Drug Court: An Effective Alternative to Incarceration

Kalich, DeAnn; Evans, Rand B.

doi:10.1080/01639620600887295

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A decrease in recidivism is one of the most commonly cited benefits associated with drug court participation (Belenko, 2001;Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003;Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011;Kalich & Evans, 2006;Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012;Shaffer, 2011). More specifically, a recent meta-analysis of 154 drug court evaluations suggested a decrease in recidivism; for adult drug court participants, general recidivism reduced from 50% to 38% and drug-related recidivism reduced from 50% to 37% (Mitchell et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Examining Gender Differences in Substance Use, Participant Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes Among Individuals in Drug Court

Shannon

Jackson

Perkins

et al. 2014

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study purpose was to examine gender differences in factors of potential importance (i.e., substance use, mental health, treatment motivation, criminal activity=thinking) which may help predict treatment outcome among a sample of individuals in drug court. Baseline data were collected via face-to-face interviews from a sample of individuals participating in drug court (N ¼ 515). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed: age (p < .001), employment (p < .001), and number of months of lifetime incarceration (p < .001) were significant predictors of program completion. Based on study findings, gender may not be a critical factor on program completion in drug court. Rather, the multivariate analysis suggests several of these other characteristics are the critical factors in understanding completion of the drug court program.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Examining Gender Differences in Substance Use, Participant Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes Among Individuals in Drug Court

Shannon

Jackson

Perkins

et al. 2014

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A decrease in recidivism is one of the most commonly cited benefits of drug court participation (Belenko, 2001;Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003;Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011;Kalich & Evans, 2006;Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012;Sanford & Arrigo, 2005;Shaffer, 2011;Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). One recent meta-analysis of 154 independent drug court evaluations suggested a decrease in recidivism; for adult drug court participants, overall recidivism reduced from 50% to 38% and drug-related recidivism reduced from 50% to 37% (Mitchell et al,285 286 L. M. SHANNON ET AL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Examining Substance Use Among Rural Appalachian and Urban Non-Appalachian Individuals Participating in Drug Court

Shannon

Perkins

Neal

2013

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study purpose was to examine differences in substance use among individuals in drug court (N = 583) in rural Appalachian (n = 301) and urban non-Appalachian areas (n = 282). A series of logistic regression analyses suggested individuals in the rural Appalachian area were significantly more likely to report lifetime use of cocaine, illicit opiates, and illicit benzodiazepines, but they were less likely to report methamphetamine use when compared with individuals in the urban non-Appalachian area. Regarding past 30-day use, a series of logistic regression analyses suggested individuals in the rural Appalachian area were significantly more likely to use marijuana, illicit opiates, and illicit benzodiazepines, but they were less likely to report crack cocaine use when compared with individuals in the urban non-Appalachian area. Identifying differences which exist in substance use is the first step in generating evidence-based structural changes in treatment drug court programs. Future research should focus on better understanding context in terms of demographic, geographic, and economic conditions, which may be of critical influence on substance use and treatment planning.

show abstract

“…Of those who graduated, only 27.8% had been confined while in the program (Kassebaum & Okamoto, 2001). Kalich and Evans (2006) found that participants who were in `bad standing' (attrition risk) with the drug court were more likely to have charges related to drug possession and property crimes than control group members; they were also more likely to use cocaine. Ultimately, criminal justice history, confinement while in the program, and specific types of drug abuse may be related to higher rates of drug court treatment attrition.…”

Section: Drug Court Treatment Attritionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the early 1990's, drug court interventions have become pervasive (Carey, Finigan, Crumpton, & Waller, 2006; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2011; Shaffer, 2011). Although models vary in different states and counties, drug courts are typically comprised of common elements that include participant supervision, consequences for noncompliance, and substance abuse treatment (Carey et al, 2006; DeMatteo, Filone, & LaDuke, 2011; Kalich & Evans, 2006; Kassebaum & Okamoto, 2001). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies conducted on drug courts, including recent meta-analyses, have found that they are effective at reducing recidivism rates (Mitchell et al, 2011; Shaffer, 2011), and some studies show that the effects may last up to three years (Mitchell et al, 2011). The general consensus is that drug courts are a cost-effective method of reducing recidivism (Carey et al, 2006; Kalich & Evans, 2006; Mitchell et al, 2011; Shaffer, 2011). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attrition in Drug Court Research: Examining Participant Characteristics and Recommendations for Follow-Up

Mendoza

Linley

Nochajski

et al. 2013

jofsw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug court research is often challenged by study attrition. In this study, researchers attempted to predict study completion using variables traditionally associated with treatment attrition. Findings showed that participants who reported a need for additional help to resolve legal problems and who reported accessing outpatient treatments were more likely to complete the study at the three-month follow-up. The study also demonstrated a relationship between trauma-related symptoms and study attrition. Although sample size was a limitation with these pilot data, researchers are urged to examine attrition and increase efforts to engage drug court enrollees in research studies, especially those with trauma-related symptoms.

show abstract

Drug Court: An Effective Alternative to Incarceration

Cited by 23 publications

References 11 publications

Examining Gender Differences in Substance Use, Participant Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes Among Individuals in Drug Court

Examining Gender Differences in Substance Use, Participant Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes Among Individuals in Drug Court

Examining Substance Use Among Rural Appalachian and Urban Non-Appalachian Individuals Participating in Drug Court

Attrition in Drug Court Research: Examining Participant Characteristics and Recommendations for Follow-Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About