A Decade of Drug Treatment Court Research

Turner, Susan; Longshore, Douglas; Wenzel, Suzanne L.; Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper; Greenwood, Peter W.; Fain, Terry; Harrell, Adele V.; Morral, Andrew R.; Taxman, Faye S.; Iguchi, Martin Y.; Greene, Judith; McBride, Duane C.

doi:10.1081/ja-120014420

Cited by 57 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study on the effectiveness of both graduated sanctions and drug testing in the Washington, DC Adult Drug Court program (Harrell 1998) found that the arrest rates among sanctions program participants were substantially lower than arrest rates among defendants in a control group. Several more recently published studies have also reported significantly lower recidivism rates for drug court participants (Fielding et al 2002;Turner et al 2002;Banks and Gottfredson 2003).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 81%

Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Support for the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment to reduce substance use and recidivism among populations supervised by the criminal justice system continues to grow in substance abuse and criminal justice literature. Recent studies show that a variety of programs including the Breaking the Cycle program and drug courts appear to result in improved outcomes for offenders. In this paper, we examine the effect of non-residential substance abuse treatment on arrest. Our data are for almost 134,000 Fdrug-involved_ individuals sentenced to probation in Florida between July 1995 and June 2000. Nearly 52,000 of these individuals received non-residential substance abuse treatment, while 81,797 did not. Our approach is a methodologically simple one that entails stratifying our data by treatment status, estimating logit and negative binomial models of arrest for each of the two datasets, and then applying each model to both datasets. This approach, which requires that both groups include subjects for whom treatment is appropriate, is analogous to using regression models to predict outcomes for new values of independent variables. For each observation in the dataset, we use the models to predict the expected outcomes for each individual under two scenarios Y receiving non-residential treatment and receiving no treatment. Summing over these individual estimates provides an estimate of the total numbers of arrests that would be expected under different levels of population exposure to treatment. Results suggest that non-residential treatment reduced both the expected numbers of individuals who recidivated (i.e., were arrested) and the expected total numbers of arrests in the 12 and 24 months following placement on supervision.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 81%

Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many potential characteristics of the drug offenders, drug court programs, treatment services, and community context that may affect the effectiveness of a drug court program (e.g., Turner et al 2002;Goldkamp et al 2001c;Longshore et al 2001). As discussed earlier, we were limited by the descriptive information provided by the studies in the extent to which we could explore these potential moderators of drug court effectiveness, including the possibility of drug treatment in the comparison condition.…”

Section: Substantive Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Longshore et al (2001) provide a useful conceptual framework for thinking about the dimensions along which drug courts may differ (see also Turner et al 2002). These dimensions are: (1) leverage, (2) population severity, (3) program intensity, (4) predictability, and (5) rehabilitative emphasis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts have been proposed as a solution to the increasing numbers of drug involved offenders entering our criminal justice system, and they have become widespread since their introduction in 1989. Evaluations of these programs have led to mixed results. Using meta-analytic methods, we systematically reviewed the extant evidence on the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing future criminal offending. Fifty studies representing 55 evaluations were identified, including both experimental and quasi-experimental comparison group designs. The overall findings tentatively suggest that drug offenders participating in a drug court are less likely to reoffend than similar offenders sentenced to traditional correctional options. The equivocation of this conclusion stems from the generally weak methodological nature of the research in this area, although higher quality studies also observed positive results. Furthermore, the evidence tentatively suggests that drug courts using a single model (pre-or post-plea) may be more effective than those not employing these methods. These courts have a clear incentive for completion of the drug court program.

show abstract

“…5,6,35 Front-end policy choices that may facilitate reductions in the numbers of incarcerated individuals include alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders, as well as targeted use of drug courts to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and incarceration. 83,84 Back-end policy options to reduce prison population growth include accountability for parole violations that do not necessarily imply imprisonment as the first punishment option. Noncustodial sanctions, such as well-managed day-reporting centers, constitute a viable noncustodial option, particularly for minor offenders or released inmates guilty of technical violation of their parole conditions, such as missing a counseling session.…”

Section: Raphaelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prisons as Social Determinants of Hepatitis C Virus and Tuberculosis Infections

Awofeso

2010

Public Health Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopSiSEffects of place or neighborhood-locations where individuals reside, shop, recreate, and work-have been widely studied as sources of environmental influences on individual behaviors, exposures, and physiology, as well as reference points for public health interventions. However, despite modern prisons' strong influence on the transmission and clinical outcomes of infectious diseases, custodial authorities and public health officials in many countries have yet to implement credible interventions to minimize the adverse impacts prison settings exert on the epidemiology of communicable diseases-particularly with respect to inmates. Among many vulnerable populations, prisons are evolving as one of the social institutions that determine their health status and health outcomes. This article highlights the effects of prisons in mediating the risk of hepatitis C virus and tuberculosis infections, as well as feasible interventions and policy approaches for limiting the deleterious consequences prisons exert on the transmission and clinical courses of these diseases.

show abstract

A Decade of Drug Treatment Court Research

Cited by 57 publications

References 16 publications

Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism

Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism

A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism

Prisons as Social Determinants of Hepatitis C Virus and Tuberculosis Infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About