REFERENCES
- Deschenes E., Petersen B. Experimenting with the Drug Court Model: Implementation and Change in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Intervention, W.C. Terry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1999; 139–165
- Deschenes E., Turner S., Greenwood P.W., Chiesa J. An Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. RAND, Santa Monica, CA 1996, (DRU-1387-NIJ)
- Turner S., Greenwood P.W., Fain T., Deschenes E. Perceptions of Drug Court: How Offenders View Ease of Program Completion, Strengths and Weaknesses, and the Impact on Their Lives. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; II(1)61–86
- In this paper we concentrate on processes and outcomes relevant to individual offenders. Drug treatment courts also affect other individuals as well as local system operations. The latter are not addressed in this article.
- Terry W.C. Judicial Change and Dedicated Treatment Courts: Case Studies in Innovation. The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Intervention, W.C. Terry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1999; 1–18
- Goldkamp J. The Drug Court Response: Issues and Implications for Justice Change. Albany Law Rev. 2000; 63(3)923–961
- Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, New York 2001
- Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1998; I(1)1–43
- U.S. General Accounting Office. Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results. U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 1997
- Goldkamp J. Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court Movement: A Working Paper of the First National Drug Court Conference. Crime and Justice Research Institute: Philadelphia, 1994
- Goldkamp J. When is a Drug Court Not a Drug Court?. The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Intervention, W.C. Terry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1999; 166–177
- Hora P., Schma W., Rosenthal J. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Rev. 1999; 74(2)439–538
- Braithwaite J. Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts. Crime and Justice: Review of Research, M. Tonry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1999; 1–127
- Kurki L. Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice into American Sentencing and Corrections. (NCJ 175723). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1999
- Wexler D.B., Winick B.J. Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health Law Policy Analysis and Research. Univ. Miami Law Rev. 1991; 45: 979
- Despite the fact that drug treatment courts are more therapeutic than routine processing, they are coercive in nature.[17] Research generally shows positive effects for coercion;17-18 however, some have found mixed results.[19]
- Satel S. Drug Treatment: The Case for Coercion. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 2000; III(1)1–56
- Anglin M.D., Hser I. Treatment of Drug Abuse. Drugs and Crime, M. Tonry, J.Q. Wilson. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1990; 393–460
- Farabee D., Predergast M., Anglin M.D. The Effectiveness of Coerced Treatment for Drug Abusing Offenders. Fed. Prob. 1998; 62(1)3–10
- National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide. National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, MD, 1999
- Treatment access and quality have relatively little received attention in drug treatment court research. Johnson, Hubbard and Latessa [22] argue that drug treatment courts need to incorporate the principles of effective intervention into treatment programs if drug treatment courts are to be successful. These principles, relevant to drug treatment courts, include: client should be classified according to a posited “risk” level; treatment should be based in a behavioral model and use cognitive techniques; treatment should be intensive; a continuum of care should be provided, including aftercare. Treatment referrals should follow the principles of effective intervention.[23] See Belenko[24] for a more general discussion of barriers to treatment access for criminal justice clients.
- Johnson S., Hubbard D.J., Latessa E. Drug Courts and Treatment: Lessons to be Learned from the ‘What Works’ Literature. Corrections Management Q. 2000; 4(4)70–77
- Gendreau P. The Principles of Effective Interventions with Offenders. Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, A. Harland. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1996
- Belenko S. The Challenges of Integrating Drug Treatment into the Criminal Justice System. Albany Law Rev. 2000; 63(3)833–876
- Inciardi J., McBride D., Rivers J.E. Drug Control and the Courts. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1996
- Prendergast M., Anglin M.D., Wellish J. Up to Speed: Treatment for Drug-Abusing Offenders Under Community Supervision. Fed. Prob. 1995; 59(4)66–75
- Graduated sanctions are assumed to be one of the keys to drug treatment court success, although the concept has been rarely tested.28-30
- Marlowe D.O., Kirby K.C. Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons from Behavioral Research. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; II(1)1–32
- Harrell A., Cavanagh S., Roman. Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Programs, Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, 2000
- Harrell A., Kleiman M. Drug Testing in Criminal Justice Settings. Treatment of Drug Offenders: Policies and Issues. 2000; 149–171, Leukefeld, C.G., Tims, F., Eds.; Springer: New York
- Drug Courts Program Office. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, 1997
- Cooper C. 1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Executive Summary. American University and Justice Programs Office, Washington, DC 1997
- Drug Courts Program Office. Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, 1998
- American University. Cost Benefits Reported by Drug Court Programs. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, Washington, DC 2001
- Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 Update. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; II(2)1–58
- American University. Drug Court Activity Update: Summary Information on All Programs and Detailed Information on Adult Drug Courts. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, Washington, DC 2001
- Peters R., Murrin M.R. Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing Criminal Recidivism. Crim. Justice Behav. 2000; 27(1)72–96
- Finigan M. Assessing Cost Off-sets in a Drug Court Setting. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; 15(1)41–51
- Harrell A., Cavanagh S., Roman J. Final Report: Findings from the Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Urban Institute, Washington, DC 1999
- First-time felony offenders convicted of drug possession (including marijuana) were sentenced to 36 months probation with a special condition of 60 days suspended jail time. If randomly assigned to the drug treatment court condition, offenders were placed in the 12-month program. Otherwise offenders were placed on standard probation for 36 months with either no drug use testing, random testing once a month, or scheduled drug use testing twice a week.
- Deschenes E., Greenwood P.W. Maricopa County's Drug Court: An Innovative Program for First-time Drug Offenders on Probation. Justice System J. 1994; 17(1)99–115
- Deschenes E., Turner S., Greenwood P.W. Drug Court or Probation? An Experimental Evaluation of Maricopa County's Drug Court. Justice System J. 1995; 18(1)55–73
- For each phase participants signed a contract with the judge, specifying the expectations for program compliance and the number of points required to progress to the next phase or repeat the phase and the amount of reduction in probation term or jail time. The original program indicated that in the first orientation phase participants were expected to attend one drug education class, one treatment process group and one 12-step meeting per week. The focus of the second phase, stabilization, is on relapse prevention and participants were expected to attend one treatment process group and one 12-step meeting per week. Requirements for the third and final phase were similar. Throughout the program, participants were to have phone contact with probation officers, varying from biweekly during the first phase to monthly contact during the final phase. The FTDO program requirements have changed since the end of the evaluation and now include other components such as community service, payment of fees, and relapse prevention groups.
- Eligible offenders were those sentenced on drug use or possession with no prior felony drug-related offenses and no more than one prior felony offense who had a minimal substance use history and appeared to be in need of drug education, substance user outpatient counseling, and drug use monitoring. A positive answer to any of the following four questions exclude the defendant from eligibility for the drug treatment court program: (a) Is there a need for inpatient counseling? (b) Does the case require Community Punishment Program counseling? (c) Is there a need for specialized case supervision? and (d) Is the defendant appropriate for FARE (a day fines probation) probation?
- Anglin M.D., Longshore D., Turner S., McBride D., Inciardi J., Prendergast M. Studies of the Functioning and Effectiveness of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) Programs: Final Report to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Abuse Research Center, Los Angeles, CA 1996
- Anglin D., Longshore D., Turner S. Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime: An Evaluation of Five Programs. Crim. Just. Behav. 1999; 26(2)168–195
- One of the problems with locating records was that files had been sent to long-term storage following dismissal from probation and it was difficult to retrieve the files.
- The structured treatment program for drug treatment court participants was implemented by professional M.S.W.s and trained therapists and included drug education classes, group counseling, case management, and aftercare sessions.
- The low follow-up rate was the result of several factors, the major one being that no initial baseline interview had been conducted prior to the 36-month follow-up. Initial baselines lay the foundation for good follow-up tracking information and participant “buy-in” to the study. Extensive follow-up information was generally not available in probation files, many of which did not contain recent information on the offender's whereabouts. In many instances, offenders indicated that they did not want to be interviewed; they preferred to put the criminal experience behind them and move on with their lives.
- Respondents in the self report data are more likely to be white than those not interviewed (65% of interviewees, compared to 51% of noninterviewees); higher educated (41% of interviewees had less than a high school education, compared to 51% of those not interviewed); more likely to report prior drug user treatment (47% of interviewees, compared to 37% of noninterviewees); more likely to have served time in prison (14% of interviewees and 8% of noninterviewees); and older at the time of the current conviction (interviewees were, on average, 31.5 years, compared to 29.6 years for noninterviewees).
- Only one judge served as the drug treatment court judge during the evaluation.
- Turner S., Longshore D., Wenzel S., Fain T., Morral A., Deschenes E., Harrell A., Greene J., Iguchi M., McBride D., Taxman F. “A National Evaluation of 14 Drug Courts.” (2001). Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. RAND: Santa Monica, CA
- Peyton E.A., Gossweiller R. Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C. 2001
- Vigdal G.L. Planning for Alcohol And Other Drug Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment TIP Series 17, US DHHS, Rockville, MD 1995
- Baker F. Coordination of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services. Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Administration, Office for Treatment Improvement: Rockville, MD, 1991
- D’Aunno T., Zuckerman H.S. The Emergence of Hospital Federations: An Integration of Perspective from Organizational Theory. Med. Care Rev. 1987; 44: 323–343
- Hammett T.M. Public Health/Corrections Collaborations: Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, STDs, and TB. National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Washington, DC, 1998
- Marsden M.E. Organizational Structure and the Environmental Context of Drug Abuse Treatment. Issue Paper; National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, MD, 1998
- Mathias R. Linking Medical Care with Drug Abuse Treatment Stems Tuberculosis Among HIV-Infected Drug Users. NIDA Notes 1998; 13(3)
- National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD)/National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Links With Primary Care. The Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration: Washington, DC, 1998
- Ridgely M.S., Lambert D., Goodman A., Chichester K., Ralph R. Maine's Dual Diagnosis Collaborative: A Model for Interagency Collaboration in the Treatment and Support of People With Co-Occurring Mental and Substance Abuse Disorders. Psychiatric Serv. 1998; 49: 236–238
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Rockville, MD, 1997
- Taxman F. Reducing Recidivism Through a Seamless System of Care: Components of Effective Treatment, Supervision, and Transition Services in the Community. Report to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Treatment and Criminal Justice System Conference. 1998
- Wenzel S., Longshore D., Turner S., Ridgely M.S. Drug Courts: A Bridge Between Criminal Justice and Health Services. J. Crim. Justice 2001; 29(3)2441–2454
- Compared to a regular sentence for a second offense DUI, DUI court study offenders are able to reduce fines and associated fees by over $600; discharge their four day jail term by serving 2 weeks of electronic monitoring; reduce AA/NA attendance from 3 to 2 times per week. However, they must obtain an alcohol assessment that costs $150 and appear 5–7 times in front of the judge, compared with 3–4 times during the first six months after sentencing.
- Drug Courts Program Office. Drug Court Grant Program Fiscal year 1996—Program Guidelines and Application Kit. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, 1996
- Harrell A. Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts. 1999, Unpublished paper
- Taxman F. Unraveling “What Works” for Offenders in Substance Abuse Treatment Services. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; II(2)93–134
- As indicated earlier, another major area of uncertainty is the treatment process itself, particularly issues related to quality and appropriateness of treatment. Of course, these issues are not exclusive to drug treatment court programs—they affect drug user treatment programs for offenders and nonoffenders as well. See Substance Use and Misuse special issue on Program Quality in Substance Dependency Treatment (2000) for a series of papers addressing program quality.
- Longshore D., Turner S., Wenzel S., Morral A., Harrell A., McBride D., Deschenes E., Iguchi M. Drug Courts: A Conceptual Framework. J. Drug Issues 2001; 31(1)7–26
- Byrk A.S., Raudenbush S.W. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1992
- Goldstein H. Multilevel Statistical Models, 2nd Ed. Edward Arnold, London 1995
- Marlowe D.B., Festinger D.S. Research on Drug Courts: Do the Ns Justify the Means. Connections 2000; 5–6
- Goldkamp J., White M.D., Robinson J.B. Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box. J. Drug Issues 2001; 31(1)27–72
- These include, but are not limited to, behavioral approaches that use cognitive strategies; include services located in the offenders’ natural environment; are multimodal; intensive enough to be effective; include rewards for prosocial behavior; target high-risk and high-criminogenic need individuals; and matched with the learning styles and abilities of the offender (Johnson et al.[22] p. 73).
- Mahoney B., Carver J.A., Cooper C., Polansky L., Weinstein S., Wells J.D., Westfield T. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation and Management Information Systems. Drug Courts Program Office, Washington, DC 1998