|
Article Excerpt
In the United States, the drug court movement began in 1989 with the establishment of the first drug court in Dade County, Florida; it quickly gained momentum so that by 2001 there were more than 600 operating drug courts in the United States (Goldkamp, White & Robinson 2001). Drug courts are a break from the traditional court model in the criminal justice system in that drug courts are intended to be nonpunitive in nature, unlike traditional courts, and they employ a more informal operation of the courtroom where judges, defendants, and members of the treatment team (including the defense and prosecution) engage in dialogue and actively cooperate in the rehabilitation of the entire person. The primary goal, of course, is to help that individual overcome his or her drug addiction; however, the underlying understanding is that most addictions do not occur in a vacuum, but instead are a response to environmental and social experiences. Hence, drug court programs aim to help individuals address both their addiction and the other events in their life (e.g. unemployment, family problems, lack of education) which contribute to the use of drugs.
The fundamental assumption is that even though drug courts operate in a relatively informal atmosphere, the symbolism and authority of the presiding judge will make the treatment process a more accountable and effective form of rehabilitation than might otherwise be achieved (Goldkamp, White & Robinson 2001). This holistic and untraditional approach to treating people arrested for drug related crimes is partially responsible for the generally wide public and professional support of drug court programs (although this support is not unanimous) that fueled the rapid success of the movement.
While drug court programs are highly varied in design, most do share some common characteristics. For example, all drug courts focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, recognizing that drug relapses, at least initially, are expected (although most do not oppose short stays in the county jail for some program violations); judges have a broader role in drug courts than in the traditional court system; there is a high degree of collaboration between members of the criminal justice system and social service agencies; there is a nonadversarial relationship between the prosecution and defense; and most drug courts require defendants to progress through phases of decreasing monitoring as their treatment and recovery progresses (Goldkamp 1994). However, these commonalities aside, the high variation in the particular details of individual drug courts (such as defendant eligibility, phase structure, and nature of treatment) has made systematic evaluation of these programs difficult. This does not mean that many evaluations do not exist.
Drug court evaluation highlights
A multitude of studies have tried to evaluate the effectiveness of drug court programs to determine whether the wide public and political support is merited. Unsurprisingly, given the main goal of drug courts, to keep people out of the criminal justice system, the most common outcome studied is recidivism. Wolfe and colleagues (2002) examined the first three years of operation for the Southern San Mateo County Drug Court and found that the 2-year follow-up re-arrest rates for graduates was 19% compared to 53% for nongraduates. Fielding and colleagues (2002) found similarly strong positive effects on reduced recidivism in Los Angeles County. Many other studies have also found favorable drops in recidivism for drug court graduates compared to nongraduates (Goldkamp, White & Robinson 2001; Peters & Murrin 2000), although they do differ on the magnitude of this impact, with some studies reporting higher reductions and some much more modest ones (Gottfredson & Exum 2002; Rempel et al. 2003). In the absence of random-assignment studies, it remains possible that the differences found in recidivism reflect primarily criteria and processes of selection for drug court handling rather than program effects of the drug court itself.
As Sanford & Arrigo (2005) note, and a perusal of the existing literature supports, outcomes other than recidivism are rarely considered. To some degree, this makes sense. While the obvious goal of drug courts is to help addicts overcome their addiction, since the program is a part of the criminal justice system, the main means of assessing whether this is achieved is whether a person is re-arrested for a drug related crime. But clearly this is an imperfect measure of success (as people can be using drugs and simply not be getting caught for it), and also a limited means of assessing overall program success. Other factors, such as employment stability, improved family relations, educational attainment, decreased welfare receipt, and improved networks can all be indicators of successful program outcomes.
Aside from the difficulty of gathering data for drug court defendants and comparison groups, the high variation in design between individual drug court programs also complicates evaluation. Consequently, some recent research has moved away from evaluating drug court effectiveness and has instead focused on evaluating what aspects of drug court programs are the most effective for defendant rehabilitation. Sanford & Arrigo (2005)...
|
