An Evaluation of the Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program

Brewster, Mary P.

doi:10.1177/002204260103100110

Cited by 81 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not all drug court evaluations report reductions in recidivism for drug court participants (Meithe et al, 2000;Wolfe et al, 2002), a summary of drug court evaluation studies conducted between 1999 and April 2001 (Belenko, 2001) identified several studies reporting significantly lower recidivism rates among drug court participants than comparison offenders (Brewster, 2001;Deschenes et al, 2001;Truitt et al, 2000;Gottfredson & Exum, 2002). In addition, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the efficacy of drug courts (GAO, 2005), most of the adult drug court programs evaluated demonstrated reductions in recidivism, at least during the program participation period (i.e., 12 months postbaseline).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations

Krebs

Lindquist

Koetse

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts are one of the most common strategies for dealing with the large proportion of criminal offenders who are drug-involved, yet methodological limitations limit the conclusions that can be drawn from many existing evaluations of their effectiveness. The current study examined the longterm impact of drug court participation compared to regular probation on the recidivism of 475 druginvolved offenders under supervision in Hillsborough County, Florida. Using a combination of selfreported data (collected through in-person interviews at baseline, i.e., the beginning of supervision) and administrative records, the study employed a repeated measures framework (examining five sixmonth time periods from baseline to 30 months post-baseline) and generalized estimating equations to compare the likelihood of being arrested between drug court participants and a matched sample of comparison offenders. The results indicate that participation in drug court was associated with a significant decrease in the likelihood of being arrested in the 12 to 18 months post-baseline time period. Although the drug court effect was somewhat delayed (it was not significant prior to 12 months) and short-lived (it was not significant after 18 months), the fact that significant program effects were observed during a time period that coincides with the conclusion of drug court participation for graduates and a time period well beyond initial program exposure, suggests that drug court participants are more likely than comparable offenders not exposed to drug court to remain arrest free when no longer under community supervision.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations

Krebs

Lindquist

Koetse

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Length of follow-up, for a number of the studies reported here, referred either to time while in treatment, 84,88(combined) or included an unspecified or individually variable length of time during which treatment was still taking place. 52,86,87,90,91,93 Some authors failed to clarify whether or not follow-up included time in treatment 82,85 and three studies 88(Fife),88(Glasgow), 89 provided no information about length of follow-up. Only three studies 80,83,92 explicitly set out a follow-up period which began at the point of treatment discharge.…”

Section: Length Of Follow-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies 88(Fife),88(Glasgow),88(combined),93 report no statistical analysis of outcomes and are consequently excluded from an evaluation of whether or not analyses are ITT. Of the remainder, five 80,84,87,89,90 (41.7%) reported, or were identified by the review team, as carrying out all analyses on an ITT basis. Of these, four studies 80,84,87,89 had experienced no attrition from their sample.…”

Section: Intention To Treatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the remainder, one used statistical analysis, but only for a subset of the outcome measures 86 and three, although commenting on baseline characteristics for some or all of the measures, failed to carry out statistical evaluations to establish equivalence between groups. 85,87,91 …”

Section: Baseline Equivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of those studies reporting drug use, the most common measure used was self-reported drug use (n = 7, 50%). Urine tests, or other forms of drug screening, 80,88(Fife),88(Glasgow), 87,93 and drug-related arrests 83,87,[91][92][93] were variously reported in a number of studies. None of the studies reported drug-related convictions as an outcome.…”

Section: Outcome Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using class A drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Hayhurst

Leitner

Davies

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe societal costs of problematic class A drug use in England and Wales exceed £15B; drug-related crime accounts for almost 90% of costs. Diversion plus treatment and/or aftercare programmes may reduce drug-related crime and costs.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare for class A drug-using offenders, compared with no diversion.PopulationAdult class A drug-using offenders diverted to treatment or an aftercare programme for their drug use.InterventionsProgrammes to identify and divert problematic drug users to treatment (voluntary, court mandated or monitored services) at any point within the criminal justice system (CJS). Aftercare follows diversion and treatment, excluding care following prison or non-diversionary drug treatment.Data sourcesThirty-three electronic databases and government online resources were searched for studies published between January 1985 and January 2012, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science. Bibliographies of identified studies were screened. The UK Drug Data Warehouse, the UK Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study and published statistics and reports provided data for the economic evaluation.MethodsIncluded studies evaluated diversion in adult class A drug-using offenders, in contact with the CJS. The main outcomes were drug use and offending behaviour, and these were pooled using meta-analysis. The economic review included full economic evaluations for adult opiate and/or crack, or powder, cocaine users. An economic decision analytic model, estimated incremental costs per unit of outcome gained by diversion and aftercare, over a 12-month time horizon. The perspectives included the CJS, NHS, social care providers and offenders. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis explored variance in parameter estimates, longer time horizons and structural uncertainty.ResultsSixteen studies met the effectiveness review inclusion criteria, characterised by poor methodological quality, with modest sample sizes, high attrition rates, retrospective data collection, limited follow-up, no random allocation and publication bias. Most study samples comprised US methamphetamine users. Limited meta-analysis was possible, indicating a potential small impact of diversion interventions on reducing drug use [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.53 for reduced primary drug use, and OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.98 for reduced use of other drugs]. The cost-effectiveness review did not identify any relevant studies. The economic evaluation indicated high uncertainty because of variance in data estimates and limitations in the model design. The primary analysis was unclear whether or not diversion was cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses indicated some scenarios where diversion may be cost-effective.LimitationsNearly all participants (99.6%) in the effectiveness review were American (Californian) methamphetamine users, limiting transfer of conclusions to the UK. Data and methodological limitations mean it is unclear whether or not diversion is effective or cost-effective.ConclusionsHigh-quality evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion schemes is sparse and does not relate to the UK. Importantly this research identified a range of methodological limitations in existing evidence. These highlight the need for research to conceptualise, define and develop models of diversion programmes and identify a core outcome set. A programme of feasibility, pilot and definitive trials, combined with process evaluation and qualitative research is recommended to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversionary interventions in class A drug-using offenders.Funding detailsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract