This study examined outcomes for two treatment-based drug court programs during a 30-month follow-up period. Outcomes for drug court graduates were contrasted with those of nongraduates and of comparison groups that consisted of offenders who were placed on probation supervision during the same period and did not receive drug court services. Drug court graduates from both programs were significantly less likely to be arrested and had fewer arrests during follow-up in comparison to matched probationers and nongraduates. For both drug courts, the rates of arrest during the 30-month follow-up period declined in direct relationship to the duration of drug court involvement. Drug court graduates had lower rates of substance abuse than comparable groups of treated offenders. The implications for clinical practice and the need for additional drug court outcome research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association . (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Society of Addiction Medicine . (1996). Patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Belenko, S. (1996). Comparative models of treatment delivery in drug courts. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
4.
Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review.National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1-42.
5.
Cooper, C. S. (1997). 1997 drug court survey (Vols. 1-4). Washington, DC: Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University.
6.
Cooper, C. S. (1998). 1998 drug court survey: Preliminary findings. Washington, DC: Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University.
7.
Cooper, C. S. , & Trotter, J. A., Jr. (1994). Recent developments in drug case management: Reengineering the judicial process.The Justice System Journal, 17, 83-98.
8.
Deschenes, E. , & Greenwood, P. (1995). Drug court or probation?: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court.The Justice System Journal, 18, 55-73.
9.
Finigan, M. (1998). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program (Report prepared for the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections). Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute.
10.
Fisher, G. L. , & Harrison, T. C. (1996). Substance abuse: Information for school counselors, social workers, therapists, and counselors. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
11.
Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami's treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings.Prison Journal, 73, 110-166.
12.
Goldkamp, J. S. , & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
13.
Grimm, D. (1997). A process evaluation of the adult drug court programs in Florida's First Judicial Circuit. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
14.
Hubbard, R. L. , Collins, J. J., Rachal, J. V., & Cavanaugh, E. R. (1988). The criminal justice client in drug abuse treatment. In C. Leukefeld & F. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (Vol. 86, pp. 57-80). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
15.
Inciardi, J. A. (1996). A corrections-based continuum of effective drug abuse treatment. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
16.
Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Mahoney, B. , Carver, J. A., Cooper, C. S., Polansky, L., Weinstein, S., Wells, J. D., & Westerfield, T. (1998). Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management information systems. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office.
18.
Onken, L. S. , Blaine, J. D., & Boren, J. J. (Eds.). (1997). Beyond the therapeutic alliance: Keeping the drug-dependent individual in treatment (NIDA Research Monograph No. 165). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
19.
Peters, R. H. (1996). Evaluating drug court programs: An overview of issues and alternative strategies. Washington, DC: American University, Justice Programs Office.
20.
Project Match Treatment Group . (1997). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes.Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 58, 7-29.
21.
Sherin, K. M. , & Mahoney, B. (Eds.). (1996). Treatment drug courts: Integrating substance abuse treatment with legal case processing. Treatment improvement protocol series. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
22.
Swartz, J. A. , Lurigio, A. J., & Slomka, S. A. (1996). The impact of IMPACT: An assessment of the effectiveness of a jail-based treatment program.Crime & Delinquency, 42, 553-573.
23.
Tauber, J. S. (1994). Drug courts: Treating drug-using offenders through sanctions, incentives.Corrections Today, 56, 28-30, 32-33, 76-77.
24.
Tauber, J. , Weinstein, S. P., & Taube, D. (1999). Federal confidentiality laws and how they effect drug court practitioners. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
25.
U.S. Department of Justice . (1998). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office.
26.
U.S. General Accounting Office . (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
27.
Wexler, H. K. , Falkin, G. P., & Lipton, D. S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 71-92.
