Multi-Site Evaluation Demonstrates Effectiveness of Adult Drug Courts

By Rempel, Michael; Zweig, Janine M. et al. | Judicature, January/February 2012 | Go to article overview

Multi-Site Evaluation Demonstrates Effectiveness of Adult Drug Courts


Rempel, Michael, Zweig, Janine M., Lindquist, Christine H., Roman, John K., Rossman, Shelli B., Kralstein, Dana, Judicature


Specialized adult drug courts have proliferated during the last two decades, operating in most medium and large criminal courts, nationwide. Drug courts combine community-based substance abuse treatment and ongoing court oversight as an alternative to either incarceration or traditional probation. Participants undergo frequent drug tests, appearances before the drug court judge, and meetings with court-affiliated case managers. Supervision is most intensive at program entry, perhaps involving weekly or biweekly appearances before the judge, but becomes less frequent in response to early progress. Drawing on classic behavioral modification techniques, the judge applies a system of graduated sanctions and incentives, such as community service, more frequent court appearances, or several days in jaii for noncompliance; or verbal praise, journals, or gift certificates for progress. On average, it takes about 15 months to graduate from a drug court, at which point participants receive some legal benefit, usually a case dismissal or charge reduction. Those who fail the program are routinely sentenced to jail or prison.

As of the end of 2009, more than 1,300 adult drug courts had opened nationwide. This is in addition to more than 1,000 other drug courts that serve juveniles, family law respondents, or formerly incarcerated persons on parole or probation.1 The consensus reflected in three recent reviews of more than 60 recidivism studies is that adult drug courts reduce recidivism by an average of 8 to 13 percentage points.2 Since drug courts reduce recidivism, it also might be inferred that they succeed in rehabilitating offenders from their underlying drug problems. However, little prior research directly examines effects on drug use or, for that matter, effects on other problems, ranging from unemployment to family dysfunction to co-occurring mental health disorders. In addition, the research field is only just beginning to identify the specific policies and practices that are most responsible for producing positive outcomes.

To fill these gaps in our knowledge, the National Institute of Justice funded a five-year study, known as NIJ's Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). Implemented by the Urban Institute, theCenter for Court Innovation, and RTI, the study included 1,156 participants from 23 drug courts and 625 drug-involved offenders from six comparison jurisdictions that lacked adult drug courts, had a very narrowly targeted program, or had more drug-involved offenders than drug court capacity. All 29 sites were located in one of eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, North and South Carolina, and Washington. The sites were not randomly selected, but do comprise an intentional mix of urban, suburban, and rural locations; seven of the 23 drug courts and two of the six comparison jurisdictions were located in major cities (Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Seattle/ Tacoma); the other 20 sites were located in suburbs, small cities, and rural areas. Thus, the sample varied demographically, as well as in drug use patterns.

Study data were collected through in-person offender interviews at baseline (entry into drug court or the equivalent for comparison subjects], as well as six and 18 months post-baseline; an oral fluids drug test at 18-months; and administrative arrest and sentencing records up to 24 months after baseline. Survey attrition was remarkably low, as 85 percent of the original sample was interviewed at the six-month follow up and 83 percent at the 18-month follow up. Survey data were applied in the cost-benefit analysis to measure resources used by participants (e.g., drug treatment, other services, drug tests, court appearances, days incarcerated, etc.) and estimates from national sources were used to estimate unit costs of each activity. Other aspects of study methodology, including statistical strategies to ensure comparability between the drug court and comparison samples, are described in the full technical report. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Upgrade your membership to receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad‑free environment

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Upgrade your membership to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Multi-Site Evaluation Demonstrates Effectiveness of Adult Drug Courts
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved in your active project from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Upgrade your membership to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.