Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update

• NCJ Number: 190414
• Author(s): Steven Belenko Ph.D.
• Date Published: June 2001
• Length: 63 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
• Corporate Author: National Ctr on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA)
• Sale Source: National Ctr on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA)
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This is a critical review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts -- including 7 juvenile drug courts, 1 DUI court, and 1 family drug court -- produced between 1999 and April 2001.

Abstract

Drug courts have achieved considerable local support and have provided intensive, long-term treatment services to offenders with long histories of drug use and criminal justice contacts, previous treatment failures, and high rates of health and social problems. Program completion rates were generally consistent with previous findings, with an average of 47 percent of participants graduating. Drug use and criminal activity were relatively reduced while participants were in the program. Less clear were the long-term, post-program impacts of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes. Four of the six studies that examined 1-year post-program recidivism found a reduction, but the size of the reduction varied across courts. None of the studies reported post-program drug use, employment, or other outcomes for all drug court participants. Three studies used random assignment to drug court or control conditions, and all found a reduction in recidivism for the drug court participants; however, none of these studies distinguished between in-program and post-program rearrests; and sample sizes were small in two of the studies. Several studies that examined program costs found that average per-client drug-court costs were lower than standard processing, primarily due to reduced incarceration; however, straight diversion may be less expensive and intrusive for low-risk offenders while achieving similar outcomes to drug courts. This review suggested a continuing need for better precision in describing data sources, measures, and time frames for data collection. A fuller understanding of the impacts of drug courts in the context of the larger criminal justice system requires more research on the targeting, referral, screening, and admission process. 2 tables and 39 references