Drug courts are charged with positively influencing the behavior of a difficult-to-treat population. Sanctions represent a drug court’s efforts to instill accountability in participants, an important component of behavior modification. This research examined the application of sanctions within a drug court’s proactive supervision model and sanctions matrix. An exploratory analysis of individual-level factors (including risk level, treatment characteristics, and punishment history) that increase the likelihood of receiving a sanction was conducted. Factors related to receiving any type of sanction and a drug sanction, and whether receiving a sanction was related to program retention were examined. Most participants (71%) received a sanction. On average, each participant received 4 sanctions and 259 sanctions were given over a 2-year period. The majority of people (77%) continued to be actively enrolled after receiving a sanction. Practice and policy implications regarding the use of sanctions within the context of offender change are discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L. (2001). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R): User’s Manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. (Original work published 1995)
2.
ArabiaP. L.FoxG.CaughieJ.MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S. (2008). Sanctioning practices in an adult felony drug court. Drug Court Review, 6, 1-31.
AzrinN. H.McMahonP. T.DonohueB.BesalelV. A.LapinskiK. J.KoganE. S.GallowayE. (1994). Behavior therapy for drug abuse: A controlled treatment study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 857-866.
5.
Bosch-CapblanchX.AbbaK.PrictorM.GarnerP. (2007). Contracts between patients and healthcare practitioners for improving patients’ adherence to treatment, prevention and health promotion activities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18, 1-73. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004808.pub3
6.
BouffardJ.RichardsonK. A. (2007). The effectiveness of drug court programming for specific kinds of offenders: Methamphetamine and DWI offenders versus other drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 274-293.
7.
BouffardJ.TaxmanF. (2004). Looking inside the “black box” of drug court treatment services using direct observations. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 195-218.
8.
BrewsterM. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177-206.
9.
ClearT. R.ClearV. B.BragaA. A. (1993). Correctional alternatives for drug offenders in an era of overcrowding. The Prison Journal, 73, 178-198.
10.
GallowayA. L.DrapelaL. A. (2006). Are effective 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.
11.
GirardL.WormithJ. S. (2004). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 150-181.
12.
GoldkampJ. S.WeilandD. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County’s felony drug court. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
13.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D.RobinsonJ. B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-72.
14.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D.RobinsonJ. B. (2002). Retrospective evaluation of two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clark County, Nevada, and Multnomah County, Oregon. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
15.
GuastaferroW. P. (2011). Using the Level of Service Inventory–Revised to improve assessment in drug court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 768-789.
16.
HarrellA.RomanJ. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.
17.
HartzG. W.BrennanP. L.AulakhJ. S.EstrinM. T. (2010). Behavioral contracting with psychiatric residents in long-term care: An exploratory study. Clinical Gerontologist, 33, 347-362.
18.
HepburnJ. R.HarveyA. N. (2007). The effect of the threat of legal sanction of program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court?Crime & Delinquency, 53, 255-280.
19.
HigginsS. T.BudneyA. J.BickelW. J.FoergF. E.DonhamR.BadgerG. J. (1994). Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 568-576.
HillerM.BelenkoS.TaxmanF.YoungD.PerdoniM.SaumC. (2010). Measuring drug court structure and operations: Key components and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 933-950.
22.
KleimanM.TranT. H.FishbeinP.MagulaM.AllenW.LacyG. (2003). Opportunities and barriers in probation reform: A case study of drug testing and sanctions. UC Office of the President, California Policy Research Center. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0238v37t
23.
LanganP. A. (1994). Between and probation: Intermediate sanctions. Science, 264, 791-793.
24.
ListwanS. J.ShafferD. K.HartmanJ. L. (2009). Combating methamphetamine use in the community: The efficacy of the drug court model. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 627-644.
25.
LowenkampC. T.LovinsB.LatessaE. J. (2009). Validating the Level of Service Inventory–Revised and the level of service inventory: Screening version with a sample of probationers. The Prison Journal, 89, 192-204.
26.
LurigioA. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness: Studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 495-528.
27.
MackinemM. B.HigginsP. (2007). Tell me about the test: The construction of truth and lies in drug court. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 223-251.
28.
MarloweD. B. (2007). Strategies for administering rewards and sanctions. In LessengerJ. E.RoperG. F. (Eds.), Drug courts: A new approach to treatment and rehabilitation (pp. 317-336). New York, NY: Springer.
29.
MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.FoltzC.LeeP. A.PatapisN. S. (2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 183-198.
30.
MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.LeeP. A.DugoshK. L.BenasuttiK. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 52-76.
31.
MarloweD. B.KirbyK. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 11-29.
32.
MaxwellS. R. (2000). Sanction threats in court-ordered programs: Examining their effects on offenders mandated into drug treatment. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 542-563.
33.
MaxwellS. R.GrayM. K. (2000). Deterrence: Testing the effects of perceived sanction certainty on probation violation. Sociological Inquiry, 70, 117-136.
34.
McReeN.DrapelaL. A. (2009). The timing and accumulation of judicial sanctions among drug court clients. Crime & Delinquency, 20, 1-21.
35.
MitchellO.WilsonD. B.EggersA.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.
36.
MorrisN.TonryM. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
PetersR. H.HaasA. L.MurrinM. R. (1999). Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 42-70.
38.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
PetryN. M. (2000). A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58, 9-25.
40.
ShafferD. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 09A. (AAT No. 3231113)
41.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the Black Box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521.
42.
ShafferD. K.HartmanJ. L.ListwanS. J.LatessaE. J. (2011). Outcomes among drug court participants: Does drug of choice matter?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 155-174.
43.
ShermanL. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
44.
SolomonP.DraineJ.MarcusS. C. (2002). Predicting incarceration of client of a psychiatric probation and parole service. Psychiatric Services, 53, 50-56.
45.
TaxmanF. S.SouleD.GelbA. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.
46.
Texas Christian University (TCU), Institute of Behavioral Health. (2008). TCU Drug Screen II and Scoring Guide. Fort Worth, TX: Author.
VitoG.TewksburyR. A. (1998). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) drug court program. Federal Probation, 62(2), 46-52.
49.
WaitersS. T.ClarkM. D.GingerichR.MeitzerM. (2007). A guide for probation and parole: Motivating offenders to change. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
50.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
