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

Abstract

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.

Predicting Termination from Drug Court and Comparing Recidivism Patterns: Treating Substance Use Disorders in Criminal Justice Settings

“…The statement was released because a growing body of literature was suggesting that White participants were more likely than minority participants to have favorable outcomes related to graduation and not recidivating (Brewster, 2001;Dannerbeck et al, 2006;Krebs, Lindquist, Koetse, & Lattimore, 2007). A noticeable finding from this study is that racial disparities did not exist in graduation outcomes, which is consistent with the findings from Hohman et al (2000).…”

Communicating the principle of ‘treatment instead of punishment’ in Hungary on the basis of an examination of the patients at a drug outpatient clinic

“…However, according to the authors' summary, interventions for drug-using offenders under the care of the criminal justice system can be effective (Perry et al, 2006). Numerous other examinations corroborate the authors' conclusions (Cooper, 2003;Freeman, 2003;Kelly, Finney, & Moos, 2005;Krebs, Lindquist, Koetse, & Lattimore, 2007;Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, & Lee, 2005;Roll, Prendergast, Richardson, Burdon, & Ramirez, 2005;Turner et al, 2002). The fact that the criminal justice system can serve as a point of contact is an important aspect that has been recognized for a long time (Leukefeld, Logan, Martin, Purvis, & Farabee, 1998).…”

Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36

“…In operation for more than 20 years, drug court programs have proliferated (Belenko, DeMatteo, & Patapis, 2007; Hora, 2002). Although more research is needed to better understand their operation and impact (Belenko, 2002; Merrall & Bird, 2009; Wilson, Mitchell, & Mackenzie 2006; Wiseman, 2005), general research consensus indicates that drug courts are more effective than routine criminal justice case processing (Galloway & Drapela, 2006; Gottfredson, Najaka, Kearley, & Rocha, 2006; Krebs, Lindquist, Koetse, & Lattimore, 2007; Marinelli-Casey et al, 2008; Peters & Murrin, 2000; Turner et al, 2002). …”