|
Article Excerpt
A quick perusal of any electronic database or search engine reveals the plethora of available research evaluating the effectiveness of drug courts. Operating in the United States since 1989, drug courts have become popular so quickly that by 2003 there were more than 1,000 of them operating nationwide with even more in formation (OJP Drug Court Clearing house and Technical Assistance Project [DCCTAP], 2003). Given their rapid increase and popularity, it is not surprising that much of the research has been devoted to determining whether this widespread support is merited. The research generally suggests that drug courts deserve their popularity because they are an effective means of decreasing drug-related crime. In their examination of the first three years of the Southern San Mateo County drug court, Wolfe, Guydish & Termondt (2002) found that the 2-year follow-up re-arrest rates for graduates was 19% compared to 53% for non-graduates. Fielding, Tye, Ogawa, Imam & Long (2002) also found strong positive effects on reduced recidivism in Los Angeles County, and other studies have found similar positive results (Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001; Peters & Murrin, 2000). However. there is disagreement regarding the magnitude and direction of the effect drug courts have on recidivism (Wolfe et al., 2002; Miethe, 2000: Gottfredson & Exum, 2002). For example, Wolfe and colleagues (2002) found a 34% difference in recidivism rates favoring drug court clients. On the other hand, Listwan and colleagues (2003) studied 301 Cincinnati drug court clients and found that while graduates had a lower probability of being re-arrested for a drug related crime (10% likelihood for graduates, 20% for non-graduates), they were just as likely to be arrested for a crime (meaning crime in general--not just drug-related) and for a similar number of crimes as those individuals who did not experience the program.
According to the United States General Accountability Office (2005), drug court evaluations frequently have a number of methodological limitations, which may explain some of the disagreement across studies. For example, few studies follow graduates longer than 18 months after program completion (Belenko, 1998). Furthermore, the majority of existing research focuses solely or predominantly on re-arrest rates as indicators of program success (Sanford & Arrigo, 2005) However, arrest rates only reflect those who have relapsed and have gotten caught. Those who have relapsed and have managed to avoid the authorities are not reflected in those rates. These methodological issues are not surprising. Given the sociopolitical environment in which drug courts operate, obtaining accurate control groups, especially randomized ones, is difficult. Furthermore, due to their individualized nature and the different populations served, the individual characteristics of drug courts vary considerably between different programs. Therefore, the drug court in one study may serve a different type of offender, may have a different phase structure, may utilize different treatment options, and/or may use different sanctioning procedures than drug courts in other studies--all of which may contribute to the variability in findings. Because empirical findings may vary widely, trying to identify theoretical explanations for drug court success may be useful and may move our understanding beyond the peculiarities of any one Court.
Qualitative research is a useful way of inductively identifying theoretical concepts. However, only recently have researchers started examining drug courts qualitatively as opposed to quantitatively (Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka & Rocha, 2005; Burns & Peyrot, 2003; Goldkamp et al., 2001). For example, Gottfredson and colleagues, (2005) studied 157 individuals three years after they were randomized into treatment and control conditions in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (BCDTC). These interviews found that those who graduated from the BCDTC used fewer substances in the past year and were less likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than were their randomized counterparts who did not participate in the BCDTC. Gottfredson and colleagues' study is an important contribution to the literature due to its randomized design, its unusually long span of observation post treatment and its examination of nontraditional outcome measures such as welfare receipt and employment. However, the study focuses solely on outcome behavior and excludes any discussion of theoretical context to explain these behaviors. Goldkamp and colleagues (2001) also conducted qualitative research by studying focus groups of graduates from the Oakland (CA), Portland (OR), Las Vegas (NV), Fort Lauderdale (FL), and Kalamazoo (MI) drug courts and asking them their views about various aspects of their drug court experiences. While persons interviewed in this study felt that drug courts were generally helpful, many felt that some individuals entering these programs are not initially serious about recovery and only participate to avoid going to jail. On the other hand, many graduates also stated that people generally become more committed to the program and to recovery as they progress through the program and that program structure, fear of sanctions (especially jail time), drug tests, court encouragement, and favorable interactions with their counselors are all strengths of the program and/or contribute to the program effectiveness. The study by Goldkamp and colleagues is also an important addition to the literature. It addresses a frequently overlooked aspect of drug court research; and it involves the feedback of graduates from multiple drug court locations. However, as with Gottfredson and colleagues" research, a theoretical application or understanding of the drug court process, with some exceptions, is still generally missing.
Therapeutic jurisprudence examines the impact that the law has on the emotional and psychological well-being of individuals (Wexler, 2000). According to this perspective, the law produces behavior and consequences, some of which are therapeutic and some of which are not. Senjo and Leip (2001) statistically applied therapeutic jurisprudence components to the monitoring, drug treatment, and criminal procedures of the Broward County, Florida drug court to assess their effect on program completion. Their random sample of 100 participants showed that supportive court monitoring was statistically beneficial to program completion among these individuals. However, while therapeutic jurisprudence is treated as a theory, and is even referred to as a "legal theory" by Rottman (2000) and others, to some degree it lacks some of the basic underpinnings of a true theory--namely, it only weakly addresses why specific court characteristics may be beneficial to drug rehabilitation. Available illustrations of therapeutic jurisprudence, such as the one put forth by Rottman (2000), suggest that it functions more as a conceptual framework or model for structuring drug court programs and their associated judicial processes than it does as a theoretical perspective that is useful in explaining the positive transformation of their graduates. Chase and Hora (2000) describe therapeutic jurisprudence not as a theory, but rather as "the study of the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the roles of lawyers and judges produce therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences" (p. 12). They further refer to drug court programs as "therapeutic jurisprudence in action" (Chase & Hora, 2000, p. 12). While the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence may play an important role in the formation, rationalization, and study of drug court programs, its usefulness as a "theory" for explaining the outcomes of such programs remains questionable.
Braithwaite's (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming, an integrative theory which draws on labeling, subcultural, opportunity, control, differential association, and social learning theories, has also been applied to the outcomes of drug court programs. Braithwaite's (1989) theory argues that shaming can be stigmatizing or reintegrative. With stigmatized shaming, the deviant individual is stigmatized and labeled as a deviant with little means of delabeling, destigmatizing or welcoming the offending individual back into the community. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, occurs when community members publicly show disapproval for deviant acts, but then accept reformed deviant individuals back into the community. Miethe and colleagues (2000) employed the principles of reintegrative shaming as a theoretical guide for understanding the outcomes of a drug court in Las Vegas. Despite the drug court's structural similarity to the principles of reintegrative shaming, drug court participants actually suffered higher rates of recidivism than a comparison group of offenders who were processed outside the drug court. In explaining this finding,...
|
