What Impact Do Sanctions and Incentives of Probationers Have on Success in Drug Court Programs - Research Proposal Example

Introduction: The drug court is meant to be a place for the people with major drug problems or one is charged with a drug offense or offenses that are related to drug problems and are generally nonviolent people. They include teams of highly specialized people and are meant to assist people to come up with ways in which they can solve the existing non-violent drug-related cases with the aim of working in line with the existing Supreme Court structure (Joyce, 2004). They are meant to build a close link between criminal justice and drug treatment professionals in handling and address these cases. They utilize a system of graduated sanctions and incentives to hold offenders accountable for non-compliant behaviors and to encourage recovery goals among the offenders (Jeffrey & John, 2004). The impact of these incentives and sanctions has been widely debated and this just shows how the people are interested in finding the best way to deal with the offenders other than just taking them to court. Researchers emphasize on-going program efforts to continually assess the effectiveness of the intervention plans to enable the policy makers enforce and update the current programs. Literature review: According to Marlowe, punishments as incentives are meant to be consequences of specific behavior that reduces the likelihood of the repeatability of the behavior of the occurrence of the behavior at the same rate as that in the present (Marlowe, 1999). He also quotes that the removal of a sanction is contingent on a target behavior and which has an effect of increasing the behavior as a negative reinforcement and should be avoided (Marlowe, 1999). They differ in that negative reinforcement focuses on increasing desirable behavior rather than decreasing the undesirable behavior. Researches done by Brennan and Mednick show that the continuous application of sanctions among the offenders evidenced lower arrest rates compared to those who received intermittent sanctions who took longer periods at quitting their criminal activities (Brennan & Mednick, 1994). Anglin concurs with this research saying that they are effective as they increase severity and predictability of the next behavior pattern of the offender once it is administered (Anglin, 1998). Harrell on the other hand came up with the theory that the defendants on the sanctions docket were more ,likely to be found to be drug free three times more than those in the control docket (Harrell, 1998). According to research done in 2000, Harrell also noted that the people in the sanctions docket were better at realizing the self-control in that the rules for applying penalties was an effective way of coming up with the required emotional support (Harrell, 2000). The American university drug court clearing and technical assistant project of 1997 reported that there was a possibility of the sanctions that were imposed on non-compliance with the program requirements as a distinction between the drug courts and prior treatments. The sanctions have further been found to give overwhelming reduction of the criminal behaviors as well as drug use in that they offer retention and completion of the treatment programs (Nemes, et al, 1998). Dr. Belenko further asserted that comprehensive supervision and monitoring increases the rate at which retention has been effective in the treatment of offenders and also in reduction of the drug abuse and criminal behavior (Belenko, 1999). Many of the previous researches show that the early drug courts had positive results. However, this publication is meant to provide a basis for research as there needs to be improvement in the way that the drug court practitioners should understand the primary priorities for the field of drug treatment and the impact that the sanctions and the incentives play in creating that person that the court is intent in bringing out. It will also offer information about researches that were done previously in a bid to come up with a guide to locate sources of evaluation. It is meant to show that the impact of the sanctions and the incentives is strongest when they are delivered immediately after a violation. This will reduce the rate at which the new bad behavior will fall in between the breach and the sanctions and also impair the desired behavior meant to be achieved via sanctioning (Gary, 2008). Data and methods: Before a research is carried out, one has to consider the viability, desirability and achievability of the methods that are going to be applied to the research variables. This research is meant to be applicable to the entire justice system and also provide a reason for funders to come to the aid due to the outcomes achieved. We have already organized for the reports of the participants and the non-participants in a bid to come up with a common ground to be able to define the national data reporting repository and a mechanism for disseminating the information to the justice practitioners as fats as the results are got. The research will be carried out in a survey where the researchers will visit different rehabilitation centers to come up with the required outcomes. They will use questionnaires and interviews to come up with tabulated results also come up with the variables that will be used in the research process. The preferred place to carry this research was the regional rehabilitation center where the offenders will be placed under the sanctions docket and others in the in the criminal docket. The process will take a minimum of two years in order to come up with the ideal results in the case where the survey will be conducted. The questionnaires will be used to outline the number of ways in which the researchers will expect the outcomes to go. This implies that the questionnaires will be broad in terms of covering a lot of material that requires the input of the participants and the true indication of the effects of each question to the emotional build of the person. The interview will be carried out to ensure that the person gives personal experience rather than biased information given the fact that the application of questionnaires might be biased and this implies that the interviews will be handy in coming up with clarified information and also almost unbiased information given the fact that individuals may feel like omitting things which may be important to you and conversely add information that may be inconsequential to your research (Albert, et al, 2006). Discussion: Offering sanctions and incentives is very important to the offenders and the justice system at large. This is because the effective application of these sanctions and incentives offers us with results and this means that the justice system will achieve the ultimate goal of offering correctional facilities to the drug abusers and the non-violent criminals with a drug abuse history (Marie, 2007). The questionnaires are meant to show the relationship between the time taken to apply the signs and the outcomes expected. They are meant to answer the questions of the effectiveness of the sanctions, the impact of the incentives and also on the impact of immediate imposition of the sanctions. The interviews on the other hand are to check on the way that they handle the outcomes and the way that the offenders take in the results of the treatment program. It is clear that the people in the sanctions ward will handle the treatment well and give positive results due the negative sanctions and the positive sanctions which serve as the only way to reinforce and retain the good behavior that has been acquired. Intervention designed to mobilize the internal resources for change by enhancing intrinsic motivation. This is part of the interviewing process and this means that the researcher will also look into the contributions of the people involved in transmitting of the treatment of the offenders. This means that the messenger is supposed to be also a part of the message and is supposed to clarify values and amplify any personal inconsistencies (Higgins & Silverman, 1999). It has been noted through research by Marlowe that punishment will be effective if the offender has the ability and the opportunity to respond as expected. It is also good to note that an individual responds appropriately only if the demands placed upon him and are excessive and if the individual also lacks the skills to respond as expected (Marlowe, 1999). The stages of change anticipated should be systematically laid out in that there must be pre-contemplation on the part of the offender as the person does not consider change and is also reluctant to perceive his problem. Then there should be the contemplation stage where the offender is in-between the need for change and also the costs. There is bound to be decisional imbalance at this stage. Then the individual is prepared to handle the task and then the real action takes place with his consent. The next step is to maintain the change and solve the problem from within (Higgins & Silverman, 1999). References Albert R. R., David W. S., Barbara W. W. (2006), Social work in juvenile and criminal justice settings, Michigan: Charles C Thomas Anglin, M.D., Hser, Y. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for offenders. Paper presented at the National Drug Control Policys Conference of Scholars and Policy Makers, Washington, DC. Belenko, S. (1999), Research on drug courts: A critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, vol.2 (issue 2). Brennan, P. and Mednick, S. “Approach to the Deterrence of Criminal Recidivism.” Vol. 103, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, pp. 430-440 (1994). Drug Courts Program Office. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington DC. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Gary L. F., Nancy A. R. (2008), Encyclopedia of Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery, New York: SAGE Publications, Harrell, A. (1998). Drug courts and the role of graduated sanctions. National Institute of Justice, Washington: Williams & Fletcher Harrell, A. (2000). Evaluation of the D.C. superior court drug intervention programs. National Institute of Justice, Washington: Williams & Fletcher. Higgins, S. T., & Silverman, K. (1999). Motivating Behavior Change among Illicit-Drug Abusers. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Joyce H. L., et al (2004), Substance Abuse: a comprehensive textbook, Chicago: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Jeffrey A. B., John R. (2004), Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse, Michigan: Urban Institute Press Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). “Lessons from Behavioral Research: Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts.” National Drug Court Institute Review, vol. 2 (issue 1), Marie P. (2007), Unequal under Law: Race in the War on Drugs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Nemes, S., Wish, E., & Messina, N. (1999). The District of Columbia Treatment Initiative (DCI). College Park. MD: Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR). Read More