In order for intermediate sanctions, such as drug court, to be considered effective alternatives to traditional punishments of probation and prison, offenders and policy makers must view them similarly. This article examines variation in participants' perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program in Orange County California. In addition, the study examined perceptions of the severity of the graduated sanctions that are an integral part of the drug court program. This article focuses on differences between minority and non-minority participants. Although the severity of various sentences was rated differently by the two groups, we found few differences in perceived program effectiveness. Therefore, the drug court program can be used as an intermediate sanction for adequately supervising and rehabilitating drug offenders, protecting the public, conserving criminal justice resources, and deterring criminal activity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenH. E.1985The organization and effectiveness of community corrections. In TravisL.F.III (Ed.), Probation, parole, and community corrections (pp. 185–199). Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
2.
AndrewsD.A.ZingerIHogeR.D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF.1990Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.
3.
BazemoreG.MaloneyD.1997Rehabilitating community service: Toward restorative service sanctions in a balanced justice system. In MarquartJ.W.SorensenJ.R. (Eds.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (pp. 401–416). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
4.
BelenkoS.1998Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 1–42.
5.
BelenkoS.1999Diverting drug offenders to treatment courts: the Portland experience. In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 108–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
CanovaD.M.1990The national drug control strategy: A synopsis. In InciardiJ.A. (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States (pp. 339–348). New York: Greenwood Press.
8.
CondelliW.S.1986Client evaluations of therapeutic communities and retention. In DeLeonG.ZiegenfussJ.T.Jr. (Eds.), Therapeutic communities for addictions: Readings in theory, research and practice (pp. 131–139). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
9.
CooperC.19971997 Drug Court Survey Report: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: American University, Justice Programs Office.
10.
CrouchBen M.1993Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offender's preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67–88.
11.
DeLeonG.1990Treatment strategies. In InciardiJ.A. (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States (pp. 115–138). New York: Greenwood Press.
12.
DeschenesE.P.PetersenR.D.1999Experimenting with the drug court model: Implementation and change in Maricopa County, Arizona. In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 139–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13.
DeschenesE.P.TurnerS.PetersiliaJ.1997Diverting offenders from prison: an evaluation of Minnesota's intensive community supervision program. In MarquartJ.W.SorensenJ.R. (Eds.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (pp. 374–384). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
14.
DeschenesE.P.ImamI.FosterT.WardD.1999aEvaluation of Los Angeles County Drug Courts. Unpublished manuscript. Richmond, CA: Center for Applied Local Research.
15.
DeschenesE.P.ImamI.FosterT.DiazL.MorenoV.PatascilL.WardD.CondonC.1999bEvaluation of Orange County Drug Courts. Unpublished manuscript. Richmond, CA: Center for Applied Local Research.
16.
Drug Courts Program Office2000Drug court clearinghouse & technical assistance project fact sheet. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. http://www.american.edu/justice/factsheet/htm.
FetrosC.1998The Los Angeles County Drug Courts: Correlates of success. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, California State University, Long Beach.
21.
FinnP.NewlynA.1996Miami drug court gives drug defendants a second chance. In EskridgeC.W. (Ed.), Criminal justice: Concepts and issues (pp. 148–154). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
22.
GoldkampJ.S.1999aChallenges for research and innovation: When is a drug court not a drug court? In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 166–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
GoldkampJ.S.1999bThe origin of the treatment drug court in Miami. In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 19–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
24.
GoldkampJ.D.WeilandD.1993Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court (Final Report). Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
25.
HarrellA.RomanJ.1999Process evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court and network of services: The first three years. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
26.
HarrellA.SmithB.1996Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus group interviews. National Institute of Justice.
27.
HoraP.F.SchmaW.G.RosenthalJ.T.A.1999Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutioning the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74(2), 439–538.
28.
HuddlestonC.W.1999Drug courts and jail-based treatment: a unique opportunity for collaboration and change. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 87–106.
29.
LarsonC.J.BergB.L.1989Inmate's perceptions of determinate and indeterminate sentences. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(1), 127–137.
30.
LatessaE.J.1985Community corrections as diversion: saving money and reducing state commitments. In Probation, parole, and community corrections, ed. TravisL.F.III, 81–93. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
31.
LiptonD.S.1995aThe effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. National Institute of Justice Research Report. http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/drugsupr.txt.
LongshoreD.GrillsC.AnglinM.D.AnnonK.1996Treatment motivation among African-American drug-using arrestees. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
34.
LongshoreD.HsiehS.AnglinM.D.1993Ethnic and gender differences in drug user's perceived need for treatment. The International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 539–558.
35.
LurigioA.J.PetersiliaJ.1992The emergence of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. In ByrneJ.M.LurigioA.J.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Smart Sentencing (pp. 3–17). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
36.
MarloweD.B.KirbyK.C.1999Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 1–31.
37.
MartinT.J.SpohnC.C.PiperR.K.RobinsonJ.1999Phase II Douglas County Drug Court evaluation final report. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Social and Economic Development, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
PetersR.H.MurrinM.R.2000Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing Criminal Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 72–96.
47.
PetersR.H.HaasA.L.MurrinM.R.1999Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 33–60.
48.
PetersiliaJ.DeschenesE.P.1994Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. The Prison Journal, 74(3), 306–328.
49.
PetersiliaJ.LurigioA.J.ByrneJ.M.1992Introduction: The emergence of intermediate sanctions. In ByrneJ.M.LurigioA.J.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Smart sentencing (pp. ix-xv). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
50.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS.DeschenesE.P.1992Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In ByrneJ.M.LurigioA.J.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Smart Sentencing (pp. 18–37). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
51.
SatelS.L.1998Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 43–72.
52.
SchiffM.TerryW.C.III1997Predicting graduation from Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court. The Justice System Journal, 19(3), 291–310.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange1999Drug court standards manual version 2.0.
59.
SwobodaJ.1998Differences in perceived need for drug treatment between race/ethnicity and gender. Unpublished M.S. thesis. California State University, Long Beach.
60.
TauberJ.1998The future of drug courts: Comprehensive drug court systems. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 86–101.
61.
TauberJ.HuddlestonC.W.1999Development and implementation of drug court systems. National Drug Court Institute Monograph.
62.
TauberJ.SnavelyK.R.1999Drug courts: A research agenda. Virginia: National Drug Court Institute.
63.
TerryW.C.III1999aJudicial change and dedicated treatment courts: Case studies in innovation. In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
64.
TerryW.C.III1999bBroward County's dedicated drug treatment court: From postadjudication to diversion. In TerryW.C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 77–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
65.
TorresS.1996Should corrections treat or punish substance-abusing criminals?Federal Probation, 60(3), 18–23.
66.
TorresS.DeschenesE.P.1997Changing the system and making it work: The process of implementing drug courts in Los Angeles County. The Justice System Journal, 19(3), 267–290.
67.
TuckerB.M.1985U.S. ethnic minorities and drug abuse: An assessment of the science and practice. The International Journal of the Addictions, 20, 1021–1047.
68.
TurnerS.GreenwoodP.FainT.DeschenesE.P.1999Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives, National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 61–85.
69.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs1999Therapeutic jurisprudence and the emergence of problem-solving courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
70.
United States Sentencing Commission19991998 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
