The evaluation of the Washington, D.C., Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP) compared drug felony defendants randomly assigned to either a docket offering structured graduated sanctions in combination with drug testing and judicial monitoring, or a docket using drug tests and judicial monitoring only. Assignment to the graduated sanctions docket was found to reduce drug use prior to sentencing. Program participants were significantly less likely to use drugs prior to sentencing, and, in the year after sentencing, were significantly less likely to be arrested and and had significantly fewer arrests. This paper describes characteristics of the sanctioning program that appear highly correlated with positive outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkersR. L.2000Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
2.
AnglinD. M.LongshoreD.TurnerS.1999Treatment alternatives to street crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 168–195.
3.
AnglinM. D.HserY.1990Treatment of drug abuse. In TonryM.WilsonJ. Q. (Eds.), Drugs and Crime (pp. 393–460). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
AnglinM. D.MaughT. H. I.1992Ensuring success in interventions with drug using offenders. Annals, AAPSS, 521, 66–90.
5.
BedrickB.SkolnickJ.H.1999From ‘treatment’ to ‘justice’ in Oakland, California. In: TerryW.C. (Ed.), The Early Drug Courts – Case Studies in Judicial Innovation (pp. 43–76). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
6.
BiglanA.HoodD.BrozovskyP.OchsL.AryD.BlackC.1991Subject attrition in prevention research, Drug abuse prevention intervention research: Methodological issues, NIDA Research Monograph Series, No. 107, pp. 213–233, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
7.
BoyumD.KleimanM.1995Alcohol and other drugs. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
8.
Bureau of Justice Assistance1990Offenders, drugs, crime and treatment: Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
9.
ChaikenJ. M.ChaikenM. R.1982Varieties of criminal behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
10.
CoxD.R.1972Regression models with life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B34, 34–220.
11.
DeschenesE.P.TurnerS.GreenwoodP.1995Drug court or probation?: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. The Justice System Journal, 18, 55–73.
12.
FiniganM.1998An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah County S.T.O.P. Drug Diversion Program. Report to the State Justice Institute and the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections. West Linn, OR: Northwest Professional Consortium.
13.
GebeleinR. S.2000The rebirth of rehabilitation: Promise and perils of drug courts (Papers from the executive sessions on sentencing and corrections). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
14.
GoldkampJ.S.WeilandD.1993Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
15.
GottfredsonD.C.ExumM.L.2000The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: First Evaluation Report. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The University of Maryland.
16.
GranfieldR.EbyC.1997An evaluation of the Denver Drug Court: The impact of a treatment oriented drug offender system. Denver: Department of Sociology. University of Denver.
17.
GrasmickH. G.BursikR.J.Jr.1990Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861.
18.
GreenwoodP. W.1995Strategies for improving coordination between enforcement and treatment efforts in controlling illegal drug use.
19.
GropperB. A.1985Probing the links between drugs and crime. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
20.
HarrellA.CavanaghS.RomanJ.1999Findings from the evaluation of the D.C. superior court drug intervention program. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
21.
HoweE. S.BrandauC. J.1988Additive effects of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment on judgments of crime deterrence scale value. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(9), 796–812.
22.
HoweE. S.LoftusT. C.1996Integration of certainty, severity, and celerity information in judged deterrence value: further evidence and methodological equivalence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 226–242.
23.
InciardiJ. A.1987Heroin use and street crime. In ChambersC. D.InciardiA.PetersenD. M.SiegelH. A.WhiteO. Z. (Eds.), Chemical dependencies: Patterns, costs, and consequences. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
24.
InciardiJ. A.MartinS. S.ButzinC. A.HooperR. M.HarrisonL. D.1996An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 261–278.
25.
JamesonR.PetersonN.A.1995Evaluation of the first year of operation of the Jackson County Drug Court. Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
26.
KlepperS.NaginD.1991The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27(4), 721–746.
27.
LiptonD. S.1994The correctional opportunity: Pathways to drug treatment for offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 24, 331–348.
28.
MiranneA. C.GrayL. N.1987Deterrence: A laboratory experiment. Deviant Behavior, 8, 191–203.
29.
NaginD. S.1998Criminal justice research. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (Vol. 23). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
NaginD. S.PaternosterR.1987The preventative effects of the perceived risk of arrest: Testing an expanded conception of deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173–217.
31.
NurcoD. N.KinlockT. W.HanlonT. E.1990The drugs crime connection. In InciardiJ. A. (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States (pp. 71–90). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
32.
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice1998Looking at a decade of drug courts. Prepared by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Washington, D.C., American University.
33.
PaternosterR.1987The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173–217.
34.
PaternosterR.IovanniL.1986The deterrent effect of perceived severity: A reexamination. Social Forces, 64(3), 751–777.
35.
PaternosterR.SimpsonS.1996Sanction and threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549–583.
36.
PetersR.H.MurrinM.R.1998Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida's first judicial circuit. Tampa: Department of Mental Health, Law and Policy. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. University of South Florida.
37.
PiqueroA.PaternosterR.1998Application of Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 3–39.
38.
SmithB.DavisR.C.GoretskyS.R.1997Strategies for courts to cope with the caseload pressure of drug cases–-Draft. American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, as described in GAO.
39.
SmithD. A.PolsenbergC.1992Specifying the relationship between arrestees drug test results and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(2), 364–377.
40.
SpeckertG. R.AnglinM. D.1986Narcotics and crime: A causal modeling approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 3–28.
41.
TaxmanF. S.SouleD.GelbA.1999Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–204.
42.
VitoG. F.1989The Kentucky substance abuse program: A private program to treat probationers and parolees. Federal Probation, 65–72.
43.
YuJ.1994Punishment celerity and severity: Testing a specific deterrence model on drunk driving recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(4), 355–366.
