Drug Courts - Just the Beginning: How to Get Other Areas of Public Policy in Sync? Addressing Continuing Collateral Consequences for Drug Offenders

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Download Full-text

Drug Courts—Just the Beginning: Getting Other Areas of Public Policy in Sync

Substance Use & Misuse ◽

10.1080/10826080601141982 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 42 (2-3) ◽

pp. 243-256 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Caroline S. Cooper

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Drug Courts

Download Full-text

Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders

Journal of Drug Issues ◽

10.1177/0022042616678614 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 47 (1) ◽

pp. 132-142 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Alana Rosenberg ◽

Allison K. Groves ◽

Kim M. Blankenship

Keyword(s):

Drug Treatment ◽

Poverty Alleviation ◽

Racial Bias ◽

Racial Justice ◽

New Haven ◽

Collateral Consequences ◽

Drug Offenders ◽

Black And White ◽

Drug Problems ◽

Addictive Drug

Despite knowledge of racial bias for drug-related criminal justice involvement and its collateral consequences, we know less about differences between Black and White drug offenders. We compare 243 Black and White non-violent drug offenders in New Haven, Connecticut, for demographic characteristics, substance use, and reentry services accessed. Blacks were significantly more likely to have sales and possession charges; significantly more likely to prefer marijuana, a less addictive drug; and significantly less likely to report having severe drug problems. For both races, drug treatment was the most common service accessed through supervision. These comparisons suggest different reasons for committing drug-related crimes and, thus, different reentry programming needs. Although drug treatment is critical for all who need it, for racial justice, we must also intervene to address other needs of offenders, such as poverty alleviation and employment opportunities.

Download Full-text

Drug Courts and Net-Widening in U.S. Cities: A Reanalysis Using Propensity Score Matching

Criminal Justice Policy Review ◽

10.1177/0887403419828045 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 31 (2) ◽

pp. 287-308 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

David R. Lilley ◽

Megan C. Stewart ◽

Kasey Tucker-Gail

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Sample Size ◽

Justice System ◽

Drug Court ◽

Comparison Group ◽

Drug Courts ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Drug Offenders ◽

Net Widening

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses (Lilley, 2017; Walsh, 2011). However, the previous study did not utilize an equivalent comparison group and may have relied on a large sample size to generate findings. The current study tested the robustness of those findings by analyzing only cities with over 50,000 population, including four additional years of data, and utilizing a more equivalent comparison group that was propensity-matched to reduce the possibility that a preexisting difference may have generated higher arrest outcomes among drug court jurisdictions. Net-widening, arrest, and crime challenges and implications for drug court policies and law enforcement roles are also discussed.

Download Full-text

Perceptions of Balanced Justice and Rehabilitation for Drug Offenders

Criminal Justice Policy Review ◽

10.1177/0887403418762532 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 30 (7) ◽

pp. 990-1009 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Lincoln B. Sloas ◽

Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk

Keyword(s):

Logistic Regression ◽

Drug Court ◽

Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽

Drug Courts ◽

Juvenile Courts ◽

Drug Offenders ◽

Criminal Justice Students ◽

Balanced Approach ◽

Southern University ◽

Criminology And Criminal Justice

Drug courts were designed as a way to provide both rehabilitation and sanction-based approaches to drug offenders. Yet studies have not directly tested a “balanced” approach to justice for drug offenders. Drawing on the work of Mears, Pickett, and Mancini, this study adapts the philosophical tenets of juvenile courts into a drug court setting. This study uses multinomial logistic regression from a sample of 575 undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students from a large southern university to assess support for sanctioning approaches for nonviolent and violent drug offenders. Findings suggest that participants support a balanced justice approach to sanctioning violent drug offenders, whereas supporting a rehabilitation approach to sanctioning nonviolent drug offenders. The findings from this study highlight the importance of the public’s differing views on sanctioning drug-involved offenders.

Download Full-text

Women and Adult Drug Treatment Courts

Gender, Psychology, and Justice ◽

10.18574/nyu/9781479819850.003.0005 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Corinne C. Datchi

Keyword(s):

Drug Treatment ◽

Drug Court ◽

Drug Courts ◽

Drug Offenders ◽

Drug Treatment Courts ◽

Legal Power ◽

Psychological Theories ◽

Alternatives To Incarceration ◽

Treatment Courts ◽

The Individual

Drug courts offer community-based correctional alternatives to incarceration and target nonviolent felons who engage in criminal activities to sustain their drug use. They use a variety of technologies and sanctions to monitor drug offenders’ adherence to a sober, prosocial lifestyle and to enforce their compliance with drug treatment. The scope of the court’s surveillance power extends to the addicts’ home, place of employment, treatment provider, and recovery community. This chapter examines women’s experiences of the court’s surveillance and use of legal power to mandate treatment. It also highlights the medical and psychological theories that operate within drug court and inform the court’s understanding of addiction and deviance, in particular the idea that addiction is a disease beyond the control of the individual. It reviews the research on the effectiveness of drug courts in light of empirical knowledge about substance-using women and makes recommendations for enhancing gender responsiveness and multicultural competence in drug courts.

Download Full-text

Drug Courts and Arrest for Substance Possession: Was the African American Community Differentially Impacted?

Crime & Delinquency ◽

10.1177/0011128718789856 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 65 (3) ◽

pp. 352-374

Author(s):

David R. Lilley ◽

Kristen DeVall ◽

Kasey Tucker-Gail

Keyword(s):

Justice System ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Drug Court ◽

Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽

Drug Courts ◽

Differential Impact ◽

Drug Offenders ◽

Minority Threat ◽

Problem Solving Courts ◽

Drug Arrests

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses. The author of that study noted that findings raised further questions about whether the increased drug arrests should be interpreted as beneficial or harmful and whether they might have had a differential impact on minority residents. This study incorporated race-specific arrest information to partially answer these questions by utilizing a series of fixed-effects regressions among U.S. cities with populations over 50,000 from 1990 to 2006. Findings indicate that drug court implementation was associated with substantial increases in arrests of Black, but not White residents. Ethical and theoretical implications for therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, and the minority threat perspective are discussed.

Download Full-text