Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drug Courts: A Secondary Prevention Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Preventing Crime and Violence

Part of the book series: Advances in Prevention Science ((Adv. Prevention Science))

  • 3587 Accesses

Abstract

There is a well established relationship between crime and substance use; offenders are four times more likely to have a substance use disorder than non-offenders. The need for addiction treatment in the criminal justice system outweighs available resources, is met with barriers when available, and is often contingent upon an individual’s readiness for change. Thus, an alternative response is warranted. Given the shared populations targeted by criminal justice and public health systems, there is a significant need for coordinated efforts. Drug courts are a criminal justice-based intervention effective in reducing rates of recidivism and drug use, with the potential to make a public health impact. Factors that contribute to drug court effectiveness are reviewed and include a discussion of criminal thinking and substance misuse as intervention targets. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the challenges of this comprehensive approach particularly related to workforce training and development, assessment, and treatment content and dosage.

K. Guastaferro was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers P50 DA039838 and T32DA017629. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA or the National Institutes of Health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agerwala, S. M., & McCance-Katz, E. F. (2012). Integrating screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into clinical practice settings: A brief review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(4), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akers, R. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, M. M., Mutter, R., & Teich, J. L. (2015). The CBHSQ report: State participation in the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act: Implications for uninsured individuals with a behavioral health condition. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alterman, A. I., McKay, J. R., Mulvaney, F. D., & McLellan, A. T. (1996). Prediction of attrition from day hospital treatment in lower socioeconomic cocaine-dependent men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 40(3), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). (2013). In D. Mee-Lee, G. D. Shulman, M. J. Fishman, D. R. Gastfriend, & M. M. Miller (Eds). The ASAM criteria: Treatment criteria for addictive substance-related, and co-occurring conditions (3rd ed.). Carson City, NV: The Change Companies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: Anderson Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, C. M., Grogan, C. M., Brennan, M., & Pollack, H. A. (2015). Lessons from Medicaid’s divergent path on mental health and addiction services. Health Affairs, 34(7), 1131–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arabia, P. L., Fox, G., Caughie, J., Marlowe, D. B., & Festinger, D. S. (2008). Sanctioning practices in an adult felony drug court. Drug Court Review, 6, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. A., Carroll, K. M., Canning-Ball, M., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2006). Reasons for dropout from drug abuse treatment: Symptoms, personality, and motivation. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko, S., Hiller, M., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Treating substance use disorders in the criminal justice system. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(11), 414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(2), 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, D., Day, E., Campbell, A., & Flynn, P. M. (2009). Relationship between drug treatment engagement and criminal thinking style among drug-using offenders. European Addiction Research, 15, 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., et al. (2007). Release from prison—a high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, D. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K., Gainey, R. R., & Fleming, C. B. (1998). Research report: A meta-analysis of predictors of continued drug use during and after treatment for opiate addiction. Addiction, 93(1), 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2010). Associations with substance abuse treatment completion among drug court outcomes. Substance Use and Misuse, 45(12), 1874–1891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Scarpitti, F. R. (2002). Factors associated with completion of a drug treatment court diversion program. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(12–13), 1615–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the key components of drug courts: A comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes, and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caudy, M. S., Folk, J. B., Stuewig, J. B., Wooditch, A., Martinex, A., Maass, S., et al. (2015). Does substance misuse moderate the relationship between criminal thinking and recidivism? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, J. M., & Chaiken, M. R. (1990). Drugs and predatory crime. Crime and Justice, 13, 203–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(2), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, E. T., Rose, D. E., Yano, E. M., Wells, K. B., Metzger, M. E., Post, E. P., et al. (2013). Determinants of readiness for primary care-mental health integration (PC-MHI) in the VA health care system. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(3), 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dackis, C., & O’Brien, C. (2005). Neurobiology of addiction: Treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1431–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deschenes, E. P., Ireland, C., & Kleinpeter, C. B. (2009). Enhancing drug court success. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1998). Toward a comprehensive, Transtheoretical model of change. In W. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating Addictive Behaviors (pp. 3–24). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DiPietro, B., & Klingenmaier, L. (2013). Achieving public health goals through Medicaid expansion: Opportunities in criminal justice, homelessness, and behavioral health with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), e25–e29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobkin, P. L., De Civita, M., Paraherakis, A., & Gill, K. (2002). The role of functional social support in treatment retention and outcomes among outpatient adult substance abusers. Addiction, 97(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, P., & Baldwin, H. (2013). Recovery post treatment: Plans, barriers, and motivators. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, & Policy, 8(6), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, D. M., Brockman, B., Dickman, S., Alexander, N., & Rich, J. D. (2012). Public health and the epidemic of incarceration. Annual Reviews in Public Health, 33, 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E., Li, L., & Hser, Y. I. (2009). Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 204–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farabee, D., Rawson, R. A., & Gawad, T. A. (2015). Treatment in criminal justice settings. In N. El-Guebaly, G. Carrà, & M. Galanter (Eds.), Textbook of addiction treatment: International perspectives (Vol. 2). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farole, D. J., & Cissner, A. B. (2007). Seeing eye to eye: Participant and staff perspectives on drug courts. In G. Berman, M. Rempel, & R. V. Wolf (Eds.), Documenting results: Research on problem-solving justice (pp. 51–73). New York: Center for Court Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M., & Marsden, J. (2007). Acute risk of drug-related death among newly released prisoners in England and Wales. Addiction, 103(2), 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frescoln, K. P. (2014). Engaging with the Affordable Care Act: Implications and recommendations for adult drug court professionals. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, P., Taxman, F., & Henderson, C. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. R. (2013). African American participants’ views on racial disparities in drug court outcomes. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 13(2), 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, J. B., & Greifinger, R. B. (1993). Correctional health care: A public health opportunity. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118, 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2002). Retrospective evaluation of two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clark County, Nevada, and Multnomah County, Oregon. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L. (1991). Compulsory treatment for drug-dependent persons: Justifications for a public health approach to drug dependency. Milbank Quarterly, 69(4), 561–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredon, D. C., Kearley, B. W., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2007). How drug treatment courts work: An analysis of mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gryczynski, J., Schwartz, R. P., O’Grady, K. E., Restivo, L., Mitchell, S. G., & Jaffe, J. H. (2016). Understanding patterns of high-cost health care use across different substance user groups. Health Affairs, 35(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guastaferro, W. P. (2011). Using the level of service inventory-revised to improve assessment in drug court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 769–789. doi:10.1177/0306624X11413879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guastaferro, W. P. (2014). Evaluation of the DeKalb county superior court drug court program. Atlanta, GA: Guastaferro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guastaferro, W. P., & Daigle, L. E. (2012). Linking noncompliant behaviors and programmatic responses: The use of graduated sanctions in a felony-level drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 42(4), 396–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyateng, T., McSweeney, T., & Hough, M. (2010). Key predictors of compliance with community supervision in London. London: London Criminal Justice Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammett, T. M., Gaiter, J. L., & Crawford, C. (1998). Reaching seriously at-risk populations: Health interventions in criminal justice settings. Health Education & Behavior, 25(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1999). Final report: Findings from the evaluation of the DC superior court drug intervention program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. M. (1998). Attrition revisited. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, C. (2008). MRT: Critical component of a local drug court program. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 17(1), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickert, A. O., Boyle, S. W., & Tollefson, D. R. (2009). Factors that predict drug court completion and drop out: Findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County’s adult felony drug court. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Risk factors that predict dropout from corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M. (2002). Drug user treatment within a criminal justice context. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(8–10), 985–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hser, Y. I., Anglin, M. D., Grella, C., Longshore, D., & Prendergast, M. L. (1997). Drug treatment careers A conceptual framework and existing research findings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(6), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hser, Y. I., Evans, E., Huang, D., & Anglin, D. M. (2004). Relationship between drug treatment services, retention, and outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 55, 767–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hser, Y. I., Hoffman, V., Grella, C. E., & Anglin, M. D. (2001). A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(5), 503–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R. L., Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., Harwood, H. J., Cavanaugh, E. R., & Ginzburg, H. M. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: A national study of effectiveness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddleston, W., & Marlowe, D. B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Drug Court Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddleston, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B. M., & Cobbina, J. (2007). The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 37(3), 619–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, E., Peters, R. H., & Kremling, J. (2015). Behavioral health treatment history among persons in the justice system: Findings from the arrestee drug abuse monitoring II program. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. G. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2014). The strength of the participant-judge relationship predicts better drug court outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(2), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf.

  • Karberg, J. C., & James, D. J. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 209588.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, R. S., & Pasquarella, J. (2009). Drug courts: A review of the evidence. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, A., McSweeney, T., Turnbull, P., & Bhardwa, B. (2011). Engaging substance misusing offenders: A rapid review of the substance misuse treatment literature. Institute for Criminal Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner, R. A., & Goodman, E. (2007). Effectiveness and impact of Thurston County, Washington Drug Court program. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 16(2), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleber, H. D., Weiss, R. D., Anton, R. F. Jr., George, T. P., Greenfield, S. F., Kosten, T. R., et al. (2007). Treatment of patients with substance use disorders, 2nd ed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(4), 5–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, M., Tran, T. H., Fishbein, P., Magula, M., Allen, W., & Lacy, G. (2003). Opportunities and barriers in probation reform: A case study of drug testing and sanctions. UC Office of the President, California Policy Research Center. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0238v37t.

  • Knight, K., Garner, B., Simpson, D., Morey, J., & Flynn, P. (2006). An assessment for criminal thinking. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetzle, D., Listwan, S. J., Guastaferro, W. P., & Kobus, K. (2013). Treating high-risk offenders in the community: The potential of drug courts. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(5), 449–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koob, J., Brocato, J., & Kleinpeter, C. (2011). Enhancing residential treatment for drug court participants. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(5), 252–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labrecque, R. M., Smith, P., Lovins, B., & Latessa, E. J. (2014). The importance of reassessment: How changes in the LSI-R risk score can improve the prediction of recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. A. (1994). Between and probation: Intermediate sanctions. Science, 264, 791–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15(1), 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leukefeld, C. G., Tims, F. M., & Platt, J. J. (2001). Future directions in substance abuse relapse and recovery. In F. M. Tims, C. G. Leukefeld, & J. J. Platt (Eds.), Recovery relapse and recovery in addictions (pp. 401–413). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, C. H., Krebs, C. P., & Lattimore, P. K. (2006). Sanctions and rewards in drug court programs: Implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(1), 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6, 611–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Landenberger, N. A. (2006). Cognitive behavioral interventions. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Welsh (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 57–71). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, T., Williams, K., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2000). A process evaluation of a drug court: methodology and results. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3), 369–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, J. B., Kulesza, M., Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B., & Larimer, M. (2014). Stigma predicts residential treatment length for substance use disorder. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(3), 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magill, M., & Ray, L. A. (2009). Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit drug users: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(4), 516–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura, S., Lee, J. D., Hershberger, J., Joseph, H., Marsch, L., Shropshire, C., et al. (2009). Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: A randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 99(1–3), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D.B. (2002). Effective strategies for intervening with drug abusing offenders, 47 Vill. L. Rev. 989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B. (2010). Research update on adult drug courts. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals. https://www.google.com/search?q=nadcp&oq=nadcp&aqs=chrome.69i57j0j69i60j0j69i60l2.727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8.

  • Marlowe, D. B. (2015). Drug courts. In N. el-Guebaly, G. Carra, & M. Galanter (Eds.), Textbook of addiction treatment: International perspectives. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Benasutti, K. M., Fox, G., & Croft, J. R. (2012). Adaptive programming improves outcomes in drug court: An experimental trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(4), 514–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., & Lee, P. A. (2004). The Judge is a key component of drug court. National Drug Court Institute Drug Court Review, 4(2), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., & Meyer, W. G. (Eds.). (2011). The drug court judicial benchbook. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., Patapis, N. S., & DeMatteo, D. (2003). Amenability to treatment of drug offenders. Fed Probation, 67(2), 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mateyoke-Scrivner, A., Webster, J. M., Staton, M., & Leukefeld, C. (2004). Treatment retention predictors of drug court participants in a rural state. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 30(3), 605–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matusow, H., Dickman, S. L., Rich, J. D., Fong, C., Dumont, D. M., Hardin, C., et al. (2013). Medication assisted treatment in US drug courts: Results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers, and attitudes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(5), 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, A. Thomas. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of addiction treatment: What should a drug court team look for in a referral site? In C. Hardin & J. N. Kushner (Eds.), Quality improvement for drug courts: Evidence-based practices. NDCI: Alexandria, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G., & Lapham, A. (2005). Staff perspectives on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) in a large southwestern jail. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrall, L. C., Kariminia, A., Binswanger, I. A., Hobbs, M. S., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., et al. (2010). Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison. Addiction, 105, 1545–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in Drug Court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(4), 522–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Shutt, J. E. (2001). Considering the need for empirically grounded drug court screening mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & McKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H., Pettit, B., & Gruber, V. A. (1995). Characteristics and outcomes of three models of community residential care for abuse patients. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(1), 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. D., Batastini, A. B., Murray, D. D., Serna, C., & Porras, C. (2015). Criminal thinking: A fixed or fluid process? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10), 1045–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies Press. (2013). Health and incarceration: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2012). Adult drug court best practice standards (Vol. 1). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Centeron Addiction and Substance Abuse [NCASA]. (2012). Addiction medicine: Closing the gap between science and practice. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2015). Nationwide trends. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Committee on causes and consequences of high rates of incarceration. In J. Travis, B. Western, & S. Redburn (Eds.), Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (N-SSATS). (2014). Data on substance abuse treatment facilities, 2013. BHSIS series S-73, HHS publication no. (SMA) 14–4890. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunn, A., Zaller, N., Dickman, S., Trimbur, C., Nijhawan, A., & Rich, J. D. (2009). Methadone and buprenorphine prescribing and referral practices in US prison systems: Results from a nationwide survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 105(1–2), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurco, D. (1998). A long-term program of research on drug use and crime. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(9), 1817–1837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2014). Arrestee drug abuse monitoring (ADAM) II 2013 annual report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offord, D. R. (2000). Selection of levels of prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 25(6), 833–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, N. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osher, F., D’Amora, D. A., Plotkin, M., Jarrett, N., & Eggleston, A. (2012). Adults with behavioral health needs under correctional supervision: A shared framework for reducing recidivism and promoting recovery. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osher, F. C., & Steadman, H. J. (2007). Adapting evidence-based practices for persons with mental illness involved with the criminal justice system. Psychiatric Services, 58(11), 1472–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. H., Haas, A. L., & Hunt, W. M. (2002). Treatment “dosage” effects in drug court programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33(4), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polaschek, D. L. L. (2011). Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for conceptualizing the development and provision of cognitive behavioral rehabilitation programs for offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, R. H., & Rosky, J. W. (2013). The iron fist in the latex glove: The intersection of public health and criminal justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 276–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M., Podus, D., Chang, E., & Urada, D. (2002). The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparison group studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 67, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, J. D., Boutwell, A. E., Shield, D. C., Key, R. G., McKenzie, M., Clarke, J. G., et al. (2005). Attitudes and practices regarding the use of methadone in US state and federal prisons. Journal of Urban Health, 82(3), 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, S. B., Rempel, M., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C. H., Green, M., et al. (2011). The multisite adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237112.pdf.

  • Rossman, S. B., & Zweig, J. M. (2012). What have we learned from the multisite adult drug court evaluation? Implications for practice and policy. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saum, C. A., & Hiller, M. L. (2008). Should violent offenders be excluded from drug court participation? An examination of the recidivism of violent and nonviolent drug court participants. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saum, C. A., Scarpitti, F. R., & Robbins, C. A. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiff, M., & Terry, Clinton. I. I. I. (1997). Predicting graduation from Broward County’s Dedicated Drug Treatment Court. The Justice System Journal, 19(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 493–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shicor, D., & Sechrest, D. K. (2001). Determinants of graduation from a day treatment drug court in California: A Preliminary study. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simourd, D. J., & Olver, M. E. (2002). The future of criminal attitudes research and practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 427–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. D. (1979). The relation of time spent in drug abuse treatment to posttreatment outcomes. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(11), 1449–1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997a). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(4), 294–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Greener, J. M. (1997b). Drug abuse treatment process components that improve retention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(6), 565–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3), 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, J. F., & Phillips, J. (2007). The institute of medicine framework and its implication for the advancement of prevention, policy, programs, and practice. California: Community Prevention Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, M. J. (1992). Dropping out of substance abuse treatment: A clinically oriented review. Clinical Psychology Review, 12(1), 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2006). TIP 47, substance abuse: Clinical issues in intensive outpatient treatment, a treatment improvement protocol. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014a). National survey of substance abuse treatment services (N-SSATS): 2013, Data on substance abuse treatment facilities. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014b). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH series H-48, HHS publication no. (SMA) 14-4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner-Smith, E. E., Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2013). The comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatment for adolescent substance abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S. (2008). No illusion, offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision model. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified-therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. The Prison Journal, 82(2), 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2003a). Drug treatment in the community: A case study of system integration issues. Federal Probation, 67(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2003b). Substance abuse counselors’ treatment philosophy and the content of treatment services provided to offenders in drug court programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25(2), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2005). Explaining drug treatment completion in drug court courts. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42(1), 23–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Caudy, M. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., Caudy, M. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013a). Risk-need-responsivity (RNR): Leading towards another generation of the model. In F. S. Taxman & A. Pattavina (Eds.), Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk need responsivity (RNR) modeling for the criminal justice system. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., Cropsey, K. L., Young, D. W., & Wexler, H. (2007a). Screening, assessment, and referral practices in adult correctional settings: A national perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1216–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013). Simulation Strategies to Reduce Recidivism. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Perdoni, M. (2009). Drug courts. In J. M. Miller (Ed.) 21st Century criminology: A reference handbook, Vol. 2., 21st Century reference series (pp. 675–686). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Caudy, M. (2013b). The plight of providing appropriate substance abuse treatment services to offenders: Modeling the gaps in service delivery. Victims and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research Policy and Practice, 8, 70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007b). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., & Deschenes, E. (1999). Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 61–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2010). From coercion to cohesion: Treating drug dependence through health care, not punishment. New York, NY: United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/Coercion_Ebook.pdf.

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2012). World drug report. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Justice. (2015). Adult drug court discretionary grant program FY 2015 competitive grant announcement. Washington, DC: US DOJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkow, N., & Li, T. (2005). The neuroscience of addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1429–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (1995a). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles. Part I. Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (1995b). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles. Part II. Identifying simulated response sets. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westermeyer, J. (2000). Addiction, community and state: A review. American Journal of Addiction, 9(1), 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wild, T. C., Roberts, A. B., & Cooper E. L. (2002) Compulsory substance abuse treatment: An overview of recent findings and issues. European Addiction Research, 8, 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 459–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Friedmann, P. D., & Gerstein, D. R. (2003). Does retention matter? Treatment duration and improvement in drug use. Addiction, 98, 673–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C., Downey, P. M., Roman, J., & Rossman, S. B. (2012). Drug court policies and practices: How program implementation affects offender substance use and criminal behavior outcomes. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 43–79.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 W 59th St, 53327 Haaren Hall, New York, NY, 10019, USA

    Wendy P. Guastaferro & Laura Lutgen

  2. Methodology Center, The Pennsylvania State University, 404 Health and Human Development Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Kate Guastaferro

Authors
  1. Wendy P. Guastaferro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Lutgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kate Guastaferro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy P. Guastaferro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Brent Teasdale

  2. Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

    Mindy S. Bradley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guastaferro, W.P., Lutgen, L., Guastaferro, K. (2017). Drug Courts: A Secondary Prevention Model. In: Teasdale, B., Bradley, M. (eds) Preventing Crime and Violence. Advances in Prevention Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44124-5_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44124-5_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44122-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44124-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation