Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings, and policy implications

Abstract

While drug courts have emerged on the criminal justice policy-making agenda with considerable fanfare in recent years, they have now reached the point in their operational advancement and political advocacy where continued growth and development are becoming more dependent on the strength of empirical evidence. Along with insights obtained from descriptions related to the history and function of drug courts, their divergence from traditional judicial practices, and their role in the new paradigm of therapeutic jurisprudence, this article analyzes the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the drug court evaluation literature. From a public policy perspective, these empirical assessments are considered in conjunction with the conceptual foundations and implementation strategies associated with contemporary drug courts, in an effort to address their future potential to maintain a prominent position on the public policy agenda. As with similar public initiatives, it is argued that the long-term survival of drug courts can be strengthened to the extent that they are based on theory that is solidly anchored to policy, policy to practice, and, ultimately, practice to evidence-based outcomes.

Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Notes

Notes

[1] Although the research in this article is based on the widespread empirical results that have been generated in conjunction with the US drug court experience over the past two decades, findings are in most cases likewise relevant to similar initiatives in other countries without benefit of an extensive empirical foundation on which to rely in shaping their developmental drug court initiatives.

[2] In such post-adjudication drug courts, the defendant pleads guilty, and the sentence is suspended in lieu of successfully completing drug court programming, at which point the sentence is waived, and often the conviction is expunged as well (or if the client is unsuccessful, the suspension is lifted and the sentence imposed).

[3] Between 40% and 80% of drug abusers drop out of treatment prior to the ninety-day threshold of effective treatment length, … and 80 to 90% drop out in fewer than twelve months (Huddleston et al., 2004, p. 4).

[4] For example, between 1985 and 1995, the population of drug offenders in state prisons increased by 478%, more than double the increase for any other offense category (Mauer, 1999, p. 35). Moreover, in terms of the fiscal impact, a comparative study of two groups of low-level drug traffickers sentenced before and after the adoption of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines concluded that the additional time spent in prison for the second group would cost taxpayers approximately $515 million (Harer, 1994).

[5] These insights reflect the fact that during this period of time, the author was on the management staff of the Miami–Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[6] In an ironic twist of fate, as of mid-April, 2007, Miami–Dade's drug court had placed a moratorium on accepting new defendants in order to reduce the load of 2000 cases, which had become unmanageable for its solitary judge (Arthur, 2007).

[7] In fact, the same perspectives are held among drug court opponents—some of whom believe that they are ‘soft on crime’ by offering offenders a means of avoiding punishment, while others view them as too coercive, thereby increasing the risk of incarceration for participants, among which minorities are overrepresented (Harrell, 2003, p. 209).

[8] Another study independent of Belenko's research found that, based on a sample of 2020 drug-court graduates (designed to represent approximately 17,000 graduates), 16.4% had been arrested and charged with a serious offense within one year of graduation. Within two years, the figure rises to 27.5% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

[9] These findings are in contrast to an earlier GAO analysis of the literature, which, on the basis of evidence available at that time, concluded that ‘some studies showed positive effects of the drug court programs during the period offenders participated in them, while others showed no effects, or effects that were mixed and difficult to interpret. Similarly, some studies showed positive effects for offenders after completing the programs, while others showed no effects, or small and insignificant effects’ (US Government Accounting Office, 1997, p. 85).

[10] Additionally, she surveyed and conducted telephone interviews with the targeted courts.