Drug Courts and Community Crime Rates: A Nationwide Analysis of Jurisdiction-Level Outcomes

Abstract

Although a substantial number of studies have reported that drug courts reduced the recidivism of graduates (Wilson et al., 2006), a series of recent analyses suggested that drug courts and similar programs were associated with unintended crime outcomes in cities and counties across the nation (Lilley and Boba, 2008; Miethe et al., 2000; Peters et al., 2002; Worrall et al., 2009). Given that over 220,000 offenders participated in this alternative to incarceration and most did not successfully complete the drug court program, jurisdictional crime may have been impacted. A series of panel data analyses were conducted among more than 5,000 jurisdictions nationwide from 1995 to 2002 to assess the impact of drug court implementation grants on UCR Part I felony offenses. Consistent with prior findings, drug court implementation grants were associated withnet increasesin vehicle theft, burglary, larceny, and some violent offenses. Possible explanations for these unintended outcomes are discussed along with recommendations for adjustments to current drug court programs across the nation.

Drug Courts and Net-Widening in U.S. Cities: A Reanalysis Using Propensity Score Matching

“…Three macro-level studies have assessed the relationship between drug courts and crime. Each of these studies utilized fixed effects regression of annual panel data during the 1990s and early 2000s (Lilley, 2013; Orrick, 2005; Zafft, 2014). Overall, findings were inconclusive with one study reporting no relationship (Orrick, 2005); another finding small, positive drug court-crime coefficients (Lilley, 2013); and a third reporting negative relationships with robbery, burglary, auto theft, and other felony offenses (Zafft, 2014).…”

“…Each of these studies utilized fixed effects regression of annual panel data during the 1990s and early 2000s (Lilley, 2013; Orrick, 2005; Zafft, 2014). Overall, findings were inconclusive with one study reporting no relationship (Orrick, 2005); another finding small, positive drug court-crime coefficients (Lilley, 2013); and a third reporting negative relationships with robbery, burglary, auto theft, and other felony offenses (Zafft, 2014). Despite the fact that two of these analyses utilized small convenience samples and one lacked controls for changes in economy, population, police force size, and enforcement activity, these studies provide an indication that drug court programs were not universally associated with crime increases.…”

“…More recently, a few macro-level, panel data studies analyzed total or net community arrest outcomes finding that drug court jurisdictions experienced higher numbers of misdemeanor drug arrests after implementation (Lilley, 2017; Zafft, 2014). The macro-level approach avoids procedural program differences and “apples to oranges” comparisons of participant recidivism (Lilley, 2013). Nevertheless, new methodological challenges are found in macro-level studies pertaining to sample size, control variables, and equivalent jurisdictional comparison.…”

Analysis of the Effects of Education, Unemployment, Poverty, and Income Inequality on Crime in Indonesia

“…The influence of education, unemployment, poverty and income inequality on crime rates has been done by several previous researchers including Di Tella (2004), Edmark (2005), Gillani (2009), Alexandros 2010, Lilley (2013) and Lochner (2013) 2012). However, this study does not look at all four variables.…”

Examining Predisposing Factors and Program Performance Indicators Associated With Program Completion: A Comparison of Opioid and Non-Opioid-Preferring Participants in Drug Court

“…Drug court, a community-based rehabilitation program for individuals with substance use issues involved in the criminal justice system, provides a unique opportunity for opioid users, especially those with related criminal activity. Drug courts originated in 1989 and decrease crime by treating substance abuse issues as an alternative to incarceration for primarily nonviolent offenders (Lilley, 2013). Drug courts entail collaboration among criminal justice, treatment, and other community agencies to provide comprehensive services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 1996).…”