Drug courts have been widely praised as an important tool for reducing prison and jail populations by diverting drug-involved offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. Yet only a small share of offenders presenting with drug abuse or dependence are processed in drug courts. This study uses inmate self-report surveys from 2002 and 2004 to examine characteristics of the prison and jail populations in the United States and assess why so many drug-involved offenders are incarcerated. Our analysis shows that four factors have prevented drug courts from substantially lowering the flow into prisons and jails. In descending order of importance, these are: drug courts’ tight eligibility requirements, specific sentencing requirements, legal consequences of program noncompliance, and constraints in drug court capacity and funding. Drug courts will only be able to help lower prison and jail populations if substantial changes are made in eligibility and sentencing rules.
AnglinM. DouglasLongshoreDouglasTurnerSusan. 1999. Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior26 (2): 168–95.
2.
BeckAllen J.2006. What do we know about jails at the national level?Paper read at Jail Reentry Roundtable Initiative, Urban Institute, June 27–28, Washington, DC.
3.
BelenkoSteven. 1999. The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Review63:833–76.
4.
BelenkoSteven. 2001. Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
5.
BennettTrevorHollowayKatyFarringtonDavid. 2008. The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior13 (2): 107–18.
6.
BhatiAvinash SinghRomanJohn K.2010. Simulated evidence on the prospects of treating more drug-involved offenders. Journal of Experimental Criminology6 (1): 1–33.
7.
BhatiAvinash SinghRomanJohn K.ChalfinAaron. 2008. To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
8.
BlumsteinAlfredBeckAllen J.1999. Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980–1996. Crime and Justice26:17–61.
9.
BrownRandall T.2010. Systematic review of the impact of adult drug-treatment courts. Translational Research155 (6): 263–74.
10.
BullMelissa. 2003. Just treatment: A review of international programs for the diversion of drug related offenders from the criminal justice system. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
11.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2006. Survey of inmates in local jails, 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
12.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2007. Survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
13.
CaulkinsJonathan P.ChandlerSara. 2006. Long-run trends in incarceration of drug offenders in the United States. Crime & Delinquency52 (4): 619–41.
14.
ChristiePaulAliRobert. 2000. Offences under the cannabis expiation notice scheme in south Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review19 (3): 251–56.
15.
ClearTodd R.AustinJames. 2009. Reducing mass incarceration: Implications of the iron law of prison populations. Harvard Law & Policy Review3:307–24.
16.
ClearTodd R.SchrantzDennis. 2011. Strategies for reducing prison populations. The Prison Journal91 (3 suppl): 138S–59S.
17.
DrakeElizabeth K.AosSteveMillerMarna G.2009. Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders4:170–96.
18.
Drug Policy Alliance. 2011. Drug courts are not the answer: Toward a health-centered approach to drug use. New York, NY: Drug Policy Alliance.
19.
EvansElizabethLiLiboUradaDarrenAnglinM. Douglas. 2010. Comparative effectiveness of California’s Proposition 36 and drug court programs before and after propensity score matching. Crime & Delinquency (Online prepublication).
20.
FluellenReginaldTroneJennifer. 2000. Do drug courts save jail and prison beds?New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
21.
FrancoCelinda. 2010. Drug courts: Background, effectiveness, and policy issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
22.
General Accounting Office. 1997. Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics and results. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
23.
GottfredsonDeniseNajakaStacyKearleyBrook. 2003. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy2 (2): 171–96.
24.
GottfredsonDeniseNajakaStacyKearleyBrookRochaCarlos. 2006. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology2 (1): 67–98.
25.
Government Accountability Office. 2005. Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
26.
HawkenAngelaKleimanMark A. R.2009. Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
27.
HepburnJohn R.HarveyAngela N.2007. The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court?Crime & Delinquency53 (2): 255–80.
28.
HuddlestonWestMarloweDouglas B.2011. Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
29.
Junger-TasJosineMarshallIneke Haen. 1999. The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime and Justice25:291–367.
30.
Justice Policy Institute. 2011. Addicted to courts: How a growing dependence on drug courts impacts people and communities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
31.
KarbergJennifer C.JamesDoris J.2005. Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
32.
KleimanMark A. R.2009. When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
KleimanMark A. R.HawkenAngela. 2008. Fixing the parole system. Issues in Science and Technology24:45–52.
34.
KnightKevinFlynnPatrick M.SimpsonD. Dwayne. 2008. Drug court screening. In Quality improvement for drug courts: Evidence-based practices, ed. HardinC.KushnerJ. N.Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
35.
ListwanS. J.SundtJ. L.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J.2003. The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency49 (3): 389–411.
36.
LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J.2005. Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections28:5–10.
37.
MillerEric J.2004. Embracing addiction: Drug courts and the false promise of judicial interventionism. Ohio State Law Journal65:1479–1576.
38.
MitchellOjmarrhWilsonDavid B.EggersAamyMacKenzieDoris L.2012. Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice40 (1): 60–71.
39.
MumolaChristopher J.KarbergJennifer C.2006. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
40.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 2009. A drug court within reach of every American in need: Recommendations for expanding the most effective criminal justice strategy for non-violent, drug-addicted offenders. Washington, DC: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
41.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1998. Behind bars: Substance abuse and America’s prison population. New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
42.
New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. 2010. A model for success: A report on New Jersey’s adult drug courts. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts.
43.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. 2009. State’s drug courts could expand to target prison-bound adult offenders. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Legislature.
44.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. 2010. Without changes, expansion drug courts unlikely to realize expected cost savings. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Legislature.
45.
PollackHarold A.ReuterPeterSevignyEric L.2011. If drug treatment works so well, why are so many drug users in prison? In Controlling crime: Strategies and tradeoffs, ed. CookP. J.LudwigJ.McCraryJ.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
RempelMichaelFox-KralsteinDanaCissnerAamandaCohenRobynLabriolaMelissaFaroleDonaldBaderAnnMagnaniMichael. 2003. The New York State adult drug court evaluation. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
47.
RobertsLynneIndermaurDavid. 2006. Timely intervention or trapping minnows: The potential for a range of net-widening effects in Australian drug diversion initiatives. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law13:220–31.
48.
RossmanShelli B.RomanJohn K.ZweigJanine M.RempelMichaelLindquistChristine H.GreenMiaDowneyP. MitchellYahnerJenniferBhatiAvinash S.FaroleDonald J.2011. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
49.
SaumChristine A.HillerMatthew L.2008. Should violent offenders be excluded from drug court participation?Criminal Justice Review33 (3): 291–307.
50.
SaumChristine A.ScarpittiFrank R.RobbinsCynthia A.2001. Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues31 (1): 107–28.
51.
ShafferDeborah Koetzle. 2006. Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
52.
ShafferDeborah Koetzle. 2011. Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly28 (3): 493–521.
53.
Stata Corporation. 2011. Stata survey data reference manual: Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
54.
WeissmanM.2009. Aspiring to the impracticable: Alternatives to incarceration in the era of mass incarceration. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change33:235–61.
55.
WilsonDavid B.MitchellOjmarrhMacKenzieDoris L.2006. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology2 (4): 459–87.
56.
ZweigJanine M.RossmanShelli B.RomanJohn K.MarkmanJoshua A.LagersonEricaSchaferCourtney. 2011. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: What’s happening with drug courts? A portrait of adult drug courts in 2004. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
