Drug Courts and Arrest for Substance Possession: Was the African American Community Differentially Impacted?

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-374
Author(s):  
David R. Lilley ◽  
Kristen DeVall ◽  
Kasey Tucker-Gail
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Differential Impact ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Minority Threat ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Drug Arrests

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses. The author of that study noted that findings raised further questions about whether the increased drug arrests should be interpreted as beneficial or harmful and whether they might have had a differential impact on minority residents. This study incorporated race-specific arrest information to partially answer these questions by utilizing a series of fixed-effects regressions among U.S. cities with populations over 50,000 from 1990 to 2006. Findings indicate that drug court implementation was associated with substantial increases in arrests of Black, but not White residents. Ethical and theoretical implications for therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, and the minority threat perspective are discussed.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Lilley ◽  
Megan C. Stewart ◽  
Kasey Tucker-Gail
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Net Widening

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses (Lilley, 2017; Walsh, 2011). However, the previous study did not utilize an equivalent comparison group and may have relied on a large sample size to generate findings. The current study tested the robustness of those findings by analyzing only cities with over 50,000 population, including four additional years of data, and utilizing a more equivalent comparison group that was propensity-matched to reduce the possibility that a preexisting difference may have generated higher arrest outcomes among drug court jurisdictions. Net-widening, arrest, and crime challenges and implications for drug court policies and law enforcement roles are also discussed.

Drug Courts

Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Boldt ◽  
James L. Nolan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Outcome Studies ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

Several thousand drug courts operate in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Similar courts have been established in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. The first drug court appeared in Dade County, Florida, in 1989. This initial effort and other first-generation drug courts helped to establish a model for subsequent problem-solving courts focused on substance use disorders, mental illness, domestic violence, and other circumstances that frequently co-occur with criminal justice system involvement. A range of problem-solving courts—including mental health courts, DUI (driving under the influence) courts, veterans courts, prostitution courts, re-entry courts, and gambling courts—have been developed both in the United States and internationally based on the drug court model. The design of these specialty courts emphasizes collaboration rather than an adversarial due-process-based approach to decision-making, therapeutic interventions instead of the legal resolution of disputed cases, and informal, individualized engagement by judges and other court actors. Key features of the drug court model include the placement of defendants in treatment programs, the close judicial monitoring of defendants though periodic status hearings, and the use of criminal penalties as leverage to retain defendants in treatment. Some drug courts engage criminal defendants prior to the adjudication of their charges, but increasingly these courts operate post-plea with the imposition of program requirements as conditions of probation or a suspended sentence. Drug courts have been a politically popular response to the problems of over-incarceration and criminal system overload produced in part by the late-20th-century “war on drugs.” Outcome studies often report successes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. Significant critiques of the drug court model and of problem-solving courts more generally have been offered, however, raising questions about the reliability of the outcome studies and about other negative consequences of the model, including net-widening, debasement of the therapeutic intentions of the enterprise, and other distortions in both the behavioral health treatment system and the criminal justice system.

Improving graduation rates in drug court: A qualitative study of participants’ lived experiences

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Robert Gallagher ◽  
Anne Nordberg ◽  
Elyse Lefebvre
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Frequent Contact

For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder. The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program. This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants ( N = 42) their views on the most helpful aspects of the program that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful to support them in graduating. Two themes emerged from the data: (1) participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program; (2) participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received, and they felt that this was a barrier to them graduating the program. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.

Current Issues in the Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Revolving Door ◽  
The Other ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
System P ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

This chapter provides an introduction to the scope of the problems facing the criminal justice system, with a specific focus on the overrepresentation of mental illness and substance abuse among justice-involved individuals. After discussing the “revolving door” and increased incarceration and recidivism rates among mentally ill and drug-involved offenders, the authors introduce therapeutic jurisprudence and the other foundational principles and common themes of problem-solving courts. This discussion illustrates the paradigm shift away from punishment and toward rehabilitation and increased collaboration among different entities within the criminal justice system. The chapter concludes with a brief review of the contents of the volume.

Drug Court Through the Eyes of Participants

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 971-989
Author(s):  
Susan H. Witkin ◽  
Scott P. Hays
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Criminal Behaviors

Operating with community support and through partnerships among treatment providers and the criminal justice system, drug courts address substance abuse as a root cause of criminal behaviors. Drug court success depends heavily on implementing the drug court model with fidelity and adhering to widely recognized best practices, in particular, following the “Ten Key Components” of drug court success. This study assesses drug court procedures and practices through the eyes of those who were actively participating in it. Focusing on five rural counties that had recently established drug courts, the study summarizes the results of interviews with 15 drug court participants. Importantly, this study is an evaluation of the operation of the drug courts themselves from the perspective of the participants of these drug courts rather than an evaluation of drug court participant impacts.

Examining the Impact of Prior Criminal Justice History on 2-Year Recidivism Rates: A Comparison of Drug Court Participants and Program Referrals

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Shannon ◽  
Afton Jackson Jones ◽  
Jennifer Newell ◽  
Connie Neal
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
The Impact

Drug courts seek to break the cycle of substance use and crime by providing a community-based intervention to individuals with criminal justice involvement and substance-related issues. This study examined recidivism over a 2-year follow-up period as well as factors associated with recidivism for a sample of drug court participants (i.e., graduates and terminators) and a non-equivalent comparison group (i.e., individuals referred/assessed for the program who did not enter). In the 2-year follow-up window, fewer drug court graduates had any convictions compared with program terminators and referrals; specifically, fewer drug court graduates had drug trafficking convictions compared with program terminators and referrals. Fewer graduates were arrested and incarcerated in jail and/or prison in the 2-year follow-up; furthermore, graduates had spent less time incarcerated compared with program terminators and referrals. Demographics (i.e., age, race, marital status) and prior criminal justice system involvement were associated with recidivism; however, these factors had differential impacts for the three groups (i.e., graduates, terminators, and referrals). Drug court shows promise as a community-based intervention that helps keep individuals out of the criminal justice system during a 2-year follow-up period.

Sentencing to Drug Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
Lizett Martinez Schreiber
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Alternative Sentencing ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
National Organizations

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Testing and Developing Theory in Drug Court: A Four-Part Logit Model to Predict Program Completion

2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Senjo ◽  
Leslie A. Leip
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Logit Model ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Program Completion ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Court Literature ◽  
Rapid Pace ◽  
Day To Day Operations

The expansion of drug courts into numerous additional jurisdictions continues at a rapid pace. Despite this, and the commensurate growth of drug court literature, there remains a surprising paucity of empirical studies that test and develop an underlying theory for drug court. This research is an empirical study that analyzes and tests therapeutic jurisprudence as the theory behind the drug court mission and its day-to-day operations. A logit model is used to assess the strength of specific theoretical components on an offender's ability to complete the drug court program. The findings indicate, among other things, that the manner of interactions between the judge and offenders can increase the likelihood of an offender's ability to remain abstinent and stay engaged in treatment for the duration of the drug court program.

scholarly journals Postcode Justice: Rural and Regional Disadvantage in the Administration of the Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Coverdale
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Roll Out

The paper signposts a number of issues identified within the research project: Postcode Justice — Rural and Regional Disadvantage in the Administration of the Law. It highlights key areas in which regional Victorians experience disadvantage in access to justice system services in comparison to their metropolitan counterparts. Issues raised by interviewees and survey participants demonstrate inherent problems with the current delivery of justice system services, programs and processes in regional Victoria. Briefly explored within the paper is the relationship of ‘distance’ to the delivery of justice. The paper suggests that little consideration is given to the spatial disadvantage experienced by regional communities in the development of legislation or the implementation of justice system programs, practices and procedures. The paper also examines the Magistrates’ Court criminal court programs which embrace the principles of ‘problem solving courts’ and ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’. While they are important innovations, these programs have had limited roll-out to regional communities. In its conclusion the paper suggests that an independent and unified ‘voice’ is needed to ensure a genuine and informed response to the diverse areas in which inequity exists in the delivery of justice system services to regional communities.

scholarly journals The Effects of Race and Ethnicity on Admission, Graduation, and Recidivism in the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Alyssa M. Sheeran ◽  
Amanda J. Heideman
Keyword(s):  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Milwaukee County ◽  
Drug Treatment Court ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Treatment Court ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Drug courts play a key role in the criminal justice system by diverting individuals from incarceration and providing them with resources to address substance use issues and reduce criminal recidivism. However, it is unclear whether drug courts reflect—or even exacerbate—preexisting racial/ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. While prior literature has offered some insight into the influence of race and ethnicity on drug court success, much of the focus has been on outcomes (i.e., program completion and recidivism) rather than disparities at earlier stages (i.e., referral to admittance). The current study adds to this body of research by evaluating the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court to examine whether racial/ethnic disparities exist at several stages of the drug court process: (1) referral to admittance, (2) likelihood of graduation, and (3) likelihood of recidivism. Results of the analyses determined racial/ethnic disparities in the likelihood of admission to the drug court, as well as the likelihood of graduation. There were no racial/ethnic disparities found in the likelihood of recidivism. The analyses also identified several additional variables that were influential in the likelihood of admission (risk score, prior record), likelihood of graduation (age, prior record, custody sanctions), and recidivism (drug court outcome).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document