Advertisement

Drug Court Participation and Time to Failure: an Examination of Recidivism Across Program Outcome

  • Benjamin R. GibbsEmail author
  • Robert Lytle
Article

Abstract

Drug courts were developed to offer substance abuse treatment along with intensive supervision in an effort to better attend to the needs of these offenders, lessen commitments to prison, and reduce costs to the criminal justice system. Despite the reported success of drug courts, reductions in recidivism appear to be reserved for those who complete the program. Those who fail the program are remanded back to the court for traditional sentencing that may negate any participation benefit. Scholars have long considered the role the criminal justice system has played in the desistance of criminal activity. Much of the research has focused on the outcomes of postconviction sanctioning, finding little support for incarceration has as a deterrent agent. Moreover, the stigma of a criminal conviction, alone, has been shown to exacerbate criminal offending. We used a sample of 733 drug court participants to compare reoffending patterns between sentencing outcomes (dismissal, failed-probation, failed incarcerated). We used survival analysis to compare criminal abstinence in drug court participants across three potential program outcomes – case dismissal, probation, and imprisonment. The current findings demonstrate differences in recidivism between convicted and non-convicted past participants, but see mostly null effects when isolating the analysis between custodial and non-custodial sentences.

Keywords

Recidivism Drug court Incarceration Survival analysis Propensity score analysis Deterrence Labeling 

Notes

Supplementary material

12103_2019_9498_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (21 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 21 kb)
12103_2019_9498_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 28 kb)
12103_2019_9498_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (212 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 211 kb)

References

  1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis. In J. Fox (Ed.), Quantitative applications in the social sciences series (Vol. 46, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, P. C. (2011). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks, D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2004). Participation in drug treatment and time to rearrest. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, D. A. (2005). Distinguishing offense conduct and offender characterizes in modern sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 58(1), 277–291.Google Scholar
  6. Boldt, R. C. (2010). The “tomahawk” and the “healing balm:” Drug treatment courts in theory and practice. Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 10, 1), 1–1),26.Google Scholar
  7. Bushway, S., Johnson, B. D., & Slocum, L. A. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8, 6–42.Google Scholar
  9. Chiricos, T. G., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cid, J. (2009). Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6(6), 1477–3708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleves, M., Gutierrez, R. G., Gould, W., & Marchenko, Y. V. (2010). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society – Series B, 34, 187–202.Google Scholar
  13. Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons to not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring research. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 485–655.Google Scholar
  14. DeJong, C. (1997). Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 35(4), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallager, J. R. (2014). Predicting criminal recidivism following drug court: Implications for drug court practice and policy advocacy. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 35(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 27–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottfredson, D. C., & Exum, L. (2002). The Baltimore city drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, M. B. (2000). The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Review, 78, 1439–1534.Google Scholar
  24. Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74(2), 439–537.Google Scholar
  25. Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87(3), 706–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonson, C. L. (2010). The impact of imprisonment on reoffending: A meta-analysis. PhD Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  27. Kang, J. D., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical science, 22(4), 523–539.Google Scholar
  28. King, G., & Nielsen, R. (2019). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Published online in Political Analysis.  https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.
  29. Koons-Witt, B. A., Sevigny, E. L., Burrow, J. D., & Hester, R. (2014). Gender and sentencing outcomes in South Carolina: Examining the interactions with race, age, and offender type. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(3), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Koetse, W., & Lattimore, P. K. (2007). Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism and generalized estimating equations. Drug and Alcohol Dependency, 91(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Boston, MA: Boston College Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  32. Levinthal, C. F. (2015). Drugs, society, and criminal justice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Listwan, S. J., Sundt, J. L., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loudenberg, R., Drube, G., & Young, L. (2013). Analysis of 24/7 sobriety program SCRAM participant DUI offense recidivism. Salem, SD: Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC.Google Scholar
  35. Loughran, T. A., Wilson, T., Nagin, D. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Evolutionary regression? Assessing the problem of hidden biases in criminal justice applications using propensity scores. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lulham, R., Weatherburn, D., & Bartels, L. (2009). The recidivism of offenders given suspended sentences: A comparison with full-time imprisonment. Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 136. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2188708. Accessed 4 Sept 2019.
  37. Marlowe, D. B. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. National Institute on Drug Abuse Science and Practice Perspectives, 21, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2014). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  39. Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., & Bales, W. D. (2012). Gender differences in the effects of prison on recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 115–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagin, D. S., & Snodgress, G. M. (2013). The effect of incarceration on re-offending: Evidence from a natural experiment in Pennsylvania. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(4), 601–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Association of Drug Court Professionals & United States of America. (2013). Adult drug court best practice standards (Vol. I). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.Google Scholar
  44. O’Keefe, K., & Rempel, M. (2006). The Staten Island treatment court evaluation: Planning, implementation, and impacts. New York, NY: Center of Court Innovation.Google Scholar
  45. Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quinn, M. C. (2001). Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 26(1–2), 37–75.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometricka, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  49. Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sampson, R. J., Laub, J. H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spencer, M. P. (1995). Sentencing drug offenders: The incarceration addiction. Villanova Law Review, 40(2), 335–381.Google Scholar
  52. Spohn, C. (2007). The deterrent effect of imprisonment and offenders' stakes in conformity. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40(2), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spohn, C., & Piper, R. K. (2004). The Douglas County drug court: Characteristics of participants, case outcomes, and recidivism. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha.Google Scholar
  55. Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frenzel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  57. Sykes, G. M. (1958). Society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  59. Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 605, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ulmer, J. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 164–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Villettaz, P., Gillieron, G., & Killias, M. (2015). The effects on re-offending of custodial vs. non-custodial sanctions: An updated systematic review of the state of knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.Google Scholar
  62. Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.Google Scholar
  63. Vittinghoff, E., & McCulloch, C. E. (2006). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wheelock, D. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ball State UniversityMuncieUSA
  2. 2.University of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations