Journal of Drug Issues

Structural and process characteristics of drug courts may have a major influence on offender outcomes. However, despite the existence of dozens of outcome evaluations in the drug court literature, it is impossible to draw clear conclusions regarding variability in outcomes in relation to drug court characteristics. We describe existing approaches to the description of drug court structure and process and argue that a new approach is needed. To address that need, we propose a conceptual framework of five drug court dimensions: leverage, population severity, program intensity, predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis. These dimensions, each scorable on a range from low to high, lend themselves to a systematic set of hypotheses regarding the effects of structure and process on drug court outcomes. Finally, we propose quantitative and qualitative methods for identifying such effects.

This article argues that evaluation of drug courts will benefit not only from an organizing typology (Goldkamp, 1999a, 2000) that focuses research on the critical structural elements of the drug court model but also from an understanding of how drug courts are thought to deliver their impact. In developing a causal model of drug court impact, the analysis separates assessment of impact into two investigations: whether drug courts “work” and how they work. Data from the ongoing NIJ-supported evaluation of the Portland and Las Vegas drug courts are analyzed to answer the comparative question of whether there is an impact (and of what sort) and then to move consideration of the internal elements of the drug court (the black box of drug court treatment) through the development of successive theoretical models. The illustrative analyses guided by these models consider the relative contributions of instrumental drug court treatment functions and defendant risk attributes, which contribute importantly to drug court outcomes. The exploratory findings differ by site, but show some support for the importance of treatment, sanctions and appearances before the drug court judge—and their interaction—in lowering the prospects for subsequent rearrest and increasing likelihood of graduation.

Drug courts have become an increasingly popular response to the increased burden placed on the criminal justice system by substance abuse. However, evaluation findings have been less than consistent with respect to the ability of drug courts to have the desired impact on drug use and criminal behavior. This paper reviews the literature describing the growth, operations, and evaluations of drug courts. It concludes that, contrary to most “models,” drug courts emphasize punishment (e.g., graduated sanctions) and make limited positive, or at least inconsistent, use of reinforcement to promote behavior change and abstinence from drug use. Contingency management techniques that involve the systematic application of reinforcement based on the performance of specified behaviors are presented and reviewed. The success of this model in promoting pro-social behavior and abstinence from illicit drug use suggests that drug courts could benefit substantially from the integration of contingency management-based interventions.

A primary threat to the operative effectiveness of drug courts is high failure rates. Empirically supported screening devices could aid drug court administrators in maximizing resources, either through client selection or by helping to target problem clients in need of specialized assistance. Drawing from South Carolina county-level drug court records, success rates for participants with particular background characteristics were examined to identify correlations contributing to drug court success. Risk factors for drug court members were identified using chi-square and discriminant function analysis. Recidivism, crack as drug of choice, existence of criminality before drug use, and prior drug treatment were significantly related to drug court failure. These variables, as well as social stability variables, are argued to be vital elements in screening mechanisms.

Drug courts are slowly beginning to expand their admission criteria to include more chronic and serious offenders since traditional probation and incarceration have failed to prevent drug use and crime. Drug courts have moved from providing diversion programs for first-time offenders charged with drug possession to developing tracks for more complex clients. Many of these new drug court participants have extensive criminal histories, including histories of violent crime. Drug court decision-makers thus confront the difficulty of balancing the needs of treatment versus corrections by attempting to target offenders whose criminal histories suggest that their candidacy in a drug court would not pose a risk to public safety. To date, little is known about whether drug courts are appropriate for offenders with lengthy criminal histories that often include violence. The research presented here explores correlates of drug court graduation for seriously crime-involved offenders, most of whom have a history of violence.

This paper focuses on an evaluation of the Riverside County (California) Drug Court Program, a post conviction program that operates much like most drug courts in the country. Riverside County has a large population of drug abusers. A recent study (Sechrest and Josi, 1996) showed that about 40% of the prison commitments from this county were for drug offenses (this figure did not include commitments for other crimes with drug involvement). The “Inland Empire,” comprising Riverside County and San Bernardino counties, is known as one of the highest, if not the highest, producers of methamphetamine in the nation.

Increases in the number of drug offenders appearing in state and federal courts, coupled with mounting evidence of both the linkages between drug use and crime and the efficacy of drug treatment programs, led many jurisdictions to implement drug treatment courts. Although these courts vary on a number of dimensions, most are designed to reduce drug use and criminal behavior among drug-involved offenders. This study evaluates the effectiveness of one drug court–the Douglas County (Omaha), Nebraska Drug Court–in reducing offender recidivism. We use a variety of analytical techniques to compare drug court participants and offenders in two matched comparison groups on a number of measures of recidivism. Our results reveal that drug court participants have substantially lower rates of recidivism than traditionally adjudicated felony drug offenders, and that the differences in recidivism rates between drug court participants and drug offenders who participated in a diversion program prior to the implementation of the drug court disappeared once we controlled for the offender's assessed level of risk, as indicated by his/her LSI score.

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. On the other hand, drug court participants were more likely than the comparison group to be unsuccessfully removed from their programs. Survival analysis revealed that the differences in the survival patterns of the drug court and comparison samples approached statistical significance. Additionally, African American drug court participants appeared to do significantly poorer than Caucasian drug court participants. Those drug court graduates for whom follow-up data (n=15) were available appear to be successful in leading productive and drug-free lives.

The evaluation of the Washington, D.C., Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP) compared drug felony defendants randomly assigned to either a docket offering structured graduated sanctions in combination with drug testing and judicial monitoring, or a docket using drug tests and judicial monitoring only. Assignment to the graduated sanctions docket was found to reduce drug use prior to sentencing. Program participants were significantly less likely to use drugs prior to sentencing, and, in the year after sentencing, were significantly less likely to be arrested and and had significantly fewer arrests. This paper describes characteristics of the sanctioning program that appear highly correlated with positive outcomes.

Participants in a drug court are subjects in a study that analyzes the relationship between the everyday problems they identify in discussions with the judge and their patterns of recovery, as measured by compliance with program requirements. 130 types of problems mentioned in court revealed that problems generally are those associated with the individuals themselves (e.g., their physical health), their immediate social milieu (e.g., domestic abuse), and the larger social structure in which they negotiate their lives (e.g., acquiring Medicaid benefits). The most frequently mentioned types of problems were “structural” in nature. Patterns of recovery identified in program graduates resulted in labels of “clear sailers,” “late bloomers,” “occasional stumblers,” and “chronic stumblers.” A case study of an occasional stumbler reveals some ways in which everyday hassles and her responses to them affected her recovery.

In order for intermediate sanctions, such as drug court, to be considered effective alternatives to traditional punishments of probation and prison, offenders and policy makers must view them similarly. This article examines variation in participants' perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program in Orange County California. In addition, the study examined perceptions of the severity of the graduated sanctions that are an integral part of the drug court program. This article focuses on differences between minority and non-minority participants. Although the severity of various sentences was rated differently by the two groups, we found few differences in perceived program effectiveness. Therefore, the drug court program can be used as an intermediate sanction for adequately supervising and rehabilitating drug offenders, protecting the public, conserving criminal justice resources, and deterring criminal activity.