A Mapping Review of Criminological Theories and Frameworks of U.S. Drug Courts: Theoretical Foundations and Their Future

Abstract

Drug courts were created to address the cycle of repeat offenses—often called the revolving door—in the criminal justice system. However, they were not originally based on a clearly defined criminological theory that explains how they work or how they are expected to change participant behavior. An array of perspectives has been applied post-hoc to explain how drug court functions are believed to drive participant behaviors, such as substance use and recidivism, though the full range, depth, and breadth of these perspectives are not yet fully understood. While drug courts have flourished based on their practicality, there is little consistency in their application beyond a general nod to the Adult Drug Court's Ten Key Components whose implementation can take varied approaches. A greater understanding of the criminological theoretical approaches to drug courts is needed because without foundational evidence for why drug courts should work, practitioners risk implementing programs that are insufficient, ineffective, or harmful. Using a mapping review methodology, we catalog the major criminological theoretical approaches used in the extant U.S.-based literature to explain drug court operations and to assess how these theories have been applied or tested in support of understanding behavior change among participants. The findings show that criminological theoretical approaches fall into six categories: therapeutic jurisprudence, traditional criminological theories, procedural justice, drug court models of function, theoretical integrations, and an ‘other’ category. We assess and critique each category and its evidence-base and use this data to propose future research directions. This mapping review is helpful to academics studying problem-solving courts and rehabilitation broadly. It is also useful to practitioners and policymakers who are concerned with how and why drug courts may, or may not, work in their jurisdiction, as theory helps us answer the why and how questions in criminology.