A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism

Wilson, David B.; Mitchell, Ojmarrh; MacKenzie, Doris Layton

doi:10.1007/s11292-006-9019-4

Cited by 351 publications

(289 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

279

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This assertion echoes the general consensus in the drug and alcohol treatment field based on metaanalyses of so-called "drug courts": coerced treatment is more effective in terms of compliance and outcomes than voluntary treatment (e.g., Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). As discussed in the section above on "Implementation," the question remains about how to establish a consistent and integrated referral system in an efficient and cost effective manner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants

Gondolf

2007

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An association between re-assault and mental health problems among batterer program participants has been increasingly documented by research and implied in batterer program guidelines. The majority of guidelines recommend assessment for such problems and referral to mental health treatment in addition to batterer program counseling. However, there is little documentation of assessment results and treatment outcomes. A research project was conducted to investigate the extent of mental health screening, referral compliance, and treatment effectiveness. The project included a formative evaluation of referral implementation, a service-delivery evaluation of the screening and referral, and an outcome evaluation of supplemental mental health treatment on batterer program completion and re-assault of the men's female partners. The formative evaluation exposed a few unexpected disruptive events and inconsistencies in referral procedures related in part to administrative turnover and differing priorities among agencies. The implementation modifications resulted in three stages of referral: voluntary referral, transitional referral, and mandatory referral.The service delivery evaluation showed nearly half of the batterer program participants (N=479 of 1043) screened positive on the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and were referred to a local mental health clinic. A concurrent validity test revealed a correlation of the BSI with a more comprehensive screening instrument and a briefer one (n=93), but the test-retest reliability of the BSI was low with a decrease in positive screens over time (n=98). There was also little association with the BSI subscale results and the clinical evaluations obtained by referred men (n=38), and nearly 40% of the clinical diagnoses were for an adjustment disorder not warranting further treatment. Only 30% of the referred men received an evaluation, and 20% obtained some treatment under mandatory referral. Interestingly, at least a third of the referred men acknowledged a need for treatment and was more likely to obtain treatment.The outcome evaluation, based on a 12-month follow-up with female partners (65% response rate; n=308), produced no apparent effect of "intention to treat," represented by mandatory referral, on program completion or re-assault and other abuse indicators. (Re-arrests for violent and other types of crimes were substantially lower for the mandatory referrals in a confirmatory subsample of 300 subjects.) However, there was some preliminary evidence of a "dose response" for evaluated and treated men. Overall, the referral compliance was relatively low, but did increase under mandatory referral reinforced by a system-coordinator and case-manager. Sanctions for non-compliance remained inconsistent and may have affected referral compliance. The results reinforce recent studies exposing the challenges in establishing coordinated community response, and they question the utility of elaborate referral procedures for mental health referral. Alternatives might consider a mo...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants

Gondolf

2007

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet in addition to these studies, empirical evaluations have also been undertaken to assess the external impact of similarly functioning specialty courts that operate within the judicial system. A systematic review of the research evidence has even been conducted on the societal impact of at least one type of these judicial organs (Wilson et al, 2006). Indeed, methodologically, there may be much to learn from external impact evaluations of specialist courts in the judicial sector (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2005).…”

Section: Reasons For Optimismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically evaluating the impact of adjudicative tribunals in the health sector: context, challenges and opportunities

Hoffman

Sossin

2011

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Adjudicative tribunals are an integral part of health system governance, yet their real-world impact remains largely unknown. Most assessments focus on internal accountability and use anecdotal methodologies; few, studies if any, empirically evaluate their external impact and use these data to test effectiveness, track performance, inform service improvements and ultimately strengthen health systems. Given that such assessments would yield important benefits and have been conducted successfully in similar settings (e.g. specialist courts), their absence is likely attributable to complexity in the health system, methodological difficulties and the legal environment within which tribunals operate. We suggest practical steps for potential evaluators to conduct empirical impact evaluations along with an evaluation matrix template featuring possible target outcomes and corresponding surrogate endpoints, performance indicators and empirical methodologies. Several system-level strategies for supporting such assessments have also been suggested for academics, health system institutions, health planners and research funders. Action is necessary to ensure that policymakers do not continue operating without evidence but can rather pursue data-driven strategies that are more likely to achieve their health system goals in a cost-effective way.

show abstract

“…It concluded that drug courts reduced recidivism during the length of the drug court program but that evidence was mixed on whether it affected outcomes after the program ended. The GAO bemoaned the state of drug court evaluations for In one meta-analysis, other researchers found evidence, but tentative evidence given weak research design, for positive post-program effects on recidivism (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006).…”

Section: Replication and Institutionalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%