Drug courts were established to reduce recidivism rates for substance-involved offenders who traditionally would have been sentenced to conventional probation supervision. Past research has reported success in this area, but much of the success is limited to those who graduate the program. Scholars have yet to examine the impact case outcomes and criminal sentencing have on post-participation reoffending. Yet, literature exists outside the area of drug courts, suggesting criminal sentencing, such as incarceration, may have a negative effect on offender recidivism. The current study addresses this gap in the drug court recidivism literature by examining the impact four outcomes of drug court participation (i.e., case dismissal, probation, jail, and prison) have on participant reoffending. We analyzed case outcome records of 824 drug court participants using propensity score analysis to isolate the effect criminal sentencing has on recidivism. Findings, potential policy implications, and directions for future research are discussed.
AustinP. C. (2011). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10, 150-161.
2.
BalesW. D.PiqueroA. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 71-101.
3.
BanksD.GottfredsonD. C. (2004). Participation in drug treatment court and time to rearrest. Justice Quarterly, 21, 637-658.
4.
BaunachP. J. (1980). Random assignment in criminal justice research: Some ethical and legal issues. Criminology, 17, 435-444.
5.
BoldtR. C. (2010). The “tomahawk” and the “healing balm”: Drug treatment courts in theory and practice. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 10, 1-26.
6.
BowersJ. (2008). Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Review, 55, 783-835.
7.
BushwayS.JohnsonB. D.SlocumL. A. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 151-178.
8.
DeschenesE. P.IrelandC.KleinpeterC. B. (2009). Enhancing drug court success. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 19-36.
9.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS.GreenwoodP. W. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa county’s drug court. The Justice System Journal, 18, 55-73.
10.
FlangoV. E.CheesmanF. L. (2009). Effectiveness of the SCRAM alcohol monitoring device: A preliminary test. Drug Court Review, 6, 109-134.
11.
FluellenR.TroneJ. (2000). Do drug courts save jail and prison beds?New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
12.
GallagherJ. R. (2014). Predicting criminal recidivism following drug court: Implications for drug court practice and policy advocacy. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 35, 15-29.
13.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
14.
General Accounting Office. (1995). Drug courts: Information on a new approach to address drug-related crime. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
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.
17.
GottfredsonD. C.ExumL. (2002). The Baltimore city drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 337-356.
18.
GottfredsonD. C.NajakaS. S.KearleyB. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 171-196.
19.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
HardingD. J. (2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: The effect of neighborhood poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 676-719.
21.
HarrellA.RomanJ. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-231.
22.
HoffmanM. B. (2000). The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Review, 78, 1439-1534.
23.
HolleranD.SpohnC. (2004). On the use of the total incarceration variable in sentencing research. Criminology, 42, 211-240.
24.
ImbensG. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87, 706-710.
25.
JonsonC. L. (2010). The impact of imprisonment on reoffending: A meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.
26.
KirkR. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
27.
KleimanM. A. R. (1997). Coerced abstinence: A neo-paternalist drug policy initiative. In MeadL. (Ed.), The new paternalism (pp. 182-218). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
Koons-WittB. A.SevignyE. L.BurrowJ. D.HesterR. (2014). Gender and sentencing outcomes in South Carolina: Examining the interactions with race, age, and offense type. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 299-324.
29.
KrebsC.LindquistC.KoetseW.LattimoreP. K. (2007). Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91, 57-68.
30.
LeuvenE.SianesiB. (2003). Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Boston, MA: Boston College Department of Economics.
31.
ListwanS. J.SundtJ. L.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389-411.
32.
LoudenburgR.DrubeG.YoungL. (2013). Analysis of 24/7 sobriety program SCRAM participant DUI offense recidivism. Salem, SD: Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC.
33.
MarloweD. B. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. National Institute on Drug Abuse Science & Practice Perspectives, 21, 4-14.
34.
MaxfieldM. G.BabbieE. R. (2014). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
35.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C.BalesW. D. (2012). Gender differences in the effects of prison on recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 370-378.
36.
MietheT. D.LuH.ReeseE. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 522-541.
37.
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.
38.
MorganS. L.WinshipC. (2010). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
NaginD. S.CullenF. T.JonsonC. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115-200.
40.
O’KeefeK.RempelM. (2006). The Staten Island treatment court evaluation: Planning, implementation, and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
41.
PeduzziP.ConcatoJ.KemperE.HolfordT. R.FeinsteinA. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1373-1379.
42.
QuinnM. C. (2001). Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 26, 37-75.
43.
RomanJ.ChalfinA. (2006). Does it pay to invest in reentry programs for jail inmates?Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
44.
RomanJ.TownsendW.BhatiS. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates, final report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
45.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
46.
RubinD. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 169-188.
47.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-519.
48.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40, 329-357.
49.
SpohnC.PiperR. K. (2004). The Douglas county drug court: Characteristics of participants, case outcomes and recidivism. Omaha: University of Nebraska Omaha.
50.
SpohnC.PiperR. K.MartinT.FrenzelE. 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.
51.
UlmerJ. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 164-193.
52.
VillettazP.GillieronG.KilliasM. (2015). The effects on re-offending of custodial vs. non-custodial sanctions: An updated systematic review of the state of knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.
53.
VillettazP.KilliasM.ZoderI. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.
54.
VittinghoffE.McCullochC. E. (2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165, 710-718.
55.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
56.
WolfE. M.SowardsK. A.WolfD. A. (2003). Predicting retention of drug court participants using event history analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37, 139-162.
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.
