While many agree that drug court programs work, researchers generally have not examined any conceptual frameworks for why. Twenty-six graduates of a county drug court were interviewed about their views of the program. Findings suggest that this program was effective because 1) its model of treatment assisted participants in their reintegration back into society without further stigmatizing them; 2) it provided a form of “outer containment” that held participants' behaviors in check; and 3) the treatment options strengthened participants' own internal control mechanisms. Braithwaite's (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming and Reckless' (1961) containment theory offer important frameworks for understanding these findings. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelenkoS. (1998). Research of drug courts: A critical review 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 11(2), 1–58.
2.
BergB. (2004). Quantitative research methods for the social sciences. 5th ed.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BurnsS. L., & PeyrotM. (2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems, 50(3), 416–433.
5.
ChaseD. J., & HoraP. F. (2000, Spring). The implications of judicial satisfaction. Court Review, 12–20.
6.
EsterbergK. (2002) Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
7.
FieldingJ. E.TyeG.OgawaP. L.ImamI. J., & LongA. M. (2002). Los Angeles County drugcourt programs: Initial results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 217–224.
8.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D., & RobinsonJ. B. (2001). An honest chance: Perspectives of drug court participants: Findings from focus groups in Brooklyn. Miami. Seattle, Las Vegas, and San Bernardino. Drug Court Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
9.
GottfredsonD.KearleyB.NajakaS., & RochaC. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-year self report outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29: 42–64.
10.
GottfredsonD., & ExumM. L. (2002). The Baltimore City results from a randomized study, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 337–356.
11.
ListwanS. J.SundtJ. L.HolsingerA. M., & LatessaE. J. (2003). The effects of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 389–411.
12.
MietheT. D.LuH., & ReeseE. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drugcourt: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 522–541.
13.
OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (2003, November). Summary of drug court activity by state and county juvenile family drug courts. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from: http://spa.american.edu/justice/publications/juvfamchart.pdf.
14.
PetersR. H., & MurrinM. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72–96.
15.
RecklessW. C. (1961). A new theory of delinquency and crime. Federal Probation, 25, 42–46.
16.
RottmanD. B. (2000, Spring). Does effective therapeutic jurisprudence require specialized courts (and do specialized courts imply specialist judges)?Court Review, 22–27.
17.
SanfordJ. S., & ArrigoB. A. (2005). Lifting the cover on drug courts: Evaluation findings and policy concerns. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(3), 239–259.
18.
SenjoS. R., & LeipL. A. (2001). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(1), 66–87.
WexlerD. B. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 17, 125–134.
21.
WolfeE.GuydishJ., & TermondtJ. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 1155–1171.
22.
WolferL. (2006). Graduates speak: A qualitative exploration of drug court graduates' views of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Contemporary Drug Problems, 33(2), 303–320.
