Structural and process characteristics of drug courts may have a major influence on offender outcomes. However, despite the existence of dozens of outcome evaluations in the drug court literature, it is impossible to draw clear conclusions regarding variability in outcomes in relation to drug court characteristics. We describe existing approaches to the description of drug court structure and process and argue that a new approach is needed. To address that need, we propose a conceptual framework of five drug court dimensions: leverage, population severity, program intensity, predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis. These dimensions, each scorable on a range from low to high, lend themselves to a systematic set of hypotheses regarding the effects of structure and process on drug court outcomes. Finally, we propose quantitative and qualitative methods for identifying such effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelenkoS.1998Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, I, 1–42.
2.
BlumsteinA.CohenJ.NaginD. (Eds.) (1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
3.
BraithwaiteJ.1999Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1–127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Bureau of Justice Assistance.1993Special drug courts (Program Brief, NCJ 144531). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
5.
CampbellD. T.1975‘Degrees of freedom’ and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178–193.
6.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.1996Treatment drug courts: Integrating substance abuse treatment with legal case processing (DHHS Publication No. SMA 96–3113). Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 23. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
CookT. D.LevitonL.ShadishW. R.1985Program evaluation. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
9.
Drug Courts Program Office1997Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
Drug Courts Program Office1998Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management information systems (NCJ 171138). Washington, D. C.: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
Drug Strategies1997Cutting crime: Drug courts in action. Washington, D.C.: Drug Strategies.
12.
FiscellaK.FranksP.GoldM. R.ClancyC. M.2000Inequality in Quality: Addressing Socioeconomic, Racial, and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, (19), 2579–2584.
13.
GoldkampJ. S.1999Challenges for research and innovation: When is a drug court not a drug court? In TerryW.Clinton (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 166–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
GreeneD.1980Inductive Analysis of Multiple Case Study Data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Boston, MA.
15.
GreeneJ.McClintockC.1985Triangulation in evaluation. Evaluation Review, 9, 523–545.
16.
HarrellA.1999Understanding the impact of drug courts. Unpublished paper.
17.
HoraP. F.SchmaW. G.RosenthalJ. T. A.1999Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439–538.
18.
HuddlestonC. W.1999Commentary: jail-based treatment and re-entry drug courts: A unique opportunity for collaboration and change. National Drug Court Institute Review, II, 87–106.
19.
InciardiJ.A.McBrideD.C.RiversJ.E.1996Drug control and the courts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
KurkiL.1999Incorporating restorative and community justice into American sentencing and corrections (NCJ 175723). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
MarloweD. B.KirbyK. C.1999Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, II, 1–15.
22.
McBrideD.1981Drugs and violence. In InciardiJ.A. (Ed.), The drugs-crime connection. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
NaginD. S.1998Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, (Vol. 23). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–42.
24.
National Drug Court Institute1999Drug courts: A research agenda. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
25.
SatelS.1998Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, I, 43–72.
26.
SeligmanM. E. P.1975Helplessness. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
27.
TerryW.Clinton (Ed.). 1999The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
TurnerS.LongshoreD.WenzelS.FainT.MorralA.IguchiM.2000Drug court evaluation II: Creating a drug court typology and assessing program evaluability. Final report in progress.
29.
TylerT.1988What is procedural justice – Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103–135.
30.
TylerT.1994Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.
31.
U.S. General Accounting Office1997Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results (GAO/GGD-97-106). Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office.
32.
U.S. General Accounting Office1987Case study evaluations (PEMD Transfer Paper 9). Washington, D. C.: United States General Accounting Office.
33.
WexlerD. B.WinickB. J.1991Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health Law Policy Analysis and Research. University of Miami Law Review, 979.
