Judicial sanctions are used by drug courts to encourage clients to comply with program requirements. However, few studies have explored the application of sanctions in drug courts or the relationship between sanctions and drug court graduation. This article reports the results of a study of sanctions as applied in a drug court in southwest Washington State. Results reveal no significant difference in the number of sanctions accrued between drug court graduates and noncompleters. However, noncompleters are significantly more likely than graduates to accrue sanctions within the first 30 days of entering drug court. Furthermore, accrual of an early sanction is highly predictive of eventual program failure. Severity of the first sanction (regardless of when it was received) is also related to a lower probability of graduation. The authors conclude that information about how offenders accrue sanctions may be useful to drug court personnel as they monitor clients and determine appropriate intervention strategies.
AosS. (1999). Can drug courts save money for Washington State taxpayers?Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
2.
AosS.BarnowskiR. (2003). Washington State’s drug courts for adult defendants: Outcome evaluation and cost-benefit analysis. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
3.
ArabiaP. L.FoxG.CaughieJ.MarloweD.FestingerD. (2008). Sanctioning practices in an adult felony drug court. Drug Court Review, 6(1), 1-31.
4.
BelenkoS. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. New York: Columbia University, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
5.
BouffardJ.TaxmanF. (2004). Looking inside the “Black Box” of drug court treatment services using direct observations. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 195-218.
6.
BrewsterM. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177-206.
7.
BurdonW.RollJ.PrendergastM.RawsonR. (2001). Drug courts and contingency management. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 73-91.
8.
CareyS.FiniganM. (2003). A detailed cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: A cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County drug court. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
9.
Cowlitz County Superior Court. (2003). Cowlitz County drug court policies and procedures manual. Kelso, WA: Author.
10.
CullenF.AgnewR. (2003). Criminological theory: Past to present. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
FluellenR.TroneJ. (2000). Issues in brief: Do drug courts save jail and prison beds?New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
12.
GallowayA.DrapelaL. (2006). Are drug courts an urban phenomenon? Considering their impact on recidivism among a nonmetropolitan adult sample in Washington State. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 280-293.
13.
General Accounting Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes (Report No. 05-219). Washington, DC: Author.
14.
GoldkampJ. (2003). The impact of drug courts. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 197-205.
15.
GoldkampJ.WhiteM.RobinsonJ. (2000). Retrospective evaluation of two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clark County, Nevada and Multnomah County, Oregon. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
16.
GoldkampJ.WhiteM.RobinsonJ. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-73.
17.
GottfredsonD.KearleyB. W.NajakaS. S.RochaC. M. (2007). How drug treatment courts work: An analysis of mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 3-35.
18.
HarrellA. (1998). Drug courts and the role of graduated sanctions. Alternatives to Incarceration, 4, 26-27.
19.
HarrellA.RomanJ. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.
20.
HepburnJ. R.HarveyA. N. (2007). The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court?Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 255-280.
21.
LindquistC. H.KrebsC. P.LattimoreP. K. (2006). Sanctions and rewards in drug court programs: Implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 119-146.
22.
ListwanS.ShafferD.LatessaE. (2002). The drug court movement: Recommendations for improvements. Corrections Today, 64, 52-54.
23.
ListwanS.SundtJ.HolsingerA.LatessaE. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 389-411.
24.
LutzeF. E.VanWormerJ. (2007). The nexus between alcohol and drug treatment program integrity and drug court effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 226-245.
25.
MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.DugoshK. L.LeeP. A. (2005). Are judicial status hearings a “key component” of drug court? Six and twelve month outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79, 145-155.
26.
MaxwellS. R. (2000). Sanction threats in court-ordered programs: Examining their effects on offenders mandated into drug treatment. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 542-563.
27.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
28.
RempelM.Fox-KralsteinD.CissnerA.CohenR.LabriolaM.FaroleD.. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants and impacts. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
29.
RomanJ.TownsendW.BhatiA. (2003). National estimates of drug court recidivism rates. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
SechrestD.ShicorD. (2001). Determinants of graduation from a day treatment drug court in California: A preliminary study. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 129-147.
31.
SenjoS. R.LeipL. A. (2001). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2, 66-87.
32.
SimpsonD.JoeG. W. (2004). A longitudinal evaluation of treatment engagement and recovery stages. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27, 89-97.
33.
SpohnC.PiperR.MartinT.FrenzelE. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 149-176.
34.
StaddonJ. E. R.CeruttiD. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 115-144.
35.
StevensA.RadcliffeP.SandersM.HuntN. (2008). Early exit: Estimating and explaining early exit from drug treatment. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 13.
36.
SungH. E.BelenkoS.FengL. (2001). Treatment compliance in the trajectory of treatment progress among offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 153-162.
37.
SungH. E.BelenkoS.FengL.TabachnickC. (2004). Predicting treatment noncompliance among criminal justice-mandated clients: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 13-26.
38.
TaxmanF.SouleD.GelbA. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.
39.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006). Census Bureau quick facts: Washington. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://quickfacts.census.gov
40.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
41.
WolfeE.GuydishJ.TermondtJ. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two-year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 155-171.
42.
YoungD. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 27-55.
43.
YoungD.BelenkoS. (2002). Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(1), 297-328.
