the funding! Preeti and I were ecstatic that this grant would allow us to work with treatment courts to increase access, enhance retention, and improve overall program satisfaction for minoritized treatment court participants. Here are a few project milestones:
Developing new tracks (Juvenile Drug Treatment Court, Family Treatment Court, and Mental Health Court) for the RED tool with accompanying online modules (forthcoming).
In a world that is always on the move, it is important to pause and soak in what has been accomplished. I am grateful for the opportunity to celebrate BJA’s 40th anniversary alongside the REDI team and reflect on the partnership BJA and AU have maintained over the years. I am looking forward to many more years of collaboration as we strive to create safer communities and a more equitable criminal justice system.
To learn more about BJA’s 40th anniversary, visit here.
The Racial and Ethnic Disparities Initiative (REDI) at American University is proud to announce the publication of their article Maintaining fidelity to the treatment court model through evaluation: The racial and ethnic disparities (RED) program assessment tool, as featured in in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. This study, which analyzed treatment courts nationwide, utilized the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Program Assessment Tool (RED tool). The web-based tool collects information on multiple aspects of treatment court programming where racial and ethnic disparities may exist. Additionally, based on the court’s responses, they receive scores on seven out of the eight sections on the tool and an overall score accompanied by recommendations that are generated for courts on how to alleviate racial and ethnic disparities in their program.
The treatment court model has consistently been proven more effective at reducing recidivism than traditional approaches, such as incarceration or probation. However, treatment court outcomes have been disproportionately positive for white participants, compared to racial and ethnic minority participants. In a recent study with a sample of over 14,000 treatment court participants, African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos had a lower graduation rate than white participants.
The current study, which was conducted from 2020 to 2022, was based upon the voluntary participation of treatment courts (n=151). The study collected data from nine states, utilizing targeted questions to analyze each court. The RED tool identified existing racial and ethnic disparities within each individual court and recommended steps to promote equity in outcomes.
The objective of this study was to answer two research questions, which were as follows:
Do treatment courts have fidelity to the model by completing evaluation on a regular basis to assess program effectiveness?
Do racial and ethnic disparities exist in treatment court graduation rates?
Participating treatment courts were scored in seven areas based on their responses to the RED tool: court background, intake criteria, assessments, court team, training, treatment and services, and evaluation and monitoring. The table below compiles the mean score in each category, with higher scores signifying better compliance with best practice standards. These scores are to be used as a baseline for courts to track their progress from their initial assessment to re-assessment after best practice recommendations are implemented.
Regarding evaluation and monitoring, half of the participating treatment courts reported tracking outcomes in some capacity post-program. However, only 41% of the participating courts provided graduation outcomes based on race and ethnicity, suggesting the other 59% of courts lack the infrastructure to track or examine graduation outcomes based on race and ethnicity.
The average score of treatment court best practice adherence across all categories for this study was 59.85%. REDI would like to emphasize that these results should not be viewed punitively, but as a testament to the importance of consistent evaluation and adherence to best practice standards with attention to disparities in outcomes and experiences that may exist for minoritized participants.
The results of this study show evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in treatment court outcomes. Graduation rates were lower on average for minoritized participants (specifically African American and Hispanic participants) than for white participants. See the table below for more information. Furthermore, only 13% of responding treatment courts reported sometimes or always implementing policies to address racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes.
The majority of the disparities in the sample identified with the RED tool can be rectified by following best practice standards. For example, completing regular and comprehensive evaluations for potential racial and ethnic disparities, as well as aligning with treatment providers that utilize individualized, evidence-based interventions.
Treatment courts are an important sector of the recovery process for individuals struggling with substance use, connecting participants with resources and ensuring the path to recovery is accessible to all. This September marks the 35th annual National Recovery Month, according to SAMHSA. Established in 1989 to celebrate and destigmatize recovery from substance use and mental health conditions, National Recovery Month recognizes the millions of Americans that have struggled with substance use, and ensures that resources and support are accessible to all who need them.
Thank you for supporting our work. For any questions or comments, please contact redtool@american.edu.
On Monday, June 16th, Maryland Governor Wes Moore announced the largest single clemency initiative for people convicted of crimes related to marijuana. These convictions largely stemmed from America’s misguided, ineffective and incredibly costly war on drugs. As reported by the Washington Post, the initiative is expected to pardon approximately 175,000 individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes related to marijuana possession, including some convictions related to possession of drug paraphernalia. Gov. Moore’s office believes these pardons will be granted to almost 100,000 Marylanders, and while demographic data on who is impacted isn’t yet available, most commentators are predicting these pardons will most likely remove convictions and collateral consequences for Black and Brown Marylanders. During the week of Juneteenth, a celebration of freedom from slavery for Black Americans in the south, Gov. Moore is addressing one of the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, and racialized mass incarceration that haunt us to this day – the permanent underclass comprised of people with a criminal conviction, especially a drug conviction.
Gov. Moore and others have noted that the pardons issued this week will not let anyone out of prison or jail (MD legalized marijuana possession by constitutional amendment in 2022) and will probably not get anyone off probation early either. But what it does do, is start to address the glaring racial disparities in our legal system and seek to mitigate the “permanent punishment” (to quote the End Permanent Punishment Initiative in IL) imposed on people with criminal convictions (even if they never served a day in jail).
What Gov. Moore and his administration have done in pardoning 100,000 (likely predominantly Black) people who are not currently in prison, is to release from them a vestige of slavery where people with criminal convictions (especially drug convictions) are relegated to a second-class citizenship, for years or decades after they have served their sentence.
Many of these licensing restrictions rely on “good moral character” clauses, which do not specifically say that someone with a criminal conviction is automatically a person not of “good moral character” but in many cases, that’s the de-facto understanding. State Rep. Tarra Simmons had to sue the Washington state bar association to allow her to sit for the bar, after they rejected her for serving 30 months in prison for drug related felonies. Rep. Simmons was able to show the bar associations that her actions were taken under the crushing weight of an opioid addiction, desperate to avoid withdrawal, and not those of a bad person (which having had the opportunity to meet her through a previous job, I can confirm she’s a wonderful and warm individual).
From a public health perspective, Gov. Moore’s actions make perfect sense, and while we don’t know how many people (if any) who he pardoned this week suffered from a substance use disorder; carcel consequences, lack of access to jobs, and housing insecurity are likely to cause people to use more drugs, not less. It’s also worth noting that many people use marijuana to treat physical and mental health conditions, from migraines to PTSD. All these conditions may be exacerbated by shutting people out of work, housing, education, and access to resources to rebuild their lives.
The consensus from everyone in the scientific community, the public, and much of law enforcement, is that we cannot arrest our way out of the current drug crisis we’re experiencing. I contend that permanently punishing and locking people out of society for their past struggles with substance use is just as futile. Gov. Moore has made a huge step forward in addressing this and righting a historical and highly racialized wrong. Hopefully, other states follow his evidence-based lead.
In 2023’s edition of Painting the Current Picture, the National Treatment Court Resource Center reported that across the United States, over 140,000 people were served by treatment courts in 2019 & 2020. From humble beginnings in the late 1980s to over 3500 hundred programs currently operating in every state in union is a testament to the success of the treatment court model, and the thousands of dedicated staff and organizations who make treatment court happen day in, day out. The treatment court model is one of the most well-researched, well-funded, and empirically backed justice interventions ever created. Participants who complete treatment court programs are less likely to commit new crimes, show significant reductions in the symptoms of substance use disorder, and higher level of recovery capital, compared to those who fail to complete the program, or those who get standard responses such as jail or probation.
As we enter National Treatment Court Month, in this 35-year anniversary of the treatment court model, it is important to acknowledge how far we’ve come, how many people we’ve helped, and, how much more we still must do. One of the biggest challenges facing the legal system, including treatment courts, is who is the program working for? At the most basic level, courts serving 140,000 people a year is a significant accomplishment, but, given that there are an estimated 8 million jail admittances each year, and that of those in jail, an estimated 70% have either a substance use disorder (SUD) or mental illness. There seems to be a huge pool of potential treatment court participants being missed.
In addition, early scholarship suggested that treatment courts were failing to graduate Black and Latino participants at the same rates as their white counterparts, and while more recent data suggests that gap is narrowing, the fact remains that treatment courts are serving mostly white participants, in a legal system that disproportionately incarcerates and supervises Black and Brown individuals. Multiple recent studies have highlighted this disparity, generally, 70%+ of treatment court participants are white, compared to an average of about 40% of those in jails being white. Conversely, Black people make up almost 30% of the jail population, but less than 20% of the aggregate treatment court population. There are numerous reasons for this disparity, many outside the control of treatment court staff. Many decisions in the legal system also suffer from distributed responsibility, it’s rarely one decision that sets the course for an individual’s case processing, but many, small decisions by many different actors which cumulatively impact their experience, and racial disparities within the system. So how should treatment courts respond to these pre-existing disparities, and in compliance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standard (Standards) II, Equity and Inclusion, to ensure that their intake and eligibility policies and practices promote equity of access?
At American University, we’ve been working with treatment courts on issues related to equity of access for decades, and we’ve found a few areas where courts can increase equity of access and ensure that courts are serving all eligible participants. Firstly, courts should ensure that they are setting their criteria using evidence, which the Standards require that treatment courts serve High Risk and High Need individuals, and that’s it. Too many courts we’ve worked layer subjective criteria on top of these evidence-based standards. Some refuse to accept those with previous or current violent charges. The limited evidence we have shows people with violent charges do just as well in treatment courts, and a growing body of evidence suggests that those who commit violent crimes are less likely to re-offend than those with drug, property, or public order convictions. Evidence also suggests that most of the disparities in jail admissions can be explained by those charged with violent crimes. For treatment courts, serving those with violent charges is likely to reduce disparities in access, and keep communities safe, while saving significant costs associated with incarceration.
Treatment court should consider all the factors and not deny access to those who sell drugs. All the evidence we have suggests that almost all people who use drugs also sell some to support their habits. The decision to file a possession charge versus possession with intent to distribute, or other charges associated with drug sales, can derail someone’s access to treatment courts. Obviously, there is a significant difference between someone who is only selling for profit and who has no SUD (but they would likely not screen as High Need), and someone selling to support their habit, but blanket bans on those who sell or have sold drugs severely misrepresent the population of people who use, especially illicit, drugs.
Finally, courts should avoid broad exclusions which may unintentionally harm Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) participants, such as those without access to transportation, those without funds to pay program fees, those who have a “gang association” or those who “don’t seem motivated” etc. Part of the role of treatment court is to get people who have been struggling with addiction and its effect on their lives for a long time, back on their feet and re-integrated into their communities. For many, stopping using drugs is the primary need, and getting out of the gang, getting a job or financial security, access to a vehicle etc., are all goals that can be met after they stop using and start treatment.
Treatment courts have been serving their communities effectively for 35 years, but to ensure we are reaching all those who are eligible for our services, we need to be sure we’re not excluding people based subjective, or worse, racially biased, character assessments or characteristics. Treatment courts exist to serve those who criminal behavior is driven by substance use and / or mental illness, and it’s important that we don’t add additional, unnecessary, barriers to access.
Join advocate and 2014 treatment court graduate Carrie McCoy as she explores the benefits of enhancing employment opportunities for treatment court participants, and how employers can improve the hiring process to overcome systemic barriers to employment for individuals in recovery. This edition of Court Chat is proudly presented by the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Initiative (REDI) at American University, in Washington, DC.
The criminal legal system has a well-documented history of racial disparities and mistreatment of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Treatment courts are a part of this same system and unfortunately, have not been exempt from racial and ethnic disparities in its programs. American University and the Center for Justice Innovation collaborated to assist treatment courts in several states in tackling racial and ethnic disparities. This report outlines results and policy recommendations derived from American University’s and the Center for Justice Innovation’s racial and ethnic disparities statewide training and technical assistance collaboration.
As we reflect on the sacrifices of those who served in our armed forces, it is timely to bring awareness to the countless number of veterans across the country who struggle with mental illness and substance use disorders (SUDs), often stemming directly from their time in combat, which can cause those who served their country to find themselves in the crosshairs of the legal system and even incarceration. Since 2004, veteran treatment courts (VTCs) have used a multi-disciplinary team of professionals from courts, community corrections, treatment agencies, and social service organizations to address veterans’ SUDs and mental health issues, with the purpose of eliminating criminal behavior.
A recent report by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, published in 2016, estimates that 107,400 veterans were incarcerated in state or federal prison at the time, and that about 8% of all state prisoners and 5% of federal prisoners were veterans. Furthermore, a 2017 study by the Social Psychiatry and Psychological Epidemiology Journal found that about a third of the United States’ 19 million veterans report having been incarcerated at least once.
Veterans are in a uniquely vulnerable position to developing SUDs, especially due to their susceptibility to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a psychiatric condition that can occur as a result of exposure to extreme trauma. PTSD has been shown to be a significant risk factor for veterans in terms of developing SUDs, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs reporting that more than a fifth of veterans with PTSD also experience SUD, while nearly a third of veterans seeking treatment for SUD experience PTSD. Symptoms of PTSD, which usually manifest within 3 months of a triggering event or series of events, are numerous, and can involve flashbacks, difficulty sleeping, avoidance of triggering thoughts, objects, or situations, depression, and memory loss. It is the intensity of these symptoms and a desire to mitigate them that often leads veterans to develop SUDs and therefore an increased risk of involvement in the criminal justice system, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.
The Racial and Ethnic Disparities Initiative (REDI) at American University (AU) is proud to work with VTCs across the country, using the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Program Assessment Tool (RED tool) to identify and rectify instances of RED in their programs. Between 2020 and 2023, 14 VTCs from Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin completed the RED tool. These VTCs’ participation resulted in the accumulation of vital information about the operations of these VTCs, and the services they provide veteran participants. For example, 100% of the VTC respondents reported having at least one Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) specialist on staff. This is a critical data point, as VJO specialists are instrumental in identifying veterans who could benefit from VTCs and connecting these veterans with the services they need. VJO specialists operate within communities, as an extension of the local justice system, to provide direct outreach and assessment services to veterans that have come in frequent contact with law enforcement, often called “justice-involved veterans.”
The results of the RED Program Assessment Tool also demonstrated that 100% of the VTC respondents reported having their eligibility requirements for program participation in writing. This may seem like a minor detail, but in fact having VTCs with written clear, objective eligibility requirements is critical to mitigating bias in the admissions process and improving participant access, particularly veterans from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
However, there is always room for improvement, and the results of the RED Program Assessment Tool demonstrated that VTCs are no exception. For example, even though 100% of the VTC respondents reported having their eligibility requirements in writing, only 57% of those courts reported sharing a copy of those written eligibility requirements with all referral sources. Referrals can come from a variety of sources, such as judges, the VA, defense attorneys, VTC staff, and even friends and family of the veteran experiencing SUDs. If clear and objective written eligibility requirements are not distributed to all possible referral sources, outreach to potential VTC participants becomes difficult. It is crucial that all referral sources receive concrete guidance on who is eligible for VTC programs, which can then increase program referrals. By creating more accessible community resources such as flyers, updated websites, or maintaining a strong connection with the local VA, outreach of accurate and relevant information to these referral sources can be maximized.
By using the RED tool to identify where there are instances of RED in their programming and utilizing REDI’s educational resources for guidance on next steps, VTCs are empowered to ensure that their veterans from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are receiving the support they need. VTCs play a critical role in promoting the racial equity of their programming, which can be improved through many avenues such as: implementing culturally intuitive policies, promoting open dialogue, and emphasizing resources for mental health issues and SUDs are only a handful of examples of this.
This Veteran’s Day and every Veteran’s Day, it is important to recognize all of those who have served our country, especially those who are struggling with SUDs or mental health. Whether you are a veteran experiencing SUD or mental health issues, working with veterans, or simply a community member invested in the rehabilitation process, learning more about VTCs can be an important first step in supporting the vital work they do. The REDI recognizes the importance of uplifting VTCs and their participants, and is committed to improving VTC programming by identifying and helping to eliminate instances of RED.
Be sure to check out the REDI’s website to learn more about the RED Program Assessment Tool and our mission.
Instead of the typical punitive model in the criminal legal system, treatment courts address the root causes of substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health disorders that often lead to incarceration or other forms of involvement in crime. Treatment courts have gained traction for their restorative and rehabilitative approaches. These courts reduce criminal recidivism rates, assist people on a path of recovery, and save communities money.
Nonetheless, it’s vital to acknowledge and address the racial and ethnic disparities that exist within the criminal legal system, including treatment courts. This is where the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Program Assessment tool (RED Tool) plays a vital role in rectifying RED in treatment courts. The RED tool provides a comprehensive evaluation of RED in treatment courts to promote equity and inclusion within courts. The tool narrows in on distinct goals as part of its foundational design, which includes raising awareness about RED, highlighting existing inequities within courts, and offering recommendations on alleviating racial and ethnic inequities in programs. The tool sorts data into 8 different sections allowing for a thorough analysis of treatment court practices.
The sample for this study consisted of about 13% of treatment courts in a Midwestern state. Below are several key findings from the study.
The completion rates reveal that minoritized participants, including African American, Biracial, and Hispanic participants had completion rates of less than 30%. In contrast to their White counterparts, who attained a completion rate of 64.9%.
Data from the study suggests that only 37% of courts have reviewed their graduation rates to examine disparities among different racial and ethnic groups.
On the topic of mandatory training, only 6% of courts required staff to complete cultural competency training.
Further data reveals that merely 47% of courts agreed with the statement, “our team is racially and ethnically diverse.”
Within this study, it’s important to note that none of the treatment courts mentioned racial equity within their mission statements.
For more findings, please read the full article here.
There is no doubt that treatment courts work, however, there is always room for growth. When treatment courts complete the RED tool and implement its recommendations, they should see improvements in access, retention, and overall program satisfaction for minoritized participants, which should lead to participants finding their path to recovery. According to SAMHSA, National Recovery Month is celebrated each September to promote and support new evidence-based treatment and recovery practices. We want to thank the treatment court professionals involved in providing prevention and treatment. Lastly, we celebrate those who are moving forward on their recovery journey.
From the main stage at All Rise 2023, the largest ever gathering of treatment court professionals, participants and supporters, Doug Marlowe, Senior Scientific Consultant for All Rise (formerly NADCP), told the 5000 or so people in the room that, as a field, treatment courts have failed to address disparities in treatment courts. Over the course of the field’s 30-year history, report after report (including our research from this year), has shown that treatment court participants are predominantly white, and that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals graduate at half the rate (or worse) of their white counterparts.
Twenty-four hours later at the conference, an audience member in our session, who had been working with treatment courts since the late 90s bemoaned this same fact in response to our report on the statewide data we’d collected, “why do we keep gathering data” he asked, we don’t need more data, we need to fix this problem of disparities in courts. In a country with a 400-year history of legally sanctioned racial discrimination, it’s hard to stomach the reality that treatment courts, with our innovative approaches and individualized case planning, are at best not helping address disparities, and at worst, might be upholding them.
But part of the reason we keep telling courts to collect and analyze their racial and ethnic disparities (RED) data is that for 30 years many treatment courts have been bad at it. We do have national or state level reports, but they don’t tell us what’s happening in your court, and more importantly, the high-level data in national reports doesn’t capture the nuance of why people aren’t getting accepted into the program, what’s happening to them on their treatment court journey, and what’s stopping them from graduating.
I agree with the audience member from the conference (and I did tell him so personally), we don’t necessarily need more national data, but we do need courts to track and analyze their RED data regularly. There’s a reason the Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standard Two exists and stands alone, racial equity in courts does not just happen, we must pay attention to it, track data on it, and respond when we see inequalities and disparities. Not regularly and systematically tracking data on disparities is a violation of Standard Two (to paraphrase Dr. Marlowe).
So, if we want to take that warning seriously, what should we be paying attention to? We want to know about the people in the program, but what about those who didn’t make it? Are Black people excluded because their criminal history, where-as white people aren’t? Are Black and Brown men overwhelmingly opting for jail instead of the program while white people are 50/50? Are there specific requirements that are tripping up some folks and not others. Our colleague Anne Dannerbeck-Janku found that requiring participants to have a full-time job to graduate was impeding Black participants graduation much more than white participants. There are several of potential reasons for this, and I don’t have any concrete answers, but we know from employment and hiring research that it is easier for a white man who went to prison to get a job than for a black man with no criminal history to get the same job, so that may have been part of it. This doesn’t mean you should throw out the requirement to have a job completely (as a job is great for both maintaining recovery and reducing future crime), but are there ways to make it more equitable?
The data is the start to a conversation, what phases are people dropping out of / getting stuck in, are there patterns by race or ethnicity, are there consistent reasons participants give during exit interviews for their success (or lack thereof)? We are often beaten over the head with graduation data, but looking for disparities in your programs starts much earlier than that, who is in (and why), who is out (and why), who is dropping out in phases 1 or 2 (and why), etc. There might not be easy answers, but that’s where experts from American University can come in to support you and think about what your data might mean.
If you want to start a conversation with us about how to collect, and understand, data on disparities in your program, reach out to us today at redtool@american.edu
