Participation in drug treatment court and time to rearrest

Banks, Duren; Gottfredson, Denise C.

doi:10.1080/07418820400095931

Cited by 50 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The best results were observed among completers, whereas treatment dropouts tended to perform as poorly as nontreated comparisons (Dynia & Sung, 2000;Eisenberg, 1999;Field, 1989;Peters & Murrin, 2000). The differences in postintervention recidivism risk between treated and nontreated offenders appeared to be negligible during the first 6 months but increased considerably thereafter to peak around the end of the first year and at the beginning of the second year (Banks & Gottfredson, 2004;Belenko et al, 2004). Actual prevalence levels of recidivism varied greatly across offender populations, across treatment modalities, and among different measures of recidivism, with 1-year rearrest rates ranging from b15% (Dynia & Sung, 2000) to N40% (Turley et al, 2004;Ventura & Lamber, 2004).…”

Section: Recidivism After Coerced Drug Abuse Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 88%

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Sung

Richter

2006

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recidivism After Coerced Drug Abuse Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 88%

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Sung

Richter

2006

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Survival analyses examining time to rearrest in the first 24 months following randomization showed that assignment to the drug court significantly increased time to rearrest (Banks and Gottfredson 2004). When the survival functions were examined separately for drug court cases who actually received drug treatment services and those who did not, again the results showed that attending treatment significantly decreased the risk of failure over a two-year follow-up period (Banks and Gottfredson 2003).…”

Section: Comparison With Other Drug Courtsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses an experimental design comparing 235 offenders assigned either to drug treatment court or treatment as usual. It extends prior analyses of this study sample to examine whether differences observed between drug treatment court subjects and control subjects at one and two years after the start of the program persist after three years, when many of the subjects had ceased active treatment. Further, it extends earlier analyses that showed that the quantity of drug treatment court services received was related to lower recidivism rates by using an instrumental variables approach to handle the endogeneity problem that sometimes arises when subjects self-select into different levels of service. Results show a sustained treatment effect on recidivism, controlling for time at risk. This effect is not limited to the period during which services are delivered. Rather, it persists even after participation in the drug court program ceases. Results also show that the recidivism is lowest among subjects who participate at higher levels in certified drug treatment, status hearings, and drug testing. These positive findings are tempered with findings that more than three-fourths of clients are re-arrested within three years, regardless of participation in the drug treatment court, and that drug treatment court cases spend approximately the same number of days incarcerated as do control cases. Implications for strengthening drug treatment courts are discussed.

show abstract

“…Interestingly, upon rearrest, drug court participants were almost as likely as controls to be reconvicted (49 percent versus 53 percent). Further analyses of this drug court experiment by Banks and Gottfredson (2004) found that those in the program group had a significantly longer time to rearrest than the control group.…”

Section: Court Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 94%