The effectiveness of drug courts has been the subject of numerous studies, and three major meta-analyses have examined many of these studies in regard to two main factors: (1) study quality and (2) treatment quality. The current study examines these two factors more closely. Study quality was assessed using the Collaborative Outcome Data Committee Guidelines (CODC); studies were rated as “rejected,” “weak,” “good,” or “strong” based on methodological quality. Drug court treatment quality was assessed by evaluating adherence to the principles of Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR). The RNR principles have been previously shown to mediate the effectiveness of offender treatment across various offender groups and a variety of criminogenic needs. In total, 96 studies were reviewed and assessed according to study and treatment quality. Results found that the study quality of the literature is poor and that this accounts for much of the variability in findings seen across studies. Furthermore, analyses revealed that although adherence to the RNR principles was poor, increasing adherence to RNR resulted in more effective treatment of offenders and reduced recidivism. Using only methodologically acceptable studies, the least biased estimate of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism was found to be approximately 8%.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. A., & BontaJ. (2006). Psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ., & HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.
3.
AnspachD. F., & FergusonA. S. (1999). Cumberland County's drug court program: An evaluation report of Project Exodus. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office.
4.
AnspachD. F.FergusonA. S., & PhillipsL. L. (2003). Evaluation of Maine's statewide juvenile drug treatment court program: Fourth year outcome evaluation report (Technical report). Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, Department of Sociology.
5.
BanksD., & GottfredsonD. C. (2003). The effects of drug treatment and supervision on time to re-arrest among drug treatment court participants. Journal of Drug Issues, 33(2), 385–414.
6.
BarnoskiR., & AosS. (2003). Washington State's drug courts for adult defendants: Outcome evaluation and cost-benefit analysis (Technical report). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7.
BavonA. (2001). The effect of the Tarrant County drug court project on recidivism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 13–22.
8.
BelenkoS. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.
9.
BontaJ. (1995). The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7, 34–37.
10.
BreckenridgeJ. F.WinfreeT. L.MaupinJ. R., & ClasonD. L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI drug court treatment, and recidivism: Who fails?Justice Research and Policy2 (1), 87–105.
11.
BrewsterM. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 177–206.
12.
CissnerA., & RempelM. (2005). The state of drug court research: Moving beyond ‘Do they work?’New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
13.
Collaborative Outcome Data Committee (2007a). Sexual offender treatment outcome research: CODC guidelines for evaluation: Part 1: Introduction and overview. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
14.
Collaborative Outcome Data Committee (2007b). The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee's guidelines for the evaluation of sexual offender treatment outcome research: Part 2: CODC guidelines. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
15.
CookT., & CampbellD. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
16.
CosdenM.CrothersL., & PeersonS. (1999). Superior Court of California County of Ventura: Drug court (Summary findings). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Education.
17.
CraddockA. (2002). North Carolina drug treatment court evaluation (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office.
DeschenesE. P.CresswellL.EmamiV.MorenoK.KleinZ., & CondonC. (2001, September). Success of drug courts: Process and outcome evaluations in Orange County, California (Final report). Submitted to the Superior Court of Orange County, California.
20.
DeschenesE. P., & GreenwoodP. W. (1994). Maricopa County's drug court: An innovative program for first time drug offenders on probation. Justice System Journal, 17, 99–115.
21.
DeschenesE. P.ImanI.CastellonosE.FosterT. L.HaC.WardD.ColeyC., & MichaelsK. (2000). Evaluation of Los Angeles County drug courts. Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research.
22.
DeschenesE. P.ImanI.FosterT.CastellonosE.HaC.MichaelsK., & WardD. (2000). Evaluation of Los Angeles County drug courts: 1994–1997 (Abstract & executive summary). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research.
23.
DeschenesE. P.ImanI.FosterT. L.DiazL.MorenoV.PatascilL., & WardD. (1999). Evaluation of Orange County drug courts (Technical report). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research.
24.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS.GreenwoodP., & ChiesaJ. (1996). An experimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS., & GreenwoodP. W. (1995). Drug court or probation: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County drug court. Justice System Journal, 18, 55–73.
26.
DickieJ. L. (2000). Summit County juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000). Akron, OH: Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
27.
DickieJ. L. (2001). Summit County juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001). Akron, OH: Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
28.
DickieJ. L. (2002). Summit County juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002). Akron, OH: Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
29.
EricsonR.WelterS., & JohnsonT. L. (1999). Evaluation of Hennepin County drug court (Technical report). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime & Justice.
30.
FarringtonD. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In TonyM. & MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 257–308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
FarringtonD. (2002). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Symposium conducted at the Third Annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium, Maryland.
32.
FarringtonD. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy, 587, 49–100.
33.
FarringtonD. P., & WelshB. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades?Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38.
34.
FieldingJ. E.TyeG.OgawaP. L.ImanI. J., & LongA. M. (2002). Los Angeles County drug court programs: Initial results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 217–224.
35.
FiniganM. (1998). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah county STOP drug diversion program. Portland, OR: Northwest Professional Consortium.
36.
GliksmanL.Newton-TaylorB.PatraJ., & RehmJ. (2004). Toronto drug treatment court evaluation project final report. London, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Social, Prevention and Health Policy Research Department.
37.
GodleyM. D.DennisM. L.FunkR.SiekmannM., & WeisheitR. (1998). Madison County alternative treatment and court (Final evaluation report). Normal, IL: Lighthouse Institute, Chestnut Health Systems.
38.
GoldkampJ. S. (1994). Miami's treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. The Prison Journal, 73, 110–166.
39.
GoldkampJ. S., & WeilandD. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court (Final report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
40.
GoldkampJ. S., & WeilandD., & MooreJ. (2001). The Philadelphia treatment court, its development and impact: The second phase (1998–2000) (Technical report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
41.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D., & RobinsonJ. B. (2000). Retrospective evaluation of two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clark County, Nevada and Multnomah County, Oregon (Technical report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
42.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D., & RobinsonJ. B. (2001a). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27–72.
43.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D., & RobinsonJ. B. (2001b). From whether to how drug courts work: Retrospective evaluation of drug courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) — Phase II report from the National Evaluation of Drug Courts (Technical report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
44.
GottfredsonD. C.CoblentzK., & HarmonM. A. (1996). A short-term outcome evaluation of the Baltimore City drug treatment court program (Technical report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
45.
GottfredsonD. C., & ExumM. L. (2002). The Baltimore City drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 337–356.
46.
GottfredsonD. C.NajakaS. S., & KearleyB. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 171–196.
47.
GottfredsonD. C., & NajakaS. S., & KearleyB., & RochaM. (2005). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
48.
GranfieldR.EbyC., & BrewsterT. (1998). An examination of the Denver Drug Court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug offender system. Law & Policy, 20, 183–202.
49.
HansonR. K.BourgonG.HelmusL., & HodgsonS. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: Risk, need, and responsivity (User Report 2009-01). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
50.
HansonR. K.BroomI., & StephensonM. (2005). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(2), 87–96.
51.
HansonR. K.GordonA.HarrisA. J. R.MarquesJ. K.MurphyW.QuinseyV. L., & SetoM. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169–194.
52.
HarrellA.CavanaghS., & RomanJ. (1998). Final report: Findings from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
53.
HarrellA.MitchellO.HirstD.MarloweD., & MerrillJ. (2002). Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: findings from Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 189–216.
54.
HarrellA.MitchellO.MerrillK., & MarloweD. (2003). Evaluation of breaking the cycle. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
55.
HarrellA.RomanJ., & SackE. (2001a). Drug court services for female offenders 1996–1999: Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Center. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
56.
HarrellA.RomanJ., & SackE. (2001b). Evaluation of the Brooklyn treatment court: 1996–1999 (Technical report). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
57.
HarrisonL.PatrickD., & EnglishK. (2001). An evaluation of the Denver drug court: The early years, 1995–1996. Unpublished manuscript. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Office of Research & Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice.
58.
HarrisonR. S.ParsonsB. V.ByrnesE. I., & SahamiS. (2001). Salt Lake County drug court: Evaluation report September 1998- September 2000. Salt Lake City, UT: Intermountain Evaluation Services.
59.
HartmannD. J.RhinebergerG. M.GregoryP.MullinsM.TolliniC., & WilliamsY. (2003). Evaluation of the Kalamazoo County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court program: October 1, 2001-Sept. 30, 2002, year 5 (Technical report). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Kecher Center for Social Research.
60.
HelmusL. (2008). Structured guidelines for evaluating study quality. In BourgonG.HansonR. K.PozzuloJ.D.Morton-BourgonK. E., & TanasichukC. L. (Eds.), The proceedings of the 2007 North American Correctional & Criminal Justice Psychology Conference, (pp. 45–49) (Corrections research user report). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
61.
HuffD.StagebergPWilsonB. S., & MooreR. G. (2002). An assessment of the Polk County juvenile drug court. Unpublished manuscript. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
62.
JohnsonG. D.FormichellaC. M., & BowersD. J. (1998). Do drug courts work? An outcome evaluation of a promising program. Journal of Applied Sociology, 15, 44–62.
63.
JohnsonS., & LatessaE. J. (2000). The Hamilton County drug court: Outcome evaluation findings (Technical report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
64.
JohnsonS.ListwanS.Koetzle ScafferD., & LatessaE. J. (2001a). Akron municipal drug court: Outcome evaluation findings. Unpublished manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
65.
JohnsonS.ListwanS.Koetzle ScafferD., & LatessaE. J. (2001b). Erie County drug court: Outcome evaluation findings. Unpublished manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
66.
JüniP.WitschiA.BlochR., & MatthiasE. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1054–1060.
67.
LatessaE. J.Koetzle ShafferD., & LowenkampC. (2002). Outcome evaluation of Ohio's drug court efforts. Unpublished manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
68.
LatessaE. J.ListwanS. J.ShafferD. K.LowenkampC., & RatansiS. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of Ohio's drug court efforts. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
69.
LatimerJ.Morton-BourgonK., & ChrétienJ. (2006). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism?Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice.
70.
LindB.WeatherburnD.ChenS.ShanahanM.LancsarE.HaasM., & De Abreu LourencoR. (2002). New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
71.
ListwanS. J.ShafferD. K., & LatessaE. J. (2003). Effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49(3), 389–441.
72.
LoganT. K.HoytW., & LeukefeldC. (2001). Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: Behavior costs and avoided costs to society (Technical report). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research.
73.
LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M., & LatessaE. J. (2005). Are drug courts effective: A systematic review. Journal of Community Corrections, 3, 5–10, 28.
74.
MakkaiT., & VerrarK. (2003). Final report on the South East Queensland drug court. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
75.
MartinT. (2005). Douglas County drug court targeted capacity expansion grant, year 3 evaluation report. Washington, DC: ISED Solutions.
76.
MartinT. J.SpohnC. C.PiperR. K., & Frenzel-DavisE. (2001). Phase III Douglas County drug court evaluation: Final report. Omaha, NE: Institute for Social and Economic Development.
77.
MartinT. J.SpohnC.C.PiperR. K., & RobinsonJ. (1999). Phase II Douglas County court evaluation (Final report). Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska, Institute for Social and Economic Development.
78.
MartinezA. I., & EisenbergM. (2003). Initial process and outcome evaluation of drug courts in Texas (Technical report). Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
79.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works? — Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
80.
McNeeceC. A., & ByersJ. B. (1995). Hillsborough County drug court two year follow-up study (Technical report). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Institute for Health and Human Services Research.
81.
MedinaT.MartinezF.MecaJ., & BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Unpublished manuscript. Available at http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/chip_docs/19.
82.
MietheT. D.LuH., & ReeseE. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 522–541.
83.
MillerM. L.ScocasE. A., & O'ConnellJ. P. (1998). Evaluation of the juvenile drug court diversion program (Technical report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
84.
MillsonW. A.RobinsonD.StringerA., & Van DietanM. (2005). Drug treatment court of Vancouver program evaluation: Final evaluation report. Ottawa, ON: Orbis Partners, Inc.
85.
MM Bell Inc. (1998). King County drug court evaluation (Final report). Seattle, WA: Author.
National Institute of Drug Abuse (2003). Crossing the bridge: An evaluation of the drug treatment alternative-to-prison (DTAP) program. New York, NY: Columbia University, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
88.
O'ConnellJ. P.NestlerodeE., & MillerM. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware juvenile drug court diversion program (Technical report). Dover: DE: Statistical Analysis Center.
89.
PetersR. H., & MurrinM. R. (1998). Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida's first judicial circuit (Technical report). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of Mental Health Law & Policy.
90.
PetersR. H., & MurrinM. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72–96.
91.
RodriquezN., & WebbV. J. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime & Delinquency50 (2), 292–314.
92.
RoehlJ. (1998). Monterey County drug court (Evaluation Report No. 1). Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center.
93.
RossmanS. B.RomanJ. K.ZweigJ. K.RempelM. & LindquistC. H. (2011). The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The drug court experience (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
94.
Salt Lake County. (2001). Salt Lake County drug court outcome evaluation. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Substance Abuse & Anti-Violence Coordinating Council.
95.
Santa Clara County Courts. (1998). Santa Clara County drug treatment court (3rd progress report, March 1, 1996-March 31, 1997). Santa Clara, CA: Author.
96.
Santa Clara County Courts. (1998). Santa Clara County drug treatment court: Two year progress report and outcome comparisons (March 1, 1996-March 31, 1998). Santa Clara, CA: Author.
97.
SeagerJ. A.JellicoeD., & DhaliwalG. K. (2004). Refusers, dropouts, and com pleters: Measuring sex offender treatment efficacy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(5), 600–612.
98.
SechrestD. K.ShichorD.ArtistK., & BricenoG. (1998). Riverside County drug court: Final research report for the Riverside County probation department, Riverside County, California (Technical report). San Bernardino, CA: California State University, Criminal Justice Department.
99.
ShanahanM.LancsarE.HaasM.LindB.WeatherburnD., & ChenS. (2004). Cost-effectiveness analysis of the New South Wales adult drug court program. Evaluation Review, 28, 3–27.
100.
ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD. C.MacKenzieD. L.EckJ. E.ReuterP., & BushwayS. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
101.
SimpsonK. (2008). What we know and where we need to go for effective community supervision. Presentation at the 2008 Canadian Psychological Association Convention. Halifax, NS.
102.
SolopF. I.WondersN. A.HagenK. K., & McCarrierK. (2003). Coconino County DUI/drug court evaluation. AZ: Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University.
103.
SpohnC.PiperR. K.MartinT., & FrenkelE. 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.
104.
StagebergP.WilsonB., & MooreR. G. (2001). Final report on the Polk County adult drug court (Technical report). Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
105.
TauberJ. S. (1993). The importance of immediate and intensive intervention in a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program (Technical report). Philadelphia, PA: The President's Commission of Model State Drug Laws.
106.
TauberJ. S. (1995). An evaluation of the Oakland County drug court after three years: A drug diversion program of the Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville municipal court and the Alameda County probation department. Paper presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Training Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
107.
TerryW. C.III. (1995). Report offenses of the first year cohort of Broward County, Florida's drug court (Technical report). Miami, FL: Florida International University.
108.
TerryW. C.III. (1999). Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court: From post adjudication to diversion. In TerryW. C.III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (Vol. 7, Drugs, Health, and Social Policy series, pp. 77–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
109.
ThomasH.CiliskaD.DobbinsM., & MicucciS. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2, 91–99.
110.
ThompsonK. M. (2002). A cost-benefit estimate of North Dakota's juvenile drug court: Recidivism cost savings. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University.
111.
TruittL.RhodesW. M.HoffmanN. G.SeehermanA. M.JalbertS. K.KaneM.BacaniC. P.CarriganK. M., & FinnP. (2002). Evaluating treatment drug courts in Kansas City, Missouri and Pensacola, Florida: Final report for Phase I and Phase II (Technical report). Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates.
112.
TurnerS.GreenwoodP.FainT., & DeschenesE. (1999). Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weak nesses, and the impact on their lives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice: National Drug Court Institute.
113.
Utah Substance Abuse & Anti-Violence Coordinating Council. (2001). Salt Lake County drug rourt: Outcome evaluation. Salt Lake City, UT: Author
114.
VitoG. F., & TewksburyR. A. (1998a). Jefferson County drug court program: Impact evaluation 1997 (Technical report). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.
115.
VitoG. F., & TewksburyR. A. (1998b). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) drug court program. Federal Probation, 62, 46–51.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO., & MackenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 459–487.
119.
WolfeE.GuydishJ., & TermondtJ. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 1155–1172.
120.
WormithJ. S.AlthouseR.SimpsonM.ReitzelL. R.FaganT. J. & MorganR. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 879–892.
121.
WrightD., & ClymerB. (2001a). Evaluation of Oklahoma drug courts, 1997–2000. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center.
122.
WrightD., & ClymerB. (2001b). Beckham County juvenile drug court: Phase II analysis and evaluation. Unpublished manuscript. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Statistical Analysis Center.
123.
WrightD.ClymerB., & SimpsonD. (2001). Evaluation of Oklahoma drug courts. Unpublished manuscript. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Statistical Analysis Center.
