The effects of participation level on recidivism: a study of drug treatment courts using propensity score matching

Abstract

BackgroundEmpirical evidence has suggested that drug treatment courts (DTCs) reduce re-arrest rates. However, DTC program completion rates are low and little is known about the effectiveness of lower levels of program participation.ObjectivesWe examined how DTC program referral, enrollment without completion, and completion, affected re-arrest rates during a two-year follow-up.Research designWe used statewide North Carolina data from criminal courts merged with DTC data. Propensity score matching was used to select comparison groups based on demographic characteristics, criminal histories, and drug of choice (when available). Average treatment effects on the treated were computed.MeasuresDTC participation levels included referral without enrollment, (n = 2,174), enrollment without completion (n = 954), and completion (n = 747). Recidivism measured as re-arrest on a substance-related charge, on a violent offense charge not involving an allegation of substance abuse, and on any charge (excluding infractions) was examined by felony and misdemeanor status during a two-year follow-up period.ResultsRe-arrest rates were high, 53–76 percent. In general, re-arrest rates were similar for individuals who were referred but who did not enroll and a matched comparison group consisting of individuals who were not referred. In contrast, enrollees who did not complete had lower re-arrest rates than a matched group of individuals who were referred but did not enroll, for arrests on any charge, on any felony charge, and on substance-related charges (felonies and misdemeanors). Finally, relative to persons who enrolled but did not complete, those who completed had lower re-arrest rates on any charge, any felony charge, any misdemeanor charge, any substance-related charge, any substance-related misdemeanor or felony charge, and any violent felony charge.ConclusionsEnrolling in a DTC, even without completing, reduced re-arrest rates. Given the generally low DTC completion rate, this finding implies that only examining effects of completion underestimates the benefits of DTC programs.

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

“…Both models pose constitutional issues of due process. In other courts, if a sentence is suspended pending successful completion of a DTC, failure to complete the DTC program results in reinstatement of the original sentence, and possible other penalties (Gifford et al, 2014a). Other criticisms focus on the quality of the services that are offered and whether there is equitable access to the services across participants (Murphy, 2012).…”

“…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). Although successful on many counts, there is concern that certain populations benefit from these courts while other populations are more likely to fail and experience adverse legal consequences as a result (Orr et al, 2009).…”

Effectiveness of treatment for opioid use disorder: A national, five-year, prospective, observational study in England

“…A commonly used measure is the proportion of patients treated who complete treatment successfully (Alterman et al, 2001). This indicator is associated with reduced drug use (Evans et al, 2009;Kornør and Waal, 2005), increased employment (Lang and Belenko, 2000;Zarkin et al, 2002;Evans et al, 2009;Sung and Chu, 2011), lower arrests and incarceration (Campbell et al, 2007;Evans et al, 2009;Gifford et al, 2014), and a reduced likelihood of readmission to treatment services (Luchansky et al, 2000). In the US, substantial inter-state (Arndt et al, 2013) and regional variation in completion rates have been reported (Hawkins et al, 2014), and this is now monitored at the federal/government level ).…”

Factors of Success: Drug Court Graduate Exit Interviews

“…While these findings were based on two drug courts with a relatively small sample size, the published research and many evaluation studies conducted support the conventional wisdom. Retention and graduation are both related to a reduction in criminal justice contacts for drug court clients (Gifford, Eldred, McCutchan, & Sloan, 2014;Green & Rempel, 2010;Rossman et al, 2011;Somers, Rezansoff, & Moniruzzaman, 2014;Turner et al, 2001).…”