The Nexus Between Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program Integrity and Drug Court Effectiveness

Abstract

The literature supporting the efficacy of drug courts continues to grow. Much attention and research has focused on recidivism rates for participants, and generally address the question of, do drug courts work? The current state of drug court practice is a process that relies heavily on the drug and alcohol treatment services that are offered to clients. Many treatment programs, and the treatment philosophy that underlies their approach to solving substance abuse, offer vague and eclectic approaches that oftentimes do not meet the diverse needs of their clients related to gender, culture, and specific cognitive impacts on the brain caused by drug use. We argue that a move toward the use of evidence-based practice, coupled with quality assurance measures for treatment providers, will promote best practice and will ensure program integrity that leads to effective and long-lasting drug court programs.

Predicting Criminal Recidivism Following Drug Court: Implications for Drug Court Practice and Policy Advocacy

“…Ensuring that culturally competent, evidence‐based treatments are being offered to drug court participants may improve drug court graduation rates and potentially minimize the risk of having a violation within the first 30 days of drug court. When culturally competent, evidence‐based interventions are used in the treatment of substance use disorders, evidence has suggested that participants' engagement in treatment, motivation to change, and retention in treatment are improved (Beckerman & Fontana, ; Henggeler et al, ; Lutze & van Wormer, ). Additionally, studies have indicated that drug court participants who are engaged in treatment are more likely to graduate and not recidivate than participants who are not engaged in treatment (Banks & Gottfredson, ; Taxman & Bouffard, ).…”

Positive Criminology and Rethinking the Response to Adolescent Addiction: Evidence on the Role of Social Support, Religiosity, and Service to Others

“…The diverse range of participants accepted by drug courts makes it difficult to analyze practices nationwide, though it has been suggested that drug courts may not best serve those with the most serious addictions or use the hardest drugs, for whom more intensive and long-term inpatient treatment is indicated (Lutze and Wormer 2007; Wormer and Lutze 2010). Dirty urine screens and non-compliance to sentencing components result in sanctions of additional community service, fines, and ultimately jail time for multiple violations.…”

Innovation in Community Corrections and Probation Officers’ Fears of Being Sued

“…Too often great innovations are lost to a failure to institutionalize good practice resulting in drift away from established missions, goals, and valuable program attributes. This drift often occurs when charismatic founders and program leaders move on to new positions, staff turnover disrupts an understanding of the existing program model and practice, and the institution does not adequately support innovative practice over time (see Lutze & van Wormer, 2007;Murphy & Lutze, 2009).…”