Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

Abstract

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.

What factors predict the self-identification of drug dependency among criminal justice populations? Prevalence, correlates, and implications for the criminal justice system

“…The relative failure of imprisonment as a period of forced abstinence and the high rates of recidivism among drug dependent offenders was inspiration for the establishment of the world's first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the late 1980s. Since then, drug courts have proliferated internationally (Cooper, 2003;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019;Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012;Payne, 2006;Payne, 2008;Shaffer, 2011;Shannon, Jones, Newell, & Payne, 2018;Tiger, 2013) and the guiding principle of therapeutic jurisprudence (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1998;Spencer, 2012) has made a solid mark on criminal justice systems worldwide. In Australia, the diversion and treatment of drug users is organised on a continuum (see Wundersitz, 2007 for an overview) from the early intervention and diversion of low-level users to the intensive court-supervised drug court programs which are offered as a last resort alternative to imprisonment.…”

“…If identity serves as an important multiplier of both drug use and crime, it also likely influences the efficacy of drug treatment programs when targeted to offenders in the criminal justice system (Dingle et al, 2015;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019;Mackinem & Higgins, 2008;McIntosh & McKeganey, 2001;Tiger, 2013;Veysey & Rivera, 2017).Through the many international evaluations of drug courts (see, for example, Freiberg et al, 2016;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019;Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012;Payne, 2005Payne, , 2008Shaffer, 2011), we now know that program success is maximised when treatment and intervention modalities are suitably targeted to the severity of need. However, this 'need' is often operationalised as the quantity and frequency of drug use, not the strength of drug-using identities.…”

“…Furthermore, we recognise the potential for deception and/or embellishment among this data and the implications this has for treatment programs that rely on self-report measures. For many drug dependent offenders, drug treatment programs-such as Drug Courts here in Australia (Cooper, 2003;Freiberg et al, 2016;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019;Payne, 2008;-are often an alternative to imprisonment. For scholars within this space (see, for example, Cooper, 2003;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019), the likelihood that some drug dependent offenders are embellishing, or overstating, their drug dependency has been a long-held suspicion.…”

“…A foundation of the contemporary criminal justice response to drug use and crime has been to offer judicially-supervised or court-mandated treatment to those offenders with a dependency on drugs (Cooper, 2003;Freeman, 2001;Freiberg, Payne, Gelb, Morgan, & Makkai, 2016;Kornhauser, 2018;Logan & Link, 2019;Mackinem & Higgins, 2008;Payne, 2008;Shaffer, 2011). Broadly classified as therapeutic jurisprudence (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1998;Spencer, 2012), this prioritisation of treatment is supported by decades of research which has shown that incarceration rarely rehabilitates the drug using offender (see, for example, Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009;Pearson & Lipton, 1999) nor does it significantly ameliorate the welldocumented correlation between drug use and crime (Anglin & Speckart, 1986;Bennett & Holloway, 2003Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008;Brochu, Brunelle, Plourde, & Da Silva, 2018;Chaiken & Chaiken, 1990;Makkai & Payne, 2003b;Wagner & Anthony, 2002;Weatherburn, Topp, Midford, & Allsopp, 2000).…”

“…While our understanding of dependency has significantly evolved in recent decades, and while our systems of screening and clinical assessment have matured, still there is a heavy reliance on self-reported dependency as an initial triaging protocol (Freiberg et al, 2016;Logan & Link, 2019;Payne, 2005Payne, , 2006. Indeed, of the various drug diversion and drug court programs that operate worldwide, consent and volunteerism are core requirements, so in many respects, selfidentification remains an important gateway to treatment (see Freiberg et al, 2016).…”