Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration?: A meta-analysis

Sevigny, Eric L.; Fuleihan, Brian; Ferdik, Frank V.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.005

Cited by 57 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar patterns were observed by Deschenes and Greenwood (1994), who found no difference in arrest rates between DC and non-DC participants in Maricopa County, California (see also Granfield, Eby, & Brewster, 1998;Listwan et al, 2003). Most recently, a meta-analysis by Sevigny, Fuleihan, and Ferdik (2013) found that while DCs significantly reduced the likelihood of incarcerationcorresponding with an 8% reduction for confinement and a 12% reduction for incarceration, respectivelythey did not reduce the actual amount of average time spent incarcerated. This finding indicates that the potential benefits of a lower incarceration rate may be offset by longer sentences for offenders who fail their programs.…”

Section: Key Empirical Evaluationssupporting

confidence: 62%

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

Logan

Link

2019

Victims & Offenders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Key Empirical Evaluationssupporting

confidence: 62%

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

Logan

Link

2019

Victims & Offenders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite greater attention to substance use disorders, and increased drug treatment and rehabilitation efforts in recent years, especially proliferation of drug courts (Mitchell et al, 2012; Sevigny et al, 2013; Sullivan et al, 2016), the results of our study indicate that substance abuse and substance dependence remain problematic areas of concern for those under correctional supervision in the community. It is in the interests of public safety, public health, physical and mental wellbeing, and obtaining reduced recidivism that practitioners, researchers, and policymakers become much better informed about the nature and extent of SUDs within this population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Fearn

Vaughn

Nelson

et al. 2016

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Substance use and crime/recidivism are irrevocably linked. We explore the nuances of this association by highlighting the prevalence, trends, and correlates of substance use dsorders in a large group of probationers/parolees. Methods We examined SUDs among probationers and parolees in the United States using data from the National Study on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Logistic regression models were computed to examine eight distinct outcomes: alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse, marijuana/hashish abuse, comorbid alcohol and illicit drug abuse, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, marijuana/hashish dependence, and comorbid alcohol and illicit drug dependence. Results Probationers/parolees have high prevalence rates across all SUDs categories and these trends have been relatively constant. Prevalence rates for alcohol abuse and dependence are two to six times higher than for marijuana and other illicit drug abuse and dependence. Key correlates of substance abuse for probationers/parolees include: age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, risk propensity, crime/violence measures, and comorbid substance abuse. Similar correlates were found for substance dependence, in addition to employment and mental health treatment. Conclusions This study indicates that SUDs are higher among probationer/parolees as compared to their non-supervised counterparts – between four and nine times higher – and these levels have changed little in recent years. Effectively responding to SUDs in this population may enhance adherence to supervision requirements, prevent recidivism, and improve public safety. We may be better served using limited funds for further development of evidence-based policies and programs, such as drug courts, which demonstrate reductions in both drug use and recidivism.

show abstract

“…Since their creation in 1989, DTCs have been one of the most heavily studied criminal justice programs (Goldkamp, 1994; Marlowe, 2010). By 2006, there were at least five independently conducted meta analyses examining the effects of adult DTCs (Marlowe, 2010), and there have been several more since then (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Sevigny, Fuleihan, & Ferdik, 2013). Existing research suggests that DTC programs are effective in reducing the likelihood of re-arrest and drug use (Gifford, Eldred, McCutchan, & Sloan, 2014a; Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chretien, 2006; Mitchell et al, 2012; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006), and there is evidence that these courts save money, at least in the short-term, due to reduced costs of incarceration (Belenko, 1998; Carey & Finigan, 2004; Marlowe, 2010; Rossman et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Criminal Justice Involvement and Children's Involvement With Child Protective Services: Do Adult Drug Treatment Courts Prevent Child Maltreatment?

Gifford¹,

Eldred²,

Sloan³

et al. 2016

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In light of evidence showing reduced criminal recidivism and cost savings, adult drug treatment courts have grown in popularity. However, the potential spillover benefits to family members are understudied. Objectives To examine: 1) the overlap between parents who were convicted of a substance-related offense and their children’s involvement with child protective services (CPS); and 2) whether parental participation in an adult drug treatment court program reduces children’s risk for CPS involvement. Methods Administrative data from North Carolina courts, birth records, and social services were linked at the child level. First, children of parents convicted of a substance-related offense were matched to (a) children of parents convicted of a non-substance-related offense and (b) those not convicted of any offense. Second, we compared children of parents who completed a DTC program with children of parents who were referred but did not enroll, who enrolled for <90 days but did not complete, and who enrolled for 90+ days but did not complete. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model group differences in the odds of being reported to CPS in the one to three years following parental criminal conviction or, alternatively, being referred to a DTC program. Results Children of parents convicted of a substance-related offense were at greater risk of CPS involvement than children whose parents were not convicted of any charge, but DTC participation did not mitigate this risk. Conclusion/Importance The role of specialty courts as a strategy for reducing children’s risk of maltreatment should be further explored.

show abstract

Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration?: A meta-analysis

Cited by 57 publications

References 29 publications

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Parental Criminal Justice Involvement and Children's Involvement With Child Protective Services: Do Adult Drug Treatment Courts Prevent Child Maltreatment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About