This policy research note argues for a systems modeling approach to explain drug court processes. The conceptual model links participants' beliefs, behavioral intentions, and behavioral outcomes. Conceptualization of core constructs combines elements of planned behavior theory with those of routine activities theory and acknowledges the transtheoretical model and therapeutic jurisprudence. Systems modeling is offered in an effort to identify specific drug court interventions that work, more accurately select suitable offenders, and ultimately to promote public safety.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operations of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
3.
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
4.
Belenko, S. (2002). The challenges of conducting research in drug treatment court settings. Substance Use and Misuse, 37, 1635-1664.
5.
Brantingham, P.L., Glasser, U., Singh, K., & Vajihollahi, M. (2005). Mastermind: Modeling and simulation of criminal activity in urban environments (Tech. Rep. No. SFU-CMPT-TR-2005-14) . Burnaby, Canada: Simon Frazier University.
6.
Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979, August). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
7.
Felson, M. (1994). Crime and everyday life: Insights and implications for society (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
8.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1972). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 487-544.
9.
Gilbertson, T. (2006a). Alcohol-related incident guardianship and undergraduate college parties. Journal of Drug Education, 36(1), 73-90.
10.
Gilbertson, T. (2006b). Evaluation report: Koochiching County DUI/substance abuse court. Bemidji, MN: Bemidji State University Department of Criminal Justice.
11.
Gilbertson, T. (2007a). Evaluation report: Aitkin County sobriety court . Bemidji, MN: Bemidji State University Department of Criminal Justice.
12.
Gilbertson, T. (2007b). Evaluation report: Cass County/Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe wellness court. Bemidji, MN: Bemidji State University Department of Criminal Justice.
13.
Gilbertson, T. (2007c). Evaluation report: Crow Wing County drug court . Bemidji, MN: Bemidji State University Department of Criminal Justice.
14.
Gilbertson, T. (2007d). Retail point-of-sale guardianship and juvenile tobacco purchases: Assessing the prevention capabilities of undergraduate college students. Journal of Drug Education, 37(1), 1-30.
15.
Goldkamp, J.S., White, M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 27-72.
16.
Gollwitzer, P.M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-199.
17.
Hora, P.F., Schma, W.G., & Tosenthal, J.T.A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
18.
Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences , 23, 165-178.
19.
Jensen, E.L., & Gerber, J. (1998). The social construction of drug problems: A historical overview. In J. Gerber (Ed.), The new war on drugs: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy (pp. 1-24). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
20.
Liska, A.E. (1997). Modeling the relationships between macro forms of social control. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 23, 39-61.
21.
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(1), 7-26.
22.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January, Reprinted 2004, October). Defining drug courts: The key components (NCJ 205621). Washington, DC: Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance.
23.
National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade (NCJ 211081). Washington, DC: Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs .
24.
Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemene, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.
25.
Prochaska, J.O., DiClemene, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behavior. American Psychologist , 47, 1102-1114.
26.
Prochaska, J.O., & Velicer, W.F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.
27.
Roman, J., Farole, D.J., & Lindquist, C. (2007, June). Preliminary results from the multi-site adult drug court evaluation. Paper presented at the 13th annual meeting of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals , Washington, DC.
28.
Senjo, S.R., & Leip, L.A. (2001). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part logic model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(1), 66-87.
29.
Wexler, D.B., & Winick, B.J. (1991). Therapeutic jurisprudence as a new approach to mental health law policy analysis and research. University of Miami Law Review, 45, 979.
