Experimenting with the Drug Court Model: Implementation and Change in Maricopa County, Arizona

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper; Petersen, Rebecca D.

doi:10.4135/9781452231976.n6

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of research on drug and DUI courts has focused on policy-driven issues such as program retention, engagement, and outcome (see, for example, Beckman & Fontana, 2001; Butzin, O’Connell, Martin, & Inciardi, 2006; Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006; Maxwell, 2000; Miller & Shutt, 2001; Rempel & Destefano, 2001; Sechrest & Shicor, 2001; Terry, 1999); reduction of recidivism (see, for example, Banks & Gottfredson, 2003, 2004; J. A. Bouffard & Richardson, 2007; Cosden et al, 2006; Deschenes & Greenwood, 1994; Galloway & Drapela, 2006; Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2001; Gottfredson & Exum, 2002; Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003; Granfield, Eby, & Brewster, 1998; Harrell & Roman, 2001; Spohn, Piper, Marint, & Frenzel, 2001); reduction of drug use (e.g., Beckman & Fontana, 2001; DeMatteo, Marlowe, Festinger, & Arabia, 2009; Deschenes & Peterson, 1999; Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, & Rocha, 2005); and cost-benefit analyses (e.g., Carey & Finigan, 2004; McCollister, French, Prendergash, Hall, & Sacks, 2004; Roebuck, French, & McLellan, 2003). The majority of these studies reported the effectiveness of drug court programs in reducing crime and drug use, while remaining cost-effective.…”

Section: Gender and Drug/dui Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Gender Effect in Drug and Alcohol Treatment

Liang

Long

2013

Journal of Drug Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though research on drug and driving under the influence (DUI) courts increased significantly in the past two decades, very little has focused on women's participation in these programs and how gender may have influenced clients' performance, despite the call of feminist criminologists that entry into crime and substance abuse is different for women. Based on data collected from Tulsa County DUI and Drug programs in Oklahoma, this study examines the impact of gender on clients' performance in both programs. In addition to identifying associations between clients' gender and demographics, criminal history, addiction problems, and other medical and mental health problems, this study explores gender's impact on both program progress (e.g., program length, use of sanctions, relapse) and final outcome (termination vs. graduation). Data show that different factors are associated with female entry into drug and DUI courts and successful completion of the program compared with men, which calls for gender tailored treatment for women.

show abstract

Section: Gender and Drug/dui Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Gender Effect in Drug and Alcohol Treatment

Liang

Long

2013

Journal of Drug Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drug court participants also were more likely to be referred to, participate in, and successfully complete a treatment program than were those offenders on standard probation supervision. More recently, Deschenes and Petersen (1999) summarized the programmatic changes that occurred in the Maricopa County drug court between 1994 and 1997. Maricopa County drug court adopted its current model with two drug courts in 2000.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of the Threat of Legal Sanction on Program Retention and Completion: Is That Why They Stay in Drug Court?

Hepburn

Harvey

2007

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts routinely rely on the threat of legal sanction to motivate drug-using criminal offenders to enter and complete community-based treatment programs. In light of the high failure rates among drug court participants, what is the effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion? A quasiexperimental research design was used to study program retention and completion within two adult drug courts that employed the same staff to administer identical treatment and supervision programs in the same jurisdiction. One court relied on a 120-day suspended sentence to coerce program participation, whereas the other court was prohibited by law from imposing a jail sentence on its participants. Using alternative measures of program retention, a single measure of program completion, and controls for salient sociodemographic and criminal history factors, the analysis found no differences in program retention or completion between the two courts.

show abstract

“…The majority of the research has focused on outcome evaluation and policy-driven issues such as program retention, engagement, and outcome (see, e.g., Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, and Benasutti 2006;Miller and Shutt 2001;Rempel and Destefano 2001;Terry 1999), reduction of recidivism (see, e.g., Banks andGottfredson 2003, 2004;Deschenes and Greenwood 1994;Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001a;Gottfredson and Exum 2002;Gottfredson, Najaka, and Kearley 2003;Granfield, Eby, and Brewster 1998;Spohn, Piper, Martin, and Frenzel 2001), reduction of drug use (e.g., Deschenes and Peterson 1999;Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, and Rocha 2005), and cost-benefit analyses (e.g., Carey and Finigan 2004;McCollister, French, Prendergash, Hall, and Sacks 2004). Though very few were able to utilize random assignment designs in their research, the majority of these studies reported the effectiveness of drug court programs in reducing crime and drug use while remaining cost-effective (e.g., see a meta-analysis by Wilson, Mitchell, and Mackenzie 2006 and a multisite adult court evaluation by Rossman and Zweig 2012).…”

Section: Past Studies On Drug/dui Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%