Adult Drug Courts The Effect of Structural Differences

Adult Drug Courts: The Effect of Structural Differences on Program Retention Rates Natasha Williams, Ph. D. , J. D. , MPH Post Doctoral Fellow, Morgan State University and Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute, Baltimore, MD

Introduction

Therapeutic Jurisprudence “Therapeutic jurisprudence is the study of the role of law as a therapeutic agent. It suggests that society should utilize theories, philosophies, and findings of various disciplines to help shape and develop the law… It uses social science to study the extent to which the legal rule promotes the psychological and physical well-being of the people it affects. ”

Theory Implications Focuses on the socio-psychological ways in which laws and legal processes affect individuals. l Legal policy determinations are made based upon empirical studies. l Reliance on the social sciences to guide analysis of the law. l Proposes that the legal community look to the other social sciences for their solutions before enacting law. l

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Its Application to Drug Court Research l l l Outcome oriented, looking at the effects produced by the legal system and inquiring into their causes. Focuses on consequences, on empirically verifiable results based on various social sciences. Legal and jurisprudential foundation of the drug court movement. Represents the adoption and integration of drug treatment methodologies into the judicial setting. Drug courts represent the first consistent use of therapeutic jurisprudence in the criminal justice system.

What is a Drug Court? l Non-adversarial l Early approach identification of eligible participants l Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant

What is a Drug Court? (cont’d) l Abstinence testing monitored by frequent drug l Graduated rewards and sanctions for compliance and noncompliance l Synthesis of therapeutic treatment and judicial process

Research Question How do the structural differences among urban adult drug courts affect program retention rates? l Treatment services (matching clients) l Rehabilitation services (linkages) l Duration of treatment (adequate duration) l Graduated sanctions and rewards (behavioral change through leverage)

Hypotheses l Ho 1: The number and type of treatment services affect retention rates. l Ho 2: The number and type of rehabilitation services affect retention rates. l Ho 3: The duration of treatment affects retention rates. l Ho 4: The type and frequency of graduated sanctions and rewards affect retention rates.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical Framework (cont’d) Program Characteristics l Accurate assessment of client needs l Matching clients to treatment services l Adequate duration of treatment l Continuity of care l Behavioral change by leverage l Treatment integrity l Linkages with other services

METHODS Data source was the Drug Courts 1999 Program Update Survey conducted by the U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (DCCTAP) l Survey was mailed to 210 adult drug courts that were in operation as of December 31, 1999. l Sample consisted of 146 adult drug courts that had been in operation for at least twelve months. l The data analysis involved factor analysis and regression analysis l

Data Analysis Plan l Descriptive statistics l Data analysis techniques - factor analysis - reliability analysis - correlation analysis l Regression analysis - multiple regression analysis

Dependent Variable Retention rates - An indicator to which a program has been successful at graduating or retaining offenders as active program participants. Currently active and successfully completed total number admitted

Descriptive Statistics: Program Type (%)

Descriptive Statistics: Program Type (%)

Descriptive Statistics: Reported Primary Drugs of Abuse (%)

Descriptive Statistics: Reported Primary Drugs of Abuse (%)

Descriptive Statistics: Services Provided (%)

Descriptive Statistics: Services Provided (%)

Data Analysis Results l Due to limitations of the drug courts’ various theoretical models and outcome measures, the research design was unable to explain the interaction among the structural variables

Limitations l Lack of client level data l Recidivism data not available, therefore retention rates used as outcome measure l Respondent l Self-report Bias survey

Discussion l Expand theoretical model to include a domain specifically for model type l Incorporate use of client level data l Use recidivism data rather than retention as outcome measure l Develop longitudinal research designs

Implications for Future Research and Policy l Develop consensus on what drug courts are expected to achieve. l Develop a baseline for drug court evaluation. l More theory and model building to determine which program characteristics are most influential on drug court retention so that programs can be designed with these features in mind to better serve drug court participants and to increase program retention and decrease recidivism.

References l l l Belenko, S. (2000). The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Review, 63, 833 -872. Pendergast, M. L. , Anglin, D. M. , & Wellisch, J. (1995). Treatment for drug-abusing offenders under community supervision. Federal Probation, 59(4), 66 -75. U. S. Department of Justice, (1998). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, D. C. : Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. U. S. Department of Justice, (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, D. C. : Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice. Winick, B. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 184 -206.

Acknowledgments Mark Sciegaj, Ph. D. , Director of the Center for Research on Aging and Intergenerational Studies, Lasell College l Caroline Cooper, Associate Director, Justice Programs Office, American University l Drug Abuse Research Program (DARP), Morgan State University l Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute l