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.
Anglin, D. (1988). The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction. In C. Leukefeld & F. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice. NIDA Research Monograph 86 (pp. 8-34). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
2.
Anglin, D., & Hser, Y.-I. (1990a). Legal coercion and drug abuse treatment: Research findings and social policy implications. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States (pp. 151-176). New York: Greenwood .
3.
Anglin, D., & Hser, Y.-I. (1990b). Treatment of drug abuse. In M. Tonry & J. Wilson (Eds.), Crime and justice 13. Drugs and crime (pp. 393-460). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Anglin, D., Longshore, D., & Turner, S. (1999). Treatment alternatives to street crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 168-195.
5.
Anglin, D., Prendergast, M., & Farabee, D. (1998, July). The effect of coerced drug treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Paper presented at the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Conference of Scholars and Policy Makers, Washington, DC.
6.
Anglin, M., Brecht, M., & Maddahian, E. (1989). Pretreatment characteristics and treatment performance of legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance admissions. Criminology, 27, 537-557.
7.
Belenko, S. (1990). The impact of drug offenders on the criminal justice system. In R. Weisheit (Ed.), Drugs, crime and the criminal justice system (pp. 18-39). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
8.
Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review,1, 1-42.
9.
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
10.
Belenko, S., Fagan, J., & Dumanovsky, T. (1994). Effects of legal sanctions on recidivism in special drug courts. Justice System Journal , 17, 53-81.
11.
Benedict, W.R., Huff-Corzine, L., & Corzine, J. (1998). Clean up and go straight: Effects of drug treatment on recidivism among felony probationers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 169-187.
12.
Boyle, K., Polinsky, M., & Hser, Y.-I. (2000). Resistance to drug abuse treatment: A comparison of drug users who accept or decline treatment referral assessment. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 555-574.
13.
Boyum, D.A., & Kleiman, M.A. (2002). Substance-abuse policy from a crime-control perspective . In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 331-382). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
14.
Brecht, M.L., Anglin, M.D., & Wang, J.C. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 19, 89-106.
15.
Brewster, M. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177-206.
16.
Carroll, K.M., & Rousaville, B.J. (1992). Contrast of treatment-seeking and untreated cocaine abusers. Archives of General Psychiatry,49, 464-471.
17.
Chavaria, F.R. (1992). Successful drug treatment in a criminal justice setting: A case study. Federal Probation, 1, 48-52.
18.
Condelli, W.S. (1994). Domains of variables for understanding and improving retention in therapeutic communities. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 593-607.
19.
Cooper, C. (1997). Drug court survey report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs.
20.
Czuchry, M., & Dansereau, D. (2000). Drug Abuse treatment in criminal justice settings: Enhancing community engagement and helpfulness. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 537-552.
21.
DeLeon, G. (1984). The therapeutic community: Study of effectiveness (NIDA Research Monograph Series 84-1286). Rockville, MD : National Institute on Drug Abuse.
22.
DeLeon, G. (1988). Legal pressure in therapeutic communities. In C. Leukefeld & F. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86; pp. 83-98). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
23.
DeLeon, G., & Jainchill, N. (1986). Circumstances, motivation, readiness and suitability . Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, 203-208.
24.
Deschenes, E.P., & Greenwood, P.W. (1994). Maricopa county's drug court: An innovative program for first-time drug offenders on probation. The Justice System Journal, 17, 99-115.
25.
Deschenes, E.P., & Petersen, R.D. (1999). Experimenting with the drug court model: Implementation and change in Maricopa County, Arizona. In W. C. Terry, Iii (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial intervention (pp. 139-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Deschenes, E.P., Turner, S., & Greenwood, P. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. TheJustice System Journal , 18, 55-73.
27.
Deschenes, E.P., Turner, S., Greenwood, P., & Chiesa, J. (1996). An experimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
28.
Farabee, D., Nelson, R., & Spence, R. (1994). Psychosocial profiles of criminal justice—and non-criminal justice—referred substance abusers in treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 336-346.
29.
Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M.D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62, 3-10.
30.
Ferguson, J.L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice: An organizational perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 472-492.
31.
Fetros, C. (1998, February). Correlates of success in drug court programs in L.A. County. Presented at the proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Western Society of Criminology, Newport, CA.
32.
General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
Gerstein, D., & Harwood, H. (Eds.). (1990). Treating drug problems: A study of evolution, effectiveness and financing for public and private drug treatment systems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
Gerstein, D., Johnson, R., Harwood, H., Fountain, D., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating recovery services: The California drugs and alcohol treatment assessment. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
35.
Gottfredson, D., & Exum, M. (2002). The Baltimore City drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39,337-356.
36.
Harrison, L., Patrick, D., & English, K. (2001). An evaluation of the Denver drug court: The early years, 1995-1996. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice.
37.
Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., Broome, K.M., & Simpson, D. (1998). Legal pressure and treatment retention in a national sample of long-term residential programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 463-481.
38.
Hser, Y.I., Maglione, M., Polinsky, M., & Anglin, M.D. (1998). Predicting treatment entry among treatment-seeking drug abusers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 213-220.
39.
Hubbard, R., Marsden, M., Rachal, J., Harwood, H., Cavanaugh, E., & Ginzburg, H. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: A national study of effectiveness . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
40.
Inciardi, J., & Martin, S. (1993). Drug abuse treatment in criminal justice settings . Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 1-6.
41.
Knight, K., Hiller, M., Broome, K., & Simpson, D. (2000). Legal pressure, treatment readiness, and engagement in long-term residential programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 31, 101-115.
42.
Lang, M.A., & Belenko, S. (2000). Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 145-160.
43.
Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 1-69). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Leshner, A.I. (1997). Introduction to the special issue: The National Institute of Drug Abuse's (NIDA) drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS) . Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 211-215.
45.
Lipton, D. (1995). The Effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
46.
Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Morral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., et al. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 7-26.
47.
Lurigio, A. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness: Studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 495-528.
48.
Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. ( 2002). Maricopa County drug court operations manual. Phoenix, AZ: Author.
49.
Marlowe, D.B., Kirby, K.C., Bonieskie, L.M., Glass, D.J., Dodds, L.D., Husband, S.D., et al. (1996). Assessment of coercive and non-coercive pressures to enter drug abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 42, 77-84.
50.
Maxwell, S. (2000). Sanction threats in court-ordered programs: Examining their effects on offenders mandated into drug treatment. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 542-564.
51.
Miethe, T.D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 522-541.
52.
Miller, J., & Shutt, J. (2001). Considering the need for empirically-grounded drug court screening mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 91-106.
53.
Miller, N., & Flaherty, J. (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addition treatment (alternative consequences). Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 9-16.
54.
Norland, S., Sowell, R., & DiChiara, A. (2003). Assumptions of coercive treatment: A critical review. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 505-521.
55.
Oberg, J.C. (1996). An initial evaluation and analysis of the Ventura County drug court program. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Government.
56.
Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University. (1999). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
57.
Peters, R.H., Haas, A.L., & Murrin, M.R. (1999). Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts . National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 33-57.
58.
Prendergast, M., Anglin, D., & Wellisch, J. (1995). Treatment for drug-abusing offenders under community supervision. Federal Probation, 59, 66-75.
59.
Prendergast, M., Podus, D., & McCormack, K. (1998). Bibliography of literature reviews of drug abuse treatment effectiveness. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 15, 267-270.
60.
Reed, E.A. (1995). Drug court diversion program annual report. Wilmington, DE: Southern Drug Addiction Treatment.
61.
Rempel, M., & Depies DeStefano, C. (2001). Predictors of engagement in court-mandated treatment: Findings at the Brooklyn treatment court, 1996-2000 . Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33, 87-124.
62.
Satel, S.L. (2000). Drug treatment: The case for coercion. National Drug Court Institute Review, 3, 1-56.
63.
Saum, C., Scarpitti, F., & Robbins, C. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 107-128.
64.
Schiff, M., & Terry, C. (1997). Predicting graduation from Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court. TheJustice System Journal, 19, 291-310.
65.
Sechrest, D.K., & Shicor, D. (2001). Determinants of graduation from a day treatment drug court in California: A preliminary study. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 129-148.
66.
Senjo, S.R., & Leip, L.A. (2001). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 66-87.
67.
Shearer, R., Myers, L., & Ogan, G. (2001). Treatment resistance and ethnicity among female offenders in substance abuse treatment programs. The Prison Journal, 81, 55-72.
68.
Sia, T., Dansereau, D., & Czuchry, M. (2000). Treatment readiness training and probationers' evaluation of substance abuse treatment in a criminal justice setting. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 459-467.
69.
Simmons, R., Stewart, E., Gordon, L., Conger, R., & Elder, G., Jr. (2002). A test of life-course explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology,25, 863-891.
70.
Simpson, D. (1979). The relation of time spent in drug abuse treatment to post-treatment outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry,136, 1449-1453.
71.
Simpson, D. (1981). Treatment for drug abuse: Follow-up outcomes and length of time spent. Archives of General Psychiatry,30, 357-368.
72.
Simpson, D., & Friend, H. (1988). Legal status and long-term outcomes for addicts in the DARP followup project. In C. Leukefeld & F. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86; pp. 81-98). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
73.
Simpson, D., Joe, G., & Brown, B. (1997). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 294-307.
74.
Stageberg, P., Wilson, B., & Moore, R.G. (2001). Final report on the Polk County adult drug court . Des Moines: Statistical Analysis Center, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Iowa Department of Human Rights.
75.
Taxman, F.S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.
76.
Torres, S., & Deschenes, E.P. (1997). Changing the system and making it work: The process of implementing drug courts in Los Angeles County. TheJustice System Journal, 19, 267-290.
77.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC : Author.
78.
Vaughn, T., Sarrazin, M.V., Saleh, S.S., Huber, D.L., & Hall, J.A. (2002). Participation and retention in drug abuse treatment services research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 387-397.
79.
Vito, G., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). The impact of treatment: the Jefferson County (Kentucky) drug court program. Federal Probation, 62, 46-51.
80.
Wexler, H.K., Lipton, D., & Johnson, B. (1986). A criminal justice system strategy for treating cocaine and heroin abusers in custody. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
81.
Wolf, E.M., Sowards, K.A., & Wolf, D.A. (2003). Predicting retention of drug court participants using event history analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 37, 139-162.
82.
Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 27-55.
83.
Young, D., & Belenko, S. (2002). Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues , 32, 297-328.
