Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The criminal justice system is often viewed as a revolving door for drug-dependent offenders due to its failure to recognize the association between addiction and offending, and repeated incarceration of drug-dependent offenders has contributed to prison overcrowding. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of Pennsylvania's drug and alcohol treatment-based intermediate punishment, Restrictive Intermediate Punishments (RIP/D&A), at reducing the risk of rearrest. Rearrest was compared at 12, 24, and 36 months postrelease. Offenders who successfully completed treatment had a lower risk of rearrest than traditionally sentenced offenders in general and county jail and probation offenders specifically. However, offenders sentenced to RIP/D&A who did not successfully complete treatment were more at risk for rearrest than traditionally sentenced offenders in general. Also, offenders sentenced to state incarceration had a lower risk of rearrest than RIP/D&A participants, regardless of program completion.

Keywords

intermediate punishments drug treatment recidivism sentencing guidelines

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison, P.D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Anglin, M.D. , Longshore, D. , & Turner, S. (1999). Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 168-195.

Baird, F.X. , & Frankel, A.J. (2001). The efficacy of coerced treatment for offenders: An evaluation of two residential forensic drug and alcohol treatment programs . Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 61-80.

Banks, D. , & Gottfredson, D. (2003). The effects of drug treatment and supervision on time to rearrest among drug treatment court participants . Journal of Drug Issues, 33, 385-412.

Brocato, J. , & Wagner, E.F. (2008). Predictors of retention in an alternative-to-prison substance abuse treatment program. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 35, 99-119.

Broome, K. , Knight, D.K. , Knight, K. , Hiller, M. , & Simpson, D.D. (1997). Peer, family and motivational influences on drug treatment process and recidivism for probationers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 387-397.

Bucklen, K.B. (2005). The Pennsylvania Department of Correction's Parole Violator Study (Phase 1). Research in Review, 8, 1-17.

Cullen, F.T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology , 43, 1-42.

Dupont-Morales, T. , & Sims, B. (2001). Assessment of county restrictive intermediate punishment programming. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

10.

Dynia, P. , & Sung, H.-E. (2000). The safety and effectiveness of diverting felony drug offenders to residential treatment as measured by recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11, 299-311.

11.

Farabee, D. , Prendergast, M. , & Anglin, M.D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62, 3-10.

12.

Gottfredson, D. , Najaka, S. , & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology, 2, 171-196.

13.

Harrell, A. , Mitchell, O. , Hirst, A. , Marlowe, D. , & Merrill, J. (2002). Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: Findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology, 1, 189-216.

14.

Harrison, L. (2001). The revolving prison door for drug-involved offenders: Challenges and opportunities. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 462-485.

15.

Hepburn, J.R. (2005). Recidivism among drug offenders following exposure to treatment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 463-481.

16.

Kassebaum, G. , & Okamoto, D. (2001). The drug court as a sentencing model. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 89-104.

17.

Kramer, J.H. , & Ulmer, J.T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court "corrections" to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897-932.

18.

Kramer, J.H. , Williams, T.D. , & Williamson, C. (2006). Evaluation of RIP/D&A treatment: Final report (Subgrant No. 2003-DS-19-14576). State College: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

19.

Listwan, S.J. , Sundt, J. , Holsinger, A. , & Latessa, E. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389-411.

20.

Longshore, D. , Turner, S. , Wenzel, S. , Morral, A. , Harrell, A. , McBride, D. , et al. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 7-26.

21.

Lum, C. , & Yang, S. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology , 1, 191-213.

22.

Lurigio, A.J. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness: Studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 495-528.

23.

Martin, S. , Maxwell, C. , White, H. , & Zhang, Y. (2004). Trends in alcohol use, cocaine use, and crime: 1989-1998. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 333-359.

24.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

25.

Rodriguez, N. , & Webb, V.J. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime & Delinquency , 50, 292-314.

26.

Senjo, S. , & Leip, L. (2001). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 66-87.

27.

Spohn, C. , Piper, R.K. , Martin, T. , & Frenzel, E.D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism . Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 149-176.

28.

Tonry, M. (1995). Race, crime, and punishment in America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

29.

Tonry, M. (1998). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines . Crime and Justice, 23, 199-253.

30.

Tonry, M. , & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99-144.

31.

Turner, S. , Petersilia, J. , & Deschenes, E. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 539-556.

32.

Ulmer, J.T. , & Van Asten, C. (2002). Restrictive intermediate punishments and recidivism in Pennsylvania. State College: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.

33.

Ulmer, J.T. , & Van Asten, C. (2004). Restrictive intermediate punishment and recidivism in Pennsylvania. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 182-187.

34.

Wenzel, S.L. , Longshore, D. , Turner, S. , & Ridgely, M.S. (2001). Drug courts: A bridge between criminal justice and health services. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 241-253.

35.

Wilson, D.B. , Mitchell, O. , & Mackenzie, D.L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.

36.

Wolfe, E. , Guydish, J. , & Termondt, J. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two-year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 1155-1172.

37.

Wormith, J.S. , & Oliver, M. (2002). Offender treatment and attrition and its relationship with risk, responsivity, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 447-471.

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.

0.00 MB

Closing the Revolving Door?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material