No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
An Evaluation of the Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program
Abstract
The Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program was implemented in October of 1997. By the end of January of 1999, 184 drug offenders had participated in the program. This evaluation of the Chester County Drug Court Program compares the 184 drug court participants to 51 comparable offenders who were placed on probation at some point between December 1996 and September 1997. These comparison subjects were selected based upon the drug court program eligibility criteria (i.e., offenders charged with non-mandatory drug offenses; offenders not under probation or parole supervision when charged with drug offenses; and no prior record for violent offenses). Drug court and comparison samples were compared in terms of current status, new arrests, revocation/removal from program, and drug testing results. Findings reveal a lower rate of positive results for drug tests taken by the drug court participants as compared to the comparison group. Similarly, there was a lower rate of rearrest during the program among the drug court sample than among the comparison sample. Additionally, African American drug court participants appeared to do significantly poorer than Caucasian drug court participants. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... However, this rate may not be consistent for all participants and often differs (sometimes drastically) for various racial/ethnic groups. Numerous studies have determined that African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos graduate at significantly lower rates than Caucasians (Brewster 2001;Gray and Saum 2005;Hartley and Phillips 2001;Marlowe 2013;Schiff and Terry 1997;Sechrest and Shicor 2001). In fact, several studies have found the magnitude of these discrepancies to be as high as 25% to 40% (Belenko 2001;Sechrest and Shicor 2001;Wiest et al. 2007). ...
... In instances where racial/ethnic disparities in drug court completion are present, the underlying mechanism causing these disparities remains an unanswered question. Several scholars have suggested that race may be intercorrelated with other factors such as socioeconomic differences, employment, education, drug of choice, or criminal history (Brewster 2001;Butzin et al. 2002;Dannerbeck et al. 2006;Hartley and Phillips 2001;Schiff and Terry 1997). In a study of ten Missouri adult drug courts, Dannerbeck et al. (2006) found that Caucasians were significantly more likely to graduate than African Americans (55% vs. 28%, respectively); yet, these differences were mediated by employment, primary drug of choice, family support, and socioeconomic status 3 . ...
... Specifically, non-Hispanic Black participants were 61% less likely to graduate the drug court compared to non-Hispanic White participants. These findings support prior studies that have concluded that African American individuals are less likely to successfully complete a drug court program compared to White individuals (Brewster 2001;Dannerbeck et al. 2006;Gray and Saum 2005;Howard 2016). In contrast, Hispanic/Latino participants were just as likely to graduate MCADTC as non-Hispanic White participants. ...
Drug courts play a key role in the criminal justice system by diverting individuals from incarceration and providing them with resources to address substance use issues and reduce criminal recidivism. However, it is unclear whether drug courts reflect—or even exacerbate—preexisting racial/ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. While prior literature has offered some insight into the influence of race and ethnicity on drug court success, much of the focus has been on outcomes (i.e., program completion and recidivism) rather than disparities at earlier stages (i.e., referral to admittance). The current study adds to this body of research by evaluating the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court to examine whether racial/ethnic disparities exist at several stages of the drug court process: (1) referral to admittance, (2) likelihood of graduation, and (3) likelihood of recidivism. Results of the analyses determined racial/ethnic disparities in the likelihood of admission to the drug court, as well as the likelihood of graduation. There were no racial/ethnic disparities found in the likelihood of recidivism. The analyses also identified several additional variables that were influential in the likelihood of admission (risk score, prior record), likelihood of graduation (age, prior record, custody sanctions), and recidivism (drug court outcome).
... Overall, 31 studies on substance misuse met the criteria for inclusion in the review. These studies were published between 2000 and 2014 in the USA (Alemi et al., 2006;Anglin, Nosyk, Jaffe, Urada, & Evans, 2013;Brewster, 2001;Brown, Gassman, Hetzel, & Berger, 2013;Chun et al., 2007;Claus & Kindleberger, 2002;Cropsey et al., 2011;Evans, Li, Urada, & Anglin, 2014;Gottfredson & Exum, 2002;Gray, 2002;Gregoire & Burke, 2004;Gryczynski et al., 2012;Harrell, Cavanagh, & Roman, 2000 Longshore et al., 2005;Mackin et al., 2008;Marchand, Waller, & Carey, 2006;Martin, Clapp, Alfers, & Beresford, 2004;Martin et al., 2003;Sia, Dansereau, & Czuchry, 2000;Stageberg, Wilson, & Moore, 2001), the UK (Ashby, Horrocks, & Kelly, 2010;Eley, Gallop, McIvor, Morgan, & Yates, 2002;Hearnden, 2000;McSweeney, Stevens, Hunt, & Turnbull, 2007;Powell, Bankart, Christie, Bamber, & Arrindell, 2009;Turnbull & Webster, 2007), Ireland (Hollway, Mawhinney, & Sheehy, 2007) and Mexico (Brodie et al., 2009). Due to the heterogeneous nature of the papers, we have organised them into subsections below. ...
... Generally, participation is offered as an alternative to incarceration and involves regular attendance at both court and with treatment providers and probation, undergoing regular drug or alcohol tests, and a system of sanctions for non-compliance or positive tests, and rewards for progress and compliance. Findings from these studies showed huge variation in graduation rates across the programmes, ranging from 11.4% (Brewster, 2001) to 72% (Mackin et al., 2008). Predictors of graduation varied across studies and included being white, having graduated high school, intravenous drug use, not having been incarcerated in the past, having fewer positive drug tests whilst on the programme, remaining in a programme for longer and having fewer prior arrests. ...
... Numerous positive outcomes from attending drug courts were reported. These included being less likely to be rearrested than comparison groups (Brewster, 2001;Gottfredson & Exum, 2002;Mackin et al., 2008;Marchand et al., 2006); having fewer jail days (Brewster, 2001;Gottfredson & Exum, 2002); fewer, or a lower rate of positive drug tests (Brewster, 2001;Mackin et al., 2008;Marchand et al., 2006), which one study suggested could be further enhanced by the use of treatment and sanctions as part of the programme rather than simply drug testing and judicial monitoring (Harrell et al., 2000); and cost savings for the criminal justice system (Mackin et al., 2008;Marchand et al., 2006). It should be noted however, that some studies had the possibility of selection bias, there were mixed findings regarding costs (see for example Stageberg et al., 2001), and how outcomes were measured varied across the studies. ...
A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation or parole (community supervision). In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about substance misuse in this context. This includes estimates of the prevalence and complexity of substance misuse in those under community supervision, and studies of the effectiveness of approaches to treating substance misuse and engaging and retaining this population in treatment. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches, and after careful double-blind review only 31 papers related to this topic met our criteria. In addition, a further 15 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that internationally there is a high prevalence and complexity of substance misuse amongst people under community supervision. Despite clear benefits to individuals and the wider society through improved health, and reduced re-offending; it is still difficult to identify the most effective ways of improving health outcomes for this group in relation to substance misuse from the research literature. Further research and investment is needed to support evidence-based commissioning by providing a detailed and up-to-date profile of needs and the most effective ways of addressing them, and sufficient funds to ensure that appropriate treatment is available and its impact can be continually measured. Without this, it will be impossible to truly establish effective referral and treatment pathways providing continuity of care for individuals as they progress through, and exit, the criminal justice pathway.
... While a majority of multiple and single site evaluations of juvenile drug courts suggest juvenile drug courts have a small to moderate effect size ( Anspach et al., 2003;Brewster, 2001;Carey et al., 2006;Harrison et al., 2006;Hickert et al., 2010;NPR Research, 2006;Pitts, 2006;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004), some studies found juvenile drug court participants to fare no better or even worse than their comparison groups ( Sloan et al., 2004;Sullivan et al., 2014). These evaluations commonly used a juvenile drug court group and compared their recidivism rates to those of similar juveniles who went through the traditional court system. ...
... Although most of the evaluations available to juvenile drug court literature found juvenile drug courts have a small to moderate effect size of recidivism rates ( Anspach et al., 2003;Brewster, 2001;Harrison et al., 2006;Hickert et al., 2010;NPR Research, 2006;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004), not all evaluations have found juvenile drug courts to be an effective intervention. ...
... Numerous evaluations have been conducted and most have found juvenile drug courts to have a positive effect on reducing recidivism, although the findings were not always significant or without limitations ( Anspach et al., 2003;Brewster, 2001;Carey et al., 2006;Harrison et al., 2006;Hickert et al., 2010;Latessa et al., 2002;NPR Research, 2006;Pitts, 2006;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Thompson, 2004). The claim that juvenile drug courts can effectively reduce future recidivism is not unanimous, as some studies have found negative or no effects (Cook et al., 2009;Sloan, Smykla, & Rush, 2004;Sullivan et al., 2014). ...
Little is known about the long-term impact of juvenile drug court on recidivism. This
study compares the adult recidivism rates among prior juvenile drug court participants against a comparison group of probated, but not drug courted juveniles. The study employed a twelve-year average follow up subsequent to participants in both groups reaching the age of majority (18). Outcomes examined included arrests, convictions, and both substance and violent convictions in adulthood. Logistic and linear regression models indicated no main effects of drug court into adulthood. However, gender appeared to be suppressing the effect of drug court on recidivism. Interaction terms indicated a vicious interaction with males in the drug court having slightly higher recidivism rates than comparison males and female drug court participants recording lower recidivism rates than comparison females. Some recommendations are made as far as modifying juvenile drug court based on these results.
... Though research was scarce for the first years of drug courts operating in the United States and continues to be inadequate and incomplete, the existing studies on drug courts tend to have diverse and conflicting results. Many researchers find support for drug courts' effectiveness in reducing recidivism (Gottfredson & Exum, 2002; Brewster, 2001; Goldkamp & Weiland, 1993). However, many other researchers have found mixed results or have found that drug courts do not work at reducing recidivism (Hoffman, 2000; Shaw & Robinson, 1998; Shaffer, 2006; Litswan et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2006; Henggeler et al., 2006). ...
... In one threeyear study of juvenile courts the researchers found that " the majority of juveniles in drug court were unsuccessful in meeting program requirements and were subsequently resentenced to state-operated facilities or standard probation " (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004). Offenders in a drug court program are more likely to be unsuccessfully removed from their programs than those placed on probation (Brewster, 2001). Most studies show that drug court programs have low retention rates with about 60% of participants failing to complete the program (Deschenes, Turner & Greenwood, 1995). ...
... Additionally, scholars and practitioners have argued that drug courts are undemocratic because they give the judicial branch too much power and discretion (Hoffman, 2000Hoffman, , 2002). Studies on drug courts have also found that African Americans do significantly poorer than white drug court participants (Brewster, 2001; Dannerbeck, 2006). Lastly, the expansion of drug courts has been a boon for private treatment providers who often get contracts with the state or county to carry out substance abuse treatment ordered by the court (Hoffman, 2000Hoffman, , 2002). ...
At a moment when there is a great deal of enthusiasm for reforming the prison system in the United States, a number of states across the country have enacted legislation that aims to reduce the number of juveniles sent to state-run prisons. These new policies have focused on expanding community-based alternatives. The three state-level cases on Texas, California and Pennsylvania show that this strategy for reform entrenches punishment at the local level. As counties are given more responsibility to handle juvenile offenders they have contracted out services to the private-sector and invested in expanding jails and punitive conditions of probation. Overall, the reforms have done little to improve the treatment of juveniles caught up in the system. In these states hailed as juvenile justice “models for the nation,” youth continue to be incarcerated for minor offenses, subjected to abusive conditions of confinement, and stigmatized. The remarkable convergence of diverse states on this reform strategy can be traced back to past transformative eras of juvenile justice policy. Early developments in the juvenile justice system created the foundation for devolution, privatization, and the persistent belief that juvenile delinquency can be solved through individualized interventions. The development of the juvenile justice system connects to broader trends in social policy. This latest reconfiguration of the juvenile justice system reifies post-New Deal policy development where the state has shifted from providing basic public services to subsidizing the private-sector.
... Sommige studies voerden een follow-upmeting uit op een bepaalde tijdstip na de aanvang van het DBK-traject (Dakof et al., 2009;Eibner et al., 2006;Johnson et al., 2011;Leukefeld et al., 2007), deze follow-up periode varieerde van vier maanden na aanvang van het DBKtraject (Johnson et al., 2011) tot drie jaar na randomisatie (Gottfredson et al., 2005). In andere studies werden de resultaten gemeten op ver-schillende follow-upmomenten zowel tijdens als na het DBK-traject (Brewster, 2001;Dakof et al., 2010;Deschenes et al., 1995, Freeman, 2003, Marinelli-Casey et al., 2008Marlowe et al., 2005) of werden de resultaten enkel nagegaan bij de afronding van het DBK-traject (Asford, 2004, Boles et al., 2007Burrus et al., 2011;Gottfredson et al., 2005, Worcel et al., 2008. (Dakof et al., 2010;Eibner et al., 2006;Leukefeld et al., 2007;Marlowe et al., 2005) en één studie met een QED (Dakof et al., 2009) werden behandeld als studies met een PPD omdat zowel de controlegroep als de interventiegroep een DBK omvatte (waartussen evenwel verschillen bestonden). ...
... In alle studies, behalve twee (Brewster, 2001;Marinelli-Casey et al., 2008), verbeterde het middelengebruik aanzienlijk, ongeacht het type onderzoeksdesign. Met betrekking tot de druggerelateerde levensdomeinen is het verschil tussen de resultaten van de observationele en de gecontroleerde studies opvallend. ...
... Deze uitgaven daalden significant terwijl de wekelijkse legale inkomsten niet significant veranderden, wat wijst op een vermindering van het druggebruik over de tijd heen. In de andere studies werd druggebruik direct gemeten aan de hand van de resultaten van urinetesten (Brewster, 2001;Deschenes et al., 1995; Leukefeld et al., 2007) of beide (Dakof et al., 2010;Marinelli-Casey et al., 2008;Marlowe et al., 2005). ...
... Some authors have considered the intersection of race and other factors like employment and drug of choice (Brewster, 2001;Schiff & Terry, 1997), and others have considered the impact of opportunity structures that Downloaded by [180.183.152.62] at 14:37 20 August 2015 may differentially affect social, educational, and financial success (Schiff & Terry, 1997). McKean and Warren-Gordon (2011) cautiously report that the intersection of race and psychological distress may reduce the likelihood of drug court graduation among African American offenders in the Midwest. ...
... In 2010, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) released a statement titled The Equivalent Treatment of Racial and Ethnic Minority Participants in Drug Courts. The statement was released because a growing body of literature was suggesting that White participants were more likely than minority participants to have favorable outcomes related to graduation and not recidivating (Brewster, 2001;Dannerbeck et al., 2006;Krebs, Lindquist, Koetse, & Lattimore, 2007). A noticeable finding from this study is that racial disparities did not exist in graduation outcomes, which is consistent with the findings from Hohman et al. (2000). ...
... In the Toronto, Canada, drug treatment court, complying with drug court requirements within the first month of the program improved graduation rates (Newton-Taylor, Patra, & Gliksman, 2009), and in a Texas drug court, not having a violation within the first 30 days of the program reduced the odds of recidivating (Gallagher, 2014). Last, drug court participants were significantly less likely to recidivate than probation participants, which is consistent with previous research that used similar evaluation methods (Brewster, 2001;Fielding et al., 2002). Although these findings add to the body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of drug courts, it is important to interpret these findings with caution due to the obvious limitations that exist because an experimental research design was not used in this study. ...
Drug courts have been used in the criminal justice system to treat substance use disorders since 1989. This study evaluates a drug court in Indiana, focusing specifically on the most predictive variables for being terminated from the program and comparing recidivism patterns of drug court and probation participants. Participants were most likely to be terminated from drug court if they did not have a high school diploma or equivalent at admission, were not employed or a student at admission, identified cocaine as a drug of choice, had more positive drug tests, had a violation within the first 30 days of the program, and had a criminal history. Additional findings suggest that drug court is more effective than probation at reducing criminal recidivism rates for offenders with substance use disorders. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.
... The expansion of drug courts has led to the examination of the effects of drug courts (Brown 2010;Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa 2005;Mitchell et al. 2012;Shaffer 2011;Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie 2006). This body of research has shown drug courts to reduce substance use (Belenko 1998(Belenko , 2001Gottfredson et al. 2005;Peters and Murrin 2000), increase treatment adherence (Lindquist et al. 2009), be cost effective (Aos, Miller, and Drake 2006;Belenko 1998;Hora, Schma, and Rosenthal 1999;Logan et al. 2004), and reduce recidivism (Brewster 2001;Brown 2010Brown , 2011Gottfredson and Exum 2002;Gottfredson, Najaka, and Kearley 2003;Gottfredson et al. 2005;Hartman, Listwan, and Shaffer 2007;Krebs et al. 2007;Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa 2005;Mitchell et al. 2012;Peters and Murrin 2000;Rempel, Green, and Kralstein 2012;Shaffer 2011;Shaffer, Hartman, and Listwan 2009;Spohn et al. 2001;Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie 2006). The prolific nature of drug courts has also led to the expansion of the drug court model. ...
... Drug courts have demonstrated reductions in recidivism (Brewster 2001;Brown 2010Brown , 2011Gottfredson and Exum 2002;Gottfredson, Najaka, and Kearley 2003;Gottfredson et al. 2005;Hartman, Listwan, and Shaffer 2007;Krebs et al. 2007;Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa 2005;Mitchell et al. 2012;Peters and Murrin 2000;Rempel, Green, and Kralstein 2012;Shaffer 2011;Shaffer, Hartman, and Listwan 2009;Spohn et al. 2001;Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie 2006). one meta-analysis examined 55 studies of drug courts found that drug court participation (compared to offenders on probation) reduced recidivism by an average of 26% (Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie 2006). ...
Research into the effects of drug courts on recidivism has generally demonstrated positive results. These results have led to the expansion of the drug court model which focuses on causes or problems for specific populations, such as drunk drivers, mental health/dual diagnosis individuals, veterans, and others. While research has examined various adaptations to the drug court model, very few examinations have evaluated adaptations of the drug court model on female offenders. Characteristics of female offenders and their drug use have led some scholars to suggest that drug courts would be an appropriate intervention for this population. While past research has examined the role of gender in drug courts, this research occurs using samples from coed courts. The current study expands and adds to the literature on drug courts by evaluating a drug court designed just for female offenders. Female drug court participants are matched to a sample of probationers on multiple variables. Results indicate that a drug court for female offenders significantly lowers recidivism. Furthermore, the research examines and highlights the practical and methodological importance of measuring risk and examining treatment completion.
... Selon Fergusson, Horwood et Swain-Cambell (2002), les jeunes adolescents de 14-15 ans sont plus enclins à développer des conséquences psychologiques négatives de leur consommation régulière de cannabis que leurs pairs âgés de 20-21 ans. Ainsi, il y a consensus sur le fait que la consommation problématique de drogue, particulièrement chez les plus jeunes, vient interférer avec les tâches normatives du développement (Baumrind et Moselle, 1985;Brewster, 2001;Ridenour et al., 2002). Une consommation de cannabis qui commence plus tôt et qui est plus intensive est aussi associée à une augmentation de plusieurs problèmes tels que la polyconsommation, les délits criminels, les difficultés scolaires ainsi que le décrochage scolaire (Fergusson, Horwood et Beautrais, 2003;Lynksey et al., 2003;Lynskey et Hall, 2000;Patton et al., 2002). ...
... Le fait que dans les deux trajectoires, l'élément déclencheur des démarches prend ancrage à l'extérieur des individus (en opposition avec leur réalité interne) laisse entrevoir une hypothèse. Comme le mentionnent plusieurs auteurs (Baumrind et Moselle, 1985;Brewster, 2001;Ridenour et al., 2002), la consommation interfère avec les tâches normatives du développement, ce qui amenuise les aptitudes à l'introspection des adolescents et par le fait même donne une place plus importante aux actions et aux événements. Pour Prochaska, DiClemente et Norcross (1992), la rechute fait partie du processus de changement, non pas qu'elle soit obligatoire, mais elle est considérée comme une étape par laquelle peuvent passer les individus. ...
L’importance d’impliquer la famille dans le traitement de readaptation en toxicomanie chez les adolescents fait consensus, mais la nature de son influence demeure peu documentee. Objectifs. Le but de cette etude de cas est de mieux comprendre la contribution de l’implication familiale dans ce processus de readaptation. Methode. Des entrevues individuelles semi-structurees ont ete menees aupres de deux jeunes en traitement de la toxicomanie, leurs parents et les cliniciens les ayant suivis. Des donnees quantitatives complementaires pre et post-traitement sur la gravite des problemes familiaux et de consommation aupres de deux jeunes ont ete recueillies. Resultats. Les recits de ces differents acteurs soulignent les bienfaits d’une implication parentale constante a travers les differentes etapes du traitement.
... A recent national survey of treatment courts also found racial and ethnic disparities in 2019 graduation rates, with African Americans and Hispanics completing programs less often than white participants (DeVall et al., 2023). Previous research has consistently found racial and ethnic disparities in graduation rates (Marlowe, 2013;Shah et al., 2015;Shannon et al., 2016) and, unfortunately, the trend dates back over 20 years (Brewster, 2001). Additionally, this disparity is not limited to African Americans and Hispanics, as evidenced by American Indians and those who identify as biracial also graduating treatment courts at lower rates than their white counterparts (Gallagher et al., 2023). ...
Disparities in treatment court outcomes, and how the majority of treatment courts are struggling to monitor and react to important indicators of racial disparities in their programs
... Contemporary treatment court research has moved beyond evaluating their overall effectiveness, which has already been proven, to focusing on how treatment courts serve racial and ethnic minority participants. This shift in research is warranted because there is a trend where racial and ethnic minorities have poorer outcomes in some treatment courts, as compared to white participants, and this trend dates back at least 22 years (Brewster, 2001). ...
Treatment courts have been part of the criminal justice system for nearly three-and-a-half decades. The first treatment court, an adult drug court, began in 1989 in Florida, and due to the success of drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism rates, the intervention has evolved to address other problems and populations, such as veterans treatment courts (VTCs) and family treatment courts (FTCs). Treatment courts have been credited with promoting criminal justice reform, as they offer a rehabilitative approach to justice, as compared to historical punitive models. Research, however, has consistently shown that racial and ethnic minorities have lower completion rates in some treatment courts than their white counterparts. This study is the first statewide evaluation to use the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Program Assessment Tool to assess for racial and ethnic disparities in programming across several types of treatment courts (n = 30). Results showed that 64.9% of white participants completed treatment court, whereas all other races had completion rates less than 30.0%. Implications for treatment court practice are discussed in reference to staff training, the quality of treatment participants receive for substance use and mental health disorders, future research, and other key components of the treatment court model.
... as compared to the matched non-Support Court individuals, but this difference was not statistically significant. The findings concerning a greater likelihood of revocation for Support Court participants, particularly for technical violations, is in line with prior research (Brewster, 2001;Gill, Hyatt, & Sherman, 2010;Hyatt & Barnes, 2017;Jalbert & Rhodes, 2012;Petersilia & Turner, 1993;Rodriguez & Webb, 2007;Sevigny et al., 2013). Overall, programs such as drug courts and intensive probation and parole, which increase supervision standards and the amount of contact with participants, typically uncover higher numbers of technical violations, thereby increasing the likelihood of revocation. ...
Impact evaluation of federal drug court
... Previous research suggests that severity of need is related to graduation rates. Ample research suggests that graduation is more likely among clients who are older (Hickert et al., 2009;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Stageberg et al., 2001;Wolf et al., 2003;DeVall & Lanier, 2012), female (Gallagher et al., 2020;Gray & Saum, 2005;Hartman et al., 2007;Stageberg et al., 2001), White vs. non-White (Brewster, 2001;Butzin et al., 2002;Fulkerson et al., 2012;Gray & Saum, 2005;Hartley & Phillips, 2001;Ho et al., 2018;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Shah et al., 2013;Shannon et al., 2016;Stageberg et al., 2001), employed (Butzin et al., 2002;Gallagher et al., 2020;Hartley & Phillips, 2001;Listwan et al., 2009;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Roll et al., 2005;Stageberg et al., 2001;Wu et al., 2012), and more educated (Gill, 2016;Gray & Saum, 2005;Listwan et al., 2009;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Shah et al., 2013;Shannon et al., 2016;Stageberg et al., 2001). Multiple studies also suggest that individuals with more serious criminal histories (Gallagher et al., 2020;Gray & Saum, 2005;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Miller & Shutt, 2001;Peters et al., 1999;Rempel & DeStefano, 2001;Shannon et al., 2016;Wolf et al., 2003) and those who use harder drugs (e.g., cocaine, opioids) are less likely to graduate (Brown, 2010a;Hartley & Phillips, 2001;Hickert et al., 2009;Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2004;Wolf et al., 2003). ...
Introduction
Although existing research suggests drug courts reduce recidivism and substance use, a large portion of drug court participants do not graduate. According to a conceptual framework, severity of need and program intensity may help to explain variation in drug court effectiveness. Understanding variation in drug court graduation can help to identify high risk participants and effective programmatic elements.
Methods
Our sample included 247 drug court participants from an adult felony-level drug court located in a large metropolitan area of the southeastern United States that either graduated (n = 113) or were terminated (n = 134) from the program. We used participant and program characteristics from drug court program records to predict drug court graduation.
Results
In bivariate analyses, several participant and program characteristics were significantly associated with drug court graduation. In the final multivariate model, only one participant-level characteristic was significantly related to graduation: emotional/personal risk and needs (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.93). Alternatively, three program characteristics remained statistically significant predictors of drug court graduation in the final multivariate model. Receiving more individual counseling sessions was positively associated with drug court graduation (aOR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.41), while jail and monetary fine sanctions were negatively associated with drug court graduation (aOR jail: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.68; aOR fine: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.78).
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that drug court programs may benefit by tailoring services for individuals with high emotional/personal risk and participants who receive certain types of sanctions. More rigorous research should explore the causal relationship between individual counseling and drug court graduation to determine if wide-scale programmatic changes are warranted.
... A substantial body of literature has shown significant reductions in recidivism among drug court participants as well as cost benefits (Belenko et al., 2005;Carey & Finigan, 2004;Goldkamp, Weiland, et al., 2001;Goldkamp, White, et al., 2001;Gottfredson et al., 2003;Mitchell et al., 2012;Wilson et al., 2006). More limited evidence exists of reduction in substance use, improved socioeconomic well-being, and family conflict-related outcomes (Brewster, 2001;Gottfredson et al., 2005;Green & Rempel, 2012;Harrell et al., 2001), or of the effects of drug courts on recurrence of substance use, treatment engagement and retention, and long-term outcomes after graduation (Belenko, 2001;Mitchell et al., 2012). ...
Introduction
Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community substance use and mental health treatment for a number of years. Although there has been some evidence of positive PRS impacts on client outcomes, previous research has shown inconsistent findings and methodological shortcomings. Given the high prevalence of substance use disorders among people involved in the criminal justice system, and limited available treatment opportunities, PRS support could provide a cost-effective opportunity to promote positive client outcomes. Drug courts, with their focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, are an ideal laboratory to test the impacts of PRS on substance use recurrence and recidivism.
Methods
The present study is, to our knowledge, the first experimental test of the PRS model in a justice system setting. We implemented a pilot experiment in the Philadelphia Treatment Court, randomizing 76 drug court participants to be linked to a PRS or to services as usual, and analyzed client outcomes over a nine-month follow-up period. Most participants' drug of choice was marijuana.
Results
The results showed a reduction in rearrests and improvement in drug court engagement, but no impact on substance use recurrence or treatment engagement.
Conclusions
The mixed findings suggest some promise for the PRS model in the drug court setting, but the need for further research with more diverse and higher-risk drug court populations.
... Take, for example, drug courts -the most common form of specialty courts and the one that Lucas (2020) himself noted has served as the model for the creation of other types of specialty courts. Typically, access to drug courts is reserved for first time offenders who have been charged with a drug offense (usually possession), who have neither an official history of violence nor a lengthy list of other prior offenses (Brewster, 2001;DeVall & Lanier, 2012;Wolfe et al., 2002). The assumption here is twofold: (1) the offenders who are siphoned off into drug courts engage exclusively (or at least primarily, for all practical purposes) in drug crimes, and (2) the causes of their criminal behavior are different from those deemed ineligible for the drug court -offenders with more extensive and varied criminal histories. ...
We recently published an article in Victims & Offenders in which we argued that: (1) the generality of deviance is real (i.e., offenders rarely specialize in any form of criminal or deviant behavior), (2) specialty courts typically assume – either implicitly or explicitly – that offenders do, in fact, specialize primarily in a particular form of criminal behavior, and (3) that there is thus a mismatch between a well-documented criminological reality and the administrative reality of specialty courts. Lucas recently took issue with our arguments and claimed that specialty courts are well-run, evidence based, and sufficiently flexible to be consistently effective at reducing recidivism, and that our relative pessimism is rooted in our “misinterpretation” of the evidence we cite. We find no merit in either of his arguments and we present here a criminologically-informed and evidence-based discussion of the generality of deviance and specialty courts.
... Research on juvenile drug courts' ability to reduce recidivism is mixed. Several juvenile drug court evaluation studies have found that these courts reduce recidivism (Anspach, Ferguson, & Phillips, 2003;Brewster, 2001;Carey, Waller, & Marchland, 2006;Crumpton et al., 2006;Harrison, Parson, & Byrnes, 2006;Hickert, Becker, & Prospero, 2010;Latessa, Shaffer, & Lowenkamp, 2002;Pitts, 2006;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Thompson, 2004), while others suggest that JDCs have weak to minimal effects on recidivism (Sloan, Smykla, & Rush, 2004;Sullivan et al., 2014). For example, a two year evaluation of a Maryland JDC found that drug court graduates had fewer rearrests and spent less time in a juvenile facility compared to those terminated from drug court and the comparison group (Crumpton et al, 2006). ...
This exploratory study examined juvenile drug courts’ effect on adulthood recidivism. Utilizing a twelve‐year average follow up time, adult recidivism rates were compared between previous juvenile drug court participants and a comparison group of juveniles who participated in traditional probation. Linear regression models indicated limited recidivism effects of drug court on arrests or convictions into adulthood. The findings suggest that gender and race may play a role in how justice‐involved juveniles interact and experience juvenile drug court, highlighting the need for gender‐responsive and culturally responsive policies, practices, and programs within juvenile drug courts. Recommendations are made regarding future research areas and ways to potentially improve long‐term juvenile drug court outcomes.
... Court dockets became choked as processing this ever-expanding group of offenders became more challenging. A specialized administrative system in the form of drug courts was therefore attractive from an efficiency standpoint (Brewster, 2001;Granfield, Eby, & Brewster, 1998;Heck, 2006). The idea was that by relaxing the adversarial nature of the criminal court (something that has rankled some legal scholars; see Meekins, 2006), offenders could be shuffled through the judicial process faster and more smoothly because judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys would all essentially specialize professionally in these kinds of cases (Boldt & Singer, 2006). ...
Specialty courts—such as drug courts, mental health courts, or domestic violence courts—tend to assume, either implicitly or explicitly, that particular groups of offenders have unique problems that can be best met with specialized case processing. Put simply, specialty courts assume that offenders themselves are specialists when it comes to offending. There is, however, a criminological fly in the ointment. The problem is that criminological theory and research have long demonstrated that offenders tend to be generalists and that they rarely specialize in any given form of misbehavior. Accordingly, the authors argue here that the notion of the “generality of deviance” presents a problem for the potential effectiveness of specialty courts because they are likely operating on a faulty set of ideas about offending behavior. The authors offer strategies for moving forward to better integrate the notion of the generality of deviance into specialty courts: in particular, embracing a rehabilitative philosophy and adopting well-documented correctional treatment approaches such as cognitive-behavioral interventions and the risk-need-responsivity model. They conclude by highlighting the risks associated with granting system efficiency a position of privilege among the multiple goals of corrections.
... In 1997, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a summary statement concluding that DCs were successful at reducing recidivism-a report that was subsequently corroborated by extensive reviews conducted by Belenko (2001). Indeed, the evaluations of DCs across the country-from Florida (Peters, Haas, & Murrin, 1999) to Pennsylvania (Brewster, 2001) to Nebraska (Spohn, Piper, Martin, & Frenzel, 2001) to Ohio (Listwan et al., 2003) to California (Wolf & Colyer, 2001)-have been extensive, and they indicate that participants tend to have lower rates of recidivism, based on rates of re-arrest, than traditionally adjudicated offenders. Studies also suggest that individuals who successfully graduate from DC programs are significantly less likely to be re-arrested (Dynia & Sung, 2000;Peters et al., 1999), re-convicted (Vito & Tewksbury, 1998) and are more likely to be self-supporting (Sechrest & Shicor, 2001) compared to those who do not successfully complete their DC-based programming. ...
Although researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike have long known about the established link between substance abuse and criminal behavior, criminal justice agencies in the United States are still tasked with managing an influx of individuals who display symptoms of abuse and dependence. By the late 1980s, the drug court model emerged as an innovative response to this problem, and this reform has since proliferated to such an extent that it is the most common type of problem-solving court in America. Still, there remains much variation in how drug courts are implemented across jurisdictions, which can have strong implications for the outcomes among the courts’ participants. In this review, we summarize the key research on drug court implementation, followed by an assessment of whether they can be said to “work” in terms of reducing criminal behavior and relapse among adults. We conclude that the model remains an evidence-based practice and suggest some directions for future work, including increased emphasis on theory and causal dynamics and key measurement issues.
... Although not universal, there is a trend in the literature where, in some drug courts, non-White participants graduate drug court at a lower rate (Marlowe, 2013) and recidivate at a higher rate ( Krebs et al., 2007), as compared to their White counterparts. This is a trend that dates back to over a decade-and-a-half (Brewster, 2001). However, the majority of evidence is related to racial disparities in graduation outcomes (Dannerbeck et al., 2006;Gallagher, 2013b;McKean & Warren-Gordon, 2011) because, as mentioned previously, studies predicting criminal recidivism are less common. ...
The first drug court began in 1989, and since their inception, they have expanded to over 3,000 in the United States and United States territories. The long-term goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism rates for nonviolent offenders who have substance use disorders. This study adds to the literature by using secondary data to compare criminal recidivism rates between drug court participants (n = 163) and probationers who had diagnosed substance use disorders and arrests that were eligible for drug court but they did probation instead (n = 185). Criminal recidivism was measured up to 36 months post drug court/probation discharge, which provides a more accurate assessment of the long-term effectiveness of drug court. Furthermore, this study identified which drug court participants were most likely to recidivate. Drug court participants were less likely to recidivate than the probation group. However, differences between the two groups may have contributed to the difference in criminal recidivism rates and also suggest that screening criteria may exclude some non-White participants from drug court. Non-white participants were more likely to recidivate than their White counterparts. Implications for future research and drug court practice are discussed, focusing on enhancing the service-delivery of education and employment opportunities to non-White drug court participants.
... Whereas it is presumed that the reduction in recidivism rates for drug court participants is due to addressing their underlying substance use disorders, very few studies have directly examined participant substance use outcomes [23], specifically prescription drug abuse. Several studies have examined the effect of drug court participation on future drug use in general with positive effects [24,-30], but only two of the studies report baseline prescription drug use [24,29]. For example, Brewster (2011) evaluated a drug court program and compared 184 participants to 51 comparable offenders. ...
Prescription drug abuse represents a national public health concern. This study reports on 12-month outcomes of a drug court treatment program for 102 female offenders addicted to prescription drugs. The program utilized two evidence-based treatment models (i.e., Motivational Enhancement Therapy/Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-12 and Seeking Safety). In addition, participants were required to attend monthly judicial reviews, weekly AA/NA groups, and two random drug screens per week. Participants were interviewed at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Analyses examined self-reported substance use, traumatic experiences, criminal justice involvement, readiness to change, and therapeutic alliance. Participants reported significant decreases in substance use, increased readiness to change, high therapeutic alliance, and significantly less arrest charges twelve-months after enrollment compared to twelve-months before intake. Results suggest that the drug court program was successful in reducing substance use and other ancillary measures for female participants with prescription drug abuse issues. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.
... coerced treatment has been equated with referrals from the criminal justice system (Klag, 2005) which is not necessarily a good measure of coercion as discussed above This review produced some support for the effectiveness of coerced drug treatment (Hough, 1996) USA drug courts show promising outcomes with participation in and completion of the programme being linked to reduced drug use, rates of re-arrest and recidivism (Cosden, Basch, Campos, Greenwell, Barazani & Walker, 2006;Fielding, Tye, Ogawa, Imam, & Long, 2002;Guydish, Wolfe, Tajima, & Woods, 2001;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Spohn, Piper, Martin, & Frenzel, 2001). In comparison to groups of offenders not exposed to drug courts, drug court participants show better offending and drug outcomes (Galloway & Drapela, 2006;Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka & Rocha, 2005;Gottfredson & Exun, 2002;Brewster, 2001). Marlowe, DeMatteo and Festinger (2003) concluded that "drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug involved offenders" (p. ...
With a growing emphasis on alternatives to incarceration for high-risk/high-need individuals who use drugs or alcohol, there is an increased need for intensive treatment services in the community. The current study examines referrals to residential treatment in a drug court setting. Using a sample of 378 drug court participants, this study compares characteristics of drug court participants who received traditional drug court services and those who received residential services. Multivariable logistic regression model analyses indicate that drug of choice (i.e., heroin/opiate use), substance use severity (i.e., early onset of drug use at 15 years and below), and noncompliance (i.e., rearrests prior to referral) were significant predictors of referral to and placement in residential treatment, when controlling for demographic characteristics (i.e., age, race, gender). Research and policy implications are discussed.
Purpose: The objective of this research was to synthesize the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of adult drug courts to serve as an alternative to incarceration, and to investigate which features of drug courts predict successful diversion. Methods: We performed a series of meta-analyses of different incarceration outcomes, and performed meta-regression analyses investigating which features of drug courts predict successful diversion. Results: Drug courts significantly reduced the incidence of incarceration on the precipitating offense, corresponding to a reduction in confinement from 50% to 42% for jail and 38% for prison incarceration. However, drug courts did not significantly reduce the average amount of time offenders spent behind bars, suggesting that any benefits realized from a lower incarceration rate are offset by the long sentences imposed on participants when they fail the program. Meta-regression results indicated that certain drug courts features (i.e., program intensity, in-program sanctions, risk profile of participants) are related to incarceration outcomes. Conclusions: The evidence concerning drug courts impact on incarceration is mixed. Drug courts eliminate the experience of incarceration for many drug-involved offenders, but they also do not appear to reduce the aggregate , near-term burden placed upon correctional resources. More research is required to confirm these findings.
We sought to understand the individual level predictors of intermediate outcomes in a diversion drug court. Outcomes included acceptance to drug court, sanction(s), incentives(s), drug test results, and graduation. Because much of the prior literature on individual level predictors of these outcomes is mixed, drug courts can benefit from analysis of their own data to understand what factors are important, or not, for their population. We analyzed administrative data and found significant predictors varied by outcome. Results showed that the court adhered to best practices (Florida Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards, 2017), because there were no race or sex differences between those accepted to drug court or not, those sanctioned when in drug court, and those graduated successfully versus unsuccessfully discharged. The court team can use these findings to better understand their population, their program, and ensure compliance with best practices. Results also contribute to the broader drug court literature.
Substance abuse continues to be a pressing social problem in the United States today. As the country battles an opioid epidemic, many jurisdictions have adopted the problem-solving court model in response. These specialized courts, known as drug courts, offer a rehabilitative approach to offender management. Drug courts balance substance abuse rehabilitation with community-based supervision and operate with the philosophy that addressing the addiction will result in a decrease in criminal offending. The current study examines the recidivism rates for 50 participants who have been separated (i.e., completed or terminated) from one rural drug court program in the Midwest for at least 3 years. Findings indicate that successful completion of drug court is associated with decreases in misdemeanor offending, and more importantly, decreases in felony offending. While preliminary, the findings of this research provide support for the drug court model in the rural Midwest. Further research in this area is highly recommended.
This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing criminal or drug‐use behaviour recidivism. The review summarises findings from 154 studies, all of which report evidence from adult drug courts, drunk driving (DWI) drug courts, and juvenile courts. All but eight of the studies are of drug courts in the USA.
There is a large, significant mean average effect from both adult and DWI drug courts. Overall, recidivism rates were just over one third (38%) for programme participants, compared to half (50%) for comparable non‐participants. This effect endures for at least three years. There is a smaller effect from juvenile drug courts. Program participation reduces recidivism from 50% to 44%.
The effects of drug court participation are highly variable. Programs with fewer high‐risk offenders are more effective in reducing reoffending rates. This finding may help explain why juvenile courts are less effective, as they deal with a greater proportion of high‐risk offenders. Variation in intensity of programs is not related to effectiveness. Courts that required more than the standard number of phases or drug tests were no more effective than other courts.
The highest quality evidence from three experimental evaluations confirms the impact from adult courts on recidivism, though there was some inconsistency in durability of the effects over time. For DWI drug courts three of the four experimental evaluations produced similar results as the adult drug courts, but one high quality study found negative effects.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug‐involved offenders' abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. Drug courts have proliferated across the United States in the past 20 years and been adopted in countries outside the United States. Drug courts also have expanded to non‐traditional populations (juvenile and DWI offenders).
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, including drug courts for juvenile and DWI offenders. This systematic review critically assesses drug courts' effects on recidivism in the short‐ and long‐term, the methodological soundness of the existing evidence, and the relationship between drug court features and effectiveness.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We used a multi‐pronged search strategy to identify eligible studies. We searched bibliographic databases, websites of several research organizations involved in drug court research, and the references of eligible evaluations and prior reviews.
SEARCH CRITERIA
Evaluations eligible for inclusion in this review were evaluations of drug courts that used an experimental and quasi‐experimental comparison group design. Studies must also have had an outcome that examined criminal or drug‐use behavior (recidivism).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
From each evaluation, we coded an effect size that quantified each court's effect on various measures of recidivism (general recidivism, drug‐related recidivism, and drug use). We also coded features of the drug court program, research methodology, and sample. We analyzed effect sizes using the random‐effects inverse‐variance weight method of meta‐analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
One hundred fifty‐four independent evaluations of drug courts met our eligibility criteria; 92 of these assessed adult drug courts, 34 examined juvenile drug courts, and 28 investigated DWI drug courts. If all of the evaluations are considered, the evidence suggests that adult and DWI drug courts reduce general and drug‐related recidivism; in fact, the mean effect size for both adult and DWI drug courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to approximately 38% for participants. Moreover, the effects of adult drug courts appear to persist for at least three years. If only the three experimental evaluations of adult drug courts are considered, the evidence still supports the effectiveness of adult drug courts, as all three experimental evaluations find sizeable reductions in recidivism, although there was inconsistency in the durability of the effects over time. Three of the four experimental evaluations of DWI drug courts find sizeable reductions in recidivism; however, one experimental evaluation found a negative effect. Thus, the evidence is suggestive of effectiveness of DWI drug courts but this conclusion is not definitive. For juvenile drug courts we find considerably smaller effects on recidivism. The mean effect size for these courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to roughly 43.5% for participants.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings support the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, but the strength of this evidence varies by court type. The evidence finds strong, consistent recidivism reductions in evaluations of adult drug courts. DWI drug courts appear to be strong but this evidence is less consistent, especially in experimental evaluations. More experimental researching assessing the effects of DWI drug courts is clearly needed. For juvenile drug courts, the evidence generally finds small reductions in recidivism. More evaluations of juvenile drug courts, especially experimental and strong quasi‐experimental evaluations, are needed.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug‐involved offenders' abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. The objective of this review was to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing future offending and drug use. The systematic search identified 154 independent, eligible evaluations, 92 evaluations of adult drug courts, 34 of juvenile drug courts, and 28 of drunk‐driving (DWI) drug courts. The findings most strongly support the effectiveness of adult drug courts, as even the most rigorous evaluations consistently find reductions in recidivism and these effects generally persist for at least three years. The magnitude of this effect is analogous to a drop in general and drug‐related recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to approximately 38% for participants. The evidence also suggests that DWI drug courts are effective in reducing recidivism and their effect on recidivism is very similar in magnitude to that of adult drug courts (i.e., a reduction in recidivism of approximately 12 percentage points); yet, some caution is warranted, as the few available experimental evaluations of DWI drug courts do not uniformly support their effectiveness. For juvenile drug courts we find considerably smaller effects on recidivism. The mean effect size for these courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to roughly 43.5% for participants
Drug courts began in the United States in 1989, and nearly three decades of evidence has shown that drug courts are more effective than other criminal justice interventions at reducing criminal recidivism. There has, however, been a trend in some drug courts where African Americans are less likely to graduate than their White counterparts, which is concerning because evidence has also shown that graduating the program reduces the odds of recidivating. Little is known about African Americans’ experiences in drug court, and this is the first known qualitative study to ask African American women (N = 8) about the most helpful aspects of drug court that support them in graduating and how the drug court could be more helpful in supporting them to graduate. The women felt that the drug court judge was their advocate and understood the unique challenges they faced with balancing the demands of drug court with motherhood. Conversely, the women felt that they were not receiving effective, gender-responsive treatment for their substance use disorders, which was a barrier to them graduating drug court. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice and future research.
Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses. The author of that study noted that findings raised further questions about whether the increased drug arrests should be interpreted as beneficial or harmful and whether they might have had a differential impact on minority residents. This study incorporated race-specific arrest information to partially answer these questions by utilizing a series of fixed-effects regressions among U.S. cities with populations over 50,000 from 1990 to 2006. Findings indicate that drug court implementation was associated with substantial increases in arrests of Black, but not White residents. Ethical and theoretical implications for therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, and the minority threat perspective are discussed.
Drug courts have been an important part of the criminal justice system since 1989. They continue to expand throughout the United States because nearly three decades of research has shown that they are more effective than other interventions, such as traditional probation. There is a pattern, though, in some drug courts where African Americans are less likely to graduate than their Caucasian counterparts. This qualitative study explores this phenomenon by asking African American participants (n = 31) their views on the most helpful aspects of drug court and how drug court could be more helpful in supporting them in graduating the program. Participants felt that the respect and compassion they received from the drug court judge and their case managers, as well as the camaraderie they developed with other participants, was an aspect of drug court that supported them in graduating the program. Next, participants felt that graduation rates would improve if drug court better supported them in gaining employment or sustaining the employment they already had. Implications for drug court practice are discussed.
Aims: To review existing evidence on effectiveness of community-based diversion programmes for Class A drug-using offenders.
Methods: 31 databases were searched for studies published 1985–2012 (update search 2012–2016) involving community-based Criminal Justice System diversion of Class A drug users via voluntary or court-mandated treatment.
Findings: 16 studies were initially included (US, 10; UK, 4; Canada, 1; Australia, 1). There was evidence for a small impact of diversion to treatment on drug use reduction (primary Class A drug use: OR 1.68, CI 1.12–2.53; other drug use: OR 2.60, 1.70–3.98). Class A drug users were less likely to complete treatment (OR 0.90, 0.87–0.94) than users of other drugs. There was uncertainty surrounding results for offending, which were not pooled due to lack of outcome measure comparability and heterogeneity. Individual studies pointed to a minor effect of diversion on offending. Findings remained unchanged following an update review (evidence up to March 2016: US, 3; Australia, 1).
Conclusions: Treatment accessed via community-based diversion is effective at reducing drug use in Class A drug-using offenders. Evidence of a reduction in offending amongst this group as a result of diversion is uncertain. Poor methodological quality and data largely limited to US methamphetamine users limits available evidence.
For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder. The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program. This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants (N = 42) their views on the most helpful aspects of the program that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful to support them in graduating. Two themes emerged from the data: (1) participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program; (2) participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received, and they felt that this was a barrier to them graduating the program. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.
Background
In April 2009, the Labour Party commissioned the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) to complete a review about the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids. The review would help answer the questions of whether and how adults with opioid dependence should be treated with coercive interventions. We addressed one main question: What are the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids?
Methods
We searched systematically for relevant literature in international scientific databases. We evaluated published systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled studies for inclusion using a pre-designed inclusion form. We planned to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies with appropriate check lists, and summarize the results in tables and text. We searched for literature concerning ethical issues related to coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids, and we used 23 sub questions to identify ethical issues.
Results
We found neither systematic reviews nor primary studies that evaluated the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids. We excluded systematic reviews and studies which did not report results regarding the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids, as well as interventions which did not meet the inclusion criteria of being coercive treatment for opioid dependence. We identified several ethical issues concerned with this treatment, which answered to our 23 sub-questions.
Conclusion
Our concerted efforts at identifying literature about the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids showed that there is little available high quality research on the effects of coercive treatment in general, and on the effects of coercive treatment of persons dependent on opioids specifically. Ethical issues should be considered when designing and planning randomized controlled studies and controlled clinical trials for populations with this type of severe dependence.
There is a well established relationship between crime and substance use; offenders are four times more likely to have a substance use disorder than non-offenders. The need for addiction treatment in the criminal justice system outweighs available resources, is met with barriers when available, and is often contingent upon an individual’s readiness for change. Thus, an alternative response is warranted. Given the shared populations targeted by criminal justice and public health systems, there is a significant need for coordinated efforts. Drug courts are a criminal justice-based intervention effective in reducing rates of recidivism and drug use, with the potential to make a public health impact. Factors that contribute to drug court effectiveness are reviewed and include a discussion of criminal thinking and substance misuse as intervention targets. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the challenges of this comprehensive approach particularly related to workforce training and development, assessment, and treatment content and dosage.
Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations, 9th Edition, meets the needs of students and instructors for engaging, evidence-based, impartial coverage of the origins of crime, as well as of public policy that can reduce or prevent deviance. The book examines a range of approaches to preventing crime and elucidates their respective goals. Strategies include primary prevention measures designed to prevent conditions that foster deviance; secondary prevention measures directed toward persons or conditions with a high potential for deviance; and tertiary prevention measures to deal with persons who have already committed crimes. This edition provides research and information on all aspects of crime prevention, including the physical environment and crime, neighborhood crime prevention programs, community policing, crime in schools, and electronic monitoring and home confinement. Lab offers a thorough and well-rounded discussion of the many sides of the crime prevention debate, in clear and accessible language.
Since the first drug court in Miami in 1989, the drug court movement has spread throughout the United States, influencing how drug-involved offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. This paper reports on an outcome evaluation of a drug court in San Mateo County, California. Arrest rates were compared for drug court participants (N=618) and nonparticipants (N=75), and for graduates (N=257) and nongraduates (N=361). Factors associated with rearrest were assessed for participants in both groups. During a two-year follow-up period, there were no significant differences in rearrest rates between the participant and non-participant groups. Comparisons between graduates and nongraduates showed lower rearrest rates for graduates (19% vs. 53%, χ2(1)=73.5, p< 0.01). In a model including participants and nonparticipants, only a prior history of conviction predicted an increased likelihood of rearrest whereas being female and older decreased the likelihood of rearrest. In addition, among drug court participants only, graduating decreased the likelihood of rearrest.
Juvenile Justice: An Introduction is a student-friendly analysis of all aspects of the juvenile justice system. The book covers the history and development of the juvenile justice system and the unique issues related to juveniles, including police interaction, court processes, due process, movements toward diversion and deinstitutionalization, and community intervention. This book also examines particular issues within juvenile justice, such as female delinquency, gang delinquency, and the use of the death penalty and Life Without Parole with juveniles. Evidence-based suggestions for successful interventions and treatment are included, with a focus on performing cost-benefit analyses of what works versus what is ineffective with juveniles. The book concludes with a look to the future of the juvenile court, including the real possibility of abolition. Provides an engaging introduction to all aspects of the Juvenile Justice system in America. This seventh edition builds on a trusted and well-known textbook with new material on key issues such as sexting, bullying, social media, and the issues of non-delinquent youths. Robust offerings for students include study questions, discussion questions, "What You Need to Know" sections in each chapter, key terms identified, online case study questions, and links to relevant websites. Instructors are provided with helpful test question banks, lesson plans, sample syllabi, Power Point lecture slides, and links to useful websites. Glossary consolidates key terms with definitions.
Drug courts are designed to offer treatment in lieu of incarceration for nonviolent offenders who have substance use disorders. Recent evidence has suggested the African American participants are less likely to graduate drug court than their white counterparts. This qualitative study interviewed 38 participants from a Midwestern drug court to compare and contrast white (n = 22) and African Americans (n = 16) lived experiences in the program in order to learn about the factors that may contribute to racial disparities in outcomes. Findings suggest that both white and African American participants felt that the drug court team was supportive and compassionate, and wanted them to succeed in the program. White participants found managing the demands of drug court with other obligations they had to be a noticeable challenge, and they also reported continued alcohol use in the program even though the program required total abstinence. African Americans were most critical about the quality of substance abuse treatment they received and felt that they were forced to accept culturally incompetent labels. Findings have implications for drug court practice and future research.
This book examines several types of crime prevention approaches and their goals, including those that are designed to prevent conditions that foster deviance, those directed toward persons or conditions with a high potential for deviance, and those for persons who have already committed crimes. This edition provides research and information on all aspects of crime prevention, including the physical environment and crime, neighborhood crime prevention, the mass media and crime prevention, crime displacement and diffusion, prediction, community policing, drugs, schools, and electronic monitoring and home confinement. A new chapter on developmental crime prevention focuses on the early life experiences that predispose individuals to commit deviant acts and using risk factors in predicting behavior for secondary prevention. New attention is brought to situational prevention, partnerships for crime prevention, the politics of prevention strategies, and organizing dysfunctional neighborhoods. All chapters now include updated tables that indicate the state of the evidence as well as key terms, learning objectives, web references, and a helpful glossary.
The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has jurisdiction over offenders when a superior court orders community supervision. While on supervision, offenders must adhere to conditions such as reporting regularly to their Community Corrections Officer (CCO). If conditions are violated, DOC may impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to confinement. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2008, approximately 72 percent of all offenders who had a violation received confinement as a sanction. We investigate whether the use of confinement—as a sanction for a violation—has an impact on recidivism.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy was directed by the 2012 Legislature to review whether chemical dependency treatment in the adult and juvenile justice systems reduces crime and substance abuse. The Institute was also asked to estimate the monetary benefits and costs of these programs.
We conducted a systematic review of research studies to determine if, on average, these programs have been shown to reduce crime. To narrow our review of this vast literature, we focused on the type of chemical dependency programs funded by Washington taxpayers.
We located 55 unique studies with sufficient research rigor to include in our review. Programs for adult offenders have been evaluated more frequently than for juveniles. Of the 55 studies, 45 evaluated treatments delivered to adults while only 10 were for juveniles.
Our findings indicate a variety of chemical dependency treatments are effective at reducing crime. Recidivism is reduced by 4-9%. Some programs also have benefits that substantially exceed costs.
We found that community case management for adult substance abusers has a larger effect when coupled with “swift and certain.” This finding is consistent with an emerging trend in the criminal justice literature—that swiftness and certainty of punishment has a larger deterrent effect than the severity of punishment.
We modified the participant perception survey utilized in the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation and administered it to participants at a majority Hispanic drug court in south Texas. Results revealed generally positive perceptions of the judge and various measures of procedural justice. Results also revealed that participants perceived the ability to communicate with the (bilingual) judge in Spanish as important to their success in drug court and that this was true even of those participants who were fluent in English as well as Spanish. Our results generate an important policy consideration for these future courts, namely, the language abilities of the judge. We believe that judges at majority Hispanic drug courts will be most effective when they are bilingual in English and Spanish and we call on drug court planners to consider our findings as they develop new courts to serve this growing population.
Developing community-based options for drug abusing women is important for a variety of reasons. One option that shows promise is the treatment-oriented drug court. Although drug courts enjoy considerable empirical support, relatively few studies have examined the efficacy of this model for women. The current study uses a quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes between a sample of moderate to high-risk drug court participants (n=91) and probationers (n=80). Over the course of an average two year follow-up period, female drug court participants were found to have significantly lower rates of recidivism than their probation counterparts. The results of an event history analysis confirmed that drug court participants were significantly less likely to recidivate even after controlling for differences in length of follow-up. These findings provide support for the ability of drug court programs to successfully treat drug-involved women.
This qualitative study with 14 African American participants of a Texas drug court explored the factors that might contribute to racial disparities in drug court outcomes. The findings suggest that the factors that might contribute to racial disparities in outcomes include African American participants’ (a) beliefs that drug court sanctions were not implemented in a culturally sensitive manner; (b) dissatisfaction with being mandated to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings; (c) perceptions that they were not offered enough resources to gain and maintain employment; (d) views that they were not receiving individualized treatment; and (e) beliefs that they can relate better to other African American clients and staff members. Implications for policy advocacy, future research, and social work practice are discussed.
Drug courts offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration for criminal offenders with a history of substance abuse. This study contributes to the existing literature by using logistic regression analyses to predict graduation outcomes for participants of a drug court located in a major metropolitan area of Texas. The most predictive variables of graduating the drug court were being employed or being a student at the time of admission, having fewer positive drug tests, and being White. Implications for policy advocacy and future research are discussed, focusing specifically on the finding of racial disparities in graduation outcomes.
This research examines the possibility that racial disparities in drug court graduation are attributable to individual-level employment or education or to neighborhood-level disadvantage. Individual-level data on 455 drug court clients and neighborhood-level census and police incident data are joined geographically. Drug court graduation is modeled using multilevel logistic regression. In a model with no neighborhood-level indicators, client race, employment, and education all predicted drug court graduation. When neighborhood-level variables are introduced, client-level race drops from significance but employment and education remain significant predictors of graduation. Client race, then, appears to be an indirect indicator of neighborhood disadvantage, while client employment and education remain important individual-level predictors of drug court graduation. These results support further analysis of neighborhood-based barriers to drug court graduation and the development of drug court programming that can address neighborhood-based challenges.
The societal costs of problematic class A drug use in England and Wales exceed £15B; drug-related crime accounts for almost 90% of costs. Diversion plus treatment and/or aftercare programmes may reduce drug-related crime and costs.
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare for class A drug-using offenders, compared with no diversion.
Adult class A drug-using offenders diverted to treatment or an aftercare programme for their drug use.
Programmes to identify and divert problematic drug users to treatment (voluntary, court mandated or monitored services) at any point within the criminal justice system (CJS). Aftercare follows diversion and treatment, excluding care following prison or non-diversionary drug treatment.
Thirty-three electronic databases and government online resources were searched for studies published between January 1985 and January 2012, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science. Bibliographies of identified studies were screened. The UK Drug Data Warehouse, the UK Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study and published statistics and reports provided data for the economic evaluation.
Included studies evaluated diversion in adult class A drug-using offenders, in contact with the CJS. The main outcomes were drug use and offending behaviour, and these were pooled using meta-analysis. The economic review included full economic evaluations for adult opiate and/or crack, or powder, cocaine users. An economic decision analytic model, estimated incremental costs per unit of outcome gained by diversion and aftercare, over a 12-month time horizon. The perspectives included the CJS, NHS, social care providers and offenders. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis explored variance in parameter estimates, longer time horizons and structural uncertainty.
Sixteen studies met the effectiveness review inclusion criteria, characterised by poor methodological quality, with modest sample sizes, high attrition rates, retrospective data collection, limited follow-up, no random allocation and publication bias. Most study samples comprised US methamphetamine users. Limited meta-analysis was possible, indicating a potential small impact of diversion interventions on reducing drug use [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.53 for reduced primary drug use, and OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.98 for reduced use of other drugs]. The cost-effectiveness review did not identify any relevant studies. The economic evaluation indicated high uncertainty because of variance in data estimates and limitations in the model design. The primary analysis was unclear whether or not diversion was cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses indicated some scenarios where diversion may be cost-effective.
Nearly all participants (99.6%) in the effectiveness review were American (Californian) methamphetamine users, limiting transfer of conclusions to the UK. Data and methodological limitations mean it is unclear whether or not diversion is effective or cost-effective.
High-quality evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion schemes is sparse and does not relate to the UK. Importantly this research identified a range of methodological limitations in existing evidence. These highlight the need for research to conceptualise, define and develop models of diversion programmes and identify a core outcome set. A programme of feasibility, pilot and definitive trials, combined with process evaluation and qualitative research is recommended to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversionary interventions in class A drug-using offenders.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
The nationwide drug court movement represents one of the most recent innovations aimed at decreasing the number of drug-involved offenders by providing drug treatment and intensive court supervision. Although the majority of drug courts are diversion programs, the Maricopa County (Arizona) Drug Court is a postadjudication program for probationers with a first-time felony conviction for drug possession. Probationers are required to participate in an outpatient comprehensive drug treatment program, and their progress is monitored by the judge. The drug court emphasizes individual accountability through a system of rewards and sanctions. A total of 630 offenders sentenced in 1992 or 1993 were randomly assigned to either the drug court or routine probation for RAND's experimental evaluation and tracked for a period of twelve months. Results show that 40 percent of drug court participants successfully completed the treatment program within twelve months. Although there was no statistically significant difference between participants in the drug court program and those on routine probation in terms of new arrests, drug court participants had a lower overall rate of technical violations with fewer drug violations in particular. The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department has continued the drug court program, with slight modifications, and hopes to increase the number of clients served within the next year.
This study examined outcomes for two treatment-based drug court programs during a 30-month follow-up period. Outcomes for drug court graduates were contrasted with those of nongraduates and of comparison groups that consisted of offenders who were placed on probation supervision during the same period and did not receive drug court services. Drug court graduates from both programs were significantly less likely to be arrested and had fewer arrests during follow-up in comparison to matched probationers and nongraduates. For both drug courts, the rates of arrest during the 30-month follow-up period declined in direct relationship to the duration of drug court involvement. Drug court graduates had lower rates of substance abuse than comparable groups of treated offenders. The implications for clinical practice and the need for additional drug court outcome research are discussed.
This paper reports on a retrospective study of the Denver Drug Court that was conducted to assess the court’s impact on court processing, treatment matching, and offender recidivism. A sample of 300 offenders from the Denver Drug Court and drug offenders from two previous years prior to the drug court was obtained. Quasi-experimental procedures were used to examine differences in measured variables across each offender cohort. Data for this study were collected from court records as well as through on-line arrest records. This paper begins with an exploration of the organizational framework of the Denver Drug Court and the court’s related treatment options. It also examines the extant literature on the effectiveness of drug courts. Analysis of the data indicates that the Denver Drug Court has reduced case processing time and it has slightly reduced the amount of time offenders spend in presentence confinement. Unlike previous studies of drug courts, this study attempted to examine the court’s ability to match offenders to treatment needs. Analysis of the available data, although limited, suggests that offenders are being matched to appropriate levels of treatment. Finally, data analysis indicates no significant differences in revocation or rearrest rates. This article concludes with a discussion of the controversial nature of drug courts. Directions for future research are offered.
Specialized courtrooms: Does speeding up the process jeopardize the quality of justice? Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project 1999 Drug court activity update: Summary information
- R S Davis
- B E Smith
- L B Nickles
Davis, R.S., Smith, B.E., & Nickles, L.B. 1996 Specialized courtrooms: Does speeding up the process jeopardize the quality of justice? Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project 1999 Drug court activity update: Summary information. Washington, DC: American University and Office of Justice Programs.
Evaluation of the Santa Barbara County Substance Abuse Treatment Courts: Year Three County of Chester 1998 County of Chester Drug Court Program: Program Abstract
- M Cosden
- S Peerson
- L Crothers
Cosden, M., Peerson, S., Crothers, L. 1999 Evaluation of the Santa Barbara County Substance Abuse Treatment Courts: Year Three. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 148-150. County of Chester 1998 County of Chester Drug Court Program: Program Abstract. West Chester, PA: County of Chester. at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 10, 2015 jod.sagepub.com Downloaded from WINTER 2001 County of Chester n.d. Drug court program project narrative. West Chester: County of Chester.
King County Drug Court evaluation: Final report
- M Bell
Bell, M. 1999 King County Drug Court evaluation: Final report. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 140-142.
The Chester County Drug Court Program: An evaluation Unpublished report presented to County of Drug diversion courts: Are they needed and will they succeed in breaking the cycle of drug-related crime?
- M Brewster
- Pa Chester
- J R Brown
Brewster, M. 1999 The Chester County Drug Court Program: An evaluation. Unpublished report presented to County of Chester, PA. Brown, J.R. 1997 Drug diversion courts: Are they needed and will they succeed in breaking the cycle of drug-related crime? New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 23 (1), 63-99.
Madison County assessment and treatment alternative court: Final evaluation report
- M D Godley
- M L Dennis
- R Funk
- M Siekmann
- R Weisheit
Godley, M.D., Dennis, M.L., Funk, R., Siekmann, M., & Weisheit, R. 1999 Madison County assessment and treatment alternative court: Final evaluation report. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 147-148.
Process and output evaluation of the Volusia County Drug Court
- K D Robinson
- M Shaw
Robinson, K.D., & Shaw, M. 1999 Process and output evaluation of the Volusia County Drug Court. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 144-145.
Differentiated case management. The Judges
- J K Arnold
- C S Cooper
- L Davis
- T Mott
- G Nicola
- R J Rossetti
- R Taylor
Arnold, J.K., Cooper, C.S., Davis, L., Mott, T., Nicola, G., Rossetti, R.J., & Taylor,R. 1994 Differentiated case management. The Judges' Journal, 33 (1), 2+. Baiamonte, J.V. 1993 An evaluation of Division " S " (Drug Court) of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Jefferson Parrish, LA: Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Belenko, S. 1999 Research on drug courts: A critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (2), 1-58.
The Riverside County drug court: Final research report
- D K Sechrest
- D Shichor
- K Artist
Sechrest, D.K., Shichor, D., Artist, K. 1998 The Riverside County drug court: Final research report. San Bernardino, CA: Criminal Justice Department, California State University.
Bureau of Justice Assistance New York City's Special Drug Courts: Recidivism patterns and processing costs
- S Belenko
- T Dumanovsky
- S Belenko
- J Fagan
- T Dumanovsky
- R C Davis
- D Morreale
- R Demetriades
Belenko, S, & Dumanovsky, T. 1993 Special drug courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Belenko, S., Fagan, J., Dumanovsky, T., Davis, R.C., Morreale, D., & Demetriades, R. 1993 New York City's Special Drug Courts: Recidivism patterns and processing costs. NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
Drug courts: A judicial manual
- J S Tauber
Tauber, J.S. 1994 Drug courts: A judicial manual. California Center for Judicial Education and Research Journal. Summer 1994, Special Issue.
Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court. National Institute of Justice
- J S Goldkamp
- D Weiland
Goldkamp, J.S., & Weiland, D. 1993a Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court. National Institute of Justice. Research in Brief. Evaluation Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Drug courts: 1997 overview of operational characteristics and implementation issues: Preliminary Report, Executive summary report
- C S Cooper
Cooper, C.S. 1997 Drug courts: 1997 overview of operational characteristics and implementation issues: Preliminary Report, Executive summary report.
Justice and treatment innovation: The drug court movement. A working paper of the First National Drug Court Conference
- J S Goldkamp
Goldkamp, J.S. 1994 Justice and treatment innovation: The drug court movement. A working paper of the First National Drug Court Conference, December 1993. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
An analysis of New Jersey's drug court project: A time series quasiexperiment. (Doctoral Dissertation
- J T Krimmel
Krimmel, J.T. 1993 An analysis of New Jersey's drug court project: A time series quasi-experiment. (Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York).
Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida's First Judicial Circuit
- R H Peters
- M M Murrin
- L Parte
Peters, R.H., Murrin, M.M., & de la Parte, L. 1998 Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida's First Judicial Circuit. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator.
The Chester County Drug Court Program: An evaluation. Unpublished report presented to County of Chester
- M Brewster