An extensive body of research indicates that adult drug courts reduce reoffending, whereas a more limited number of studies point to reductions in drug use as well. However, barely any research examines whether these programs produce benefits in other areas, including socioeconomic well-being, family relationships, mental health, and homelessness. To fill this important gap, findings are presented from a quasi-experimental study of 1,156 drug court participants from 23 sites and 625 comparison offenders from 6 sites where drug courts are unavailable. Six-month follow-up interviews were conducted with 1,533 offenders (86%) and 18-month interviews with 1,474 (83%) offenders. Findings indicate that drug courts produced modest positive effects (though many were not statistically significant) across a range of socioeconomic outcomes. Findings also indicate that drug courts reduced family conflict. However, significant effects were not evident with respect to emotional or instrumental support from family members, mental health, or homelessness.
BrewsterM. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177-206.
2.
ConwayK. P.ComptonW.StinsonF. S.GrantB. F. (2006). Lifetime comorbidity of DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders and specific drug use disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67, 247-257.
3.
DeschenesE.TurnerS.GreenwoodP. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County’s Drug Court. Justice System Journal, 18, 55-73.
4.
DeSimoneJ. (2002). Illegal drug use and employment. Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 952-977.
5.
DidenkoE.PankratzN. (2007). Substance use: Pathways to homelessness? Or a way of adapting to street life?Visions: BC’s Mental Health and Addictions Journal, 4(1), 9-10.
6.
FiniganM. W.CareyS. M.CoxA. (2007). The impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
7.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D.RobinsonJ. B. (2001). From whether to how drug courts work: Retrospective evaluation of drug courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland). Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
8.
GottfredsonD. C.KearleyB.NajakaS. S. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 171-196.
9.
GottfredsonD. C.KearleyB.NajakaS. S.RochaC. M. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-year outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29(1), 42-64.
10.
GottfredsonD. C.KearleyB.NajakaS. S.RochaC. M. (2006). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 67-98.
11.
Government Accountability Office. (2005, February). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes (Report to Congressional Committees). Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
12.
Government Accountability Office. (2011, December). Adult drug courts: Studies show courts reduce recidivism, but DOJ could enhance future performance measure revision efforts (Report to Congressional Committees). Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
HarrellA.NewmarkL.VisherC.CastroJ. (2007). Final report on the evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration: Volume 1: The impact of JOD in Dorchester and Washtenaw County. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
15.
HarrellA.RomanJ.SackE. (2001). Drug court services for female offenders, 1996-1999: Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
16.
HuddlestonW.MarloweD. B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Drug Court Institute.
17.
JamesD. J.GlazeL. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
18.
KesslerR. C. (2004). The epidemiology of dual diagnosis. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 730-737.
19.
LuellenJ. K.ShadishW. R.ClarkM. H. (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review, 29, 530-558.
20.
MitchellO.WilsonD. B.EggersE.MacKenzieD. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60-71.
21.
NurcoD. N.LernerM. (1996). Vulnerability to narcotic addiction: Family structure and functioning. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 1007-1025.
22.
Office of Justice Programs. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs.
23.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
RempelM.FaroleD. J. (2011). Impact methodology: Analytic strategy for producing unbiased estimates of drug court impact. In RossmanS. B.RomanJ. K.ZweigJ. M.RempelM.LindquistC. H. (Eds.), The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Volume 4: The impact of drug courts (Chapter 2 and Technical Appendix). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
25.
RempelM.Fox-KralsteinD.CissnerA.CohenR.LabriolaM.FaroleD.. . . MagnaniM. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants, and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
26.
RempelM.GreenM.KralsteinD. (2012). The impact of adult drug courts on crime and incarceration: Findings from a multi-site quasi-experimental design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 165-192.
27.
RomanJ.DeStefanoC. (2004). Drug court effects and the quality of existing evidence. In ButtsJ.RomanJ. (Eds.), Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse (pp. 107-136). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
28.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
29.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the Propensity Score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
30.
RossmanS. B.GreenM.RempelM.DowneyP. M. (2011). Do adult drug courts reduce drug use? In RossmanS. B.RomanJ. K.ZweigJ. M.RempelM.LindquistC. H. (Eds.), The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Volume 4: The impact of drug courts (Chapter 3). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
31.
RubinD. B. (1973). The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 29, 184-203.
32.
ShafferD. K. (2006, June). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Division of Research and Advance Studies, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
33.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521.
34.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2007). A status report on hunger and homelessness in America’s cities: A 23-city survey. Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Mayors.
35.
WickizerT.CampbellK.KrupskiA.StarkK. (2000). Employment outcomes among AFDC recipients treated for substance abuse in Washington State. The Milbank Quarterly, 78, 585-608.
36.
WilsonD.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
37.
WolfE.ColyerC. (2001). Everyday hassles: Barriers to recovery in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 233-258.
38.
WolksteinE.SpillerH. (1998). Providing vocational services to clients in substance abuse rehabilitation. Directions in Rehabilitation Counseling, 9, 65-78.
39.
YoungN. K. (2000). Integrating substance abuse treatment and vocational services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 38. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA.
40.
YoungN. K.GardnerS. L. (1997). Implementing welfare reform: Solutions to the substance abuse problem. Irvine, CA: Children and Family Futures.
41.
ZweigJ.RossmanS. B.RomanJ. (2011). What’s happening with drug courts: A national portrait of adult drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
