Success of Drug Court Programs: Examinations of the Perceptions of Drug Court Personnel - Research Paper Example

Drug Courts: A Review of Four Journal Articles Success of Drug Court Programs: Examinations of the Perceptions of Drug Court Personnel By Lisa S. Norad and Phillip E. Carlen The research done by Norad and Carlen is designed to create an understanding of the way in which drug courts have been successful or have failed through the perceptions of judges and administrators. The following hypotheses were used in defining the intent of the article: Hypothesis 1 suggests that perceived drug court success will be significantly influenced by personal characteristics of drug court personnel(position, years of service, age, gender, race, education, drug court activities). Hypothesis 2 suggests that perceived drug court success will be significantly influenced by drug court program characteristics (operational duration, total clients served, number of counties in district, population, jurisdiction, drug court model). Hypothesis 3 suggests that drug court personnel will perceive local officials as (a) most supportive of drug courts, (b) placing themost importance on drug courts, and (c) having the greatest influence over drug courts. 4 suggests that drug court personnel will perceive federal officials as (a) least supportive of drug courts, (b) placing the least importance on drug courts, and (c) havingthe least influence over drug courts (Norad and Carlen 330). The researchers used five states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah) in order to create their data. These states were chosen because they had similar predominant political belief systems along with similar programs. Surveys were sent to judges and administrators throughout each of the states. The dependant variable was based on the perception of drug court success as summed up through nine conditions or services that relate to the drug court system. A five point scale system was implemented with 4 equaling significant improvement, 3 equaling some improvement, 2 equaling no change, 1 equaling some deterioration, and 0 equaling significant deterioration. Of the participants contacted, 114 respondents were viable (Norad and Carlen 330). The most significant finding is that in conservative states it is possible for drug courts to work effectively and have perceived success by those that are involved. The perception of those involved with the program was measured in order to determine whether the success of these programs was realized by those involved with the programs. The administrators with the least education but the most experience in working with drug related offenders had the strongest perception of success. The conservative nature of a state does not diminish the success of innovative programs where the health and welfare of both the offender and society is adjudicated. Therefore, the combined efforts of all actors in regard to drug offenses where both incarceration and rehabilitation efforts are concerned, does not fall contrary to conservative values. The article was defined and researched with a well executed methodology. However, the limitations of the work include a low response rate of 34%, which means that the participant group was low in comparison to the initial desired number of participants. As well, the measurement of perception may or may not line up with statistical realities of the success of the program. The concept of the article, however, has a great deal of value in understanding how a program that has compassionate goals as well as goals related to justice can be perceived within a more conservative society that may not be known for having sympathy for offenders. The work has value in providing a framework for future planning of similar programs where the satisfaction of those involved is concerned. Juvenile Drug Courts: Understanding the Importance of Dimensional Variability By John J. Sloan and John Ortiz Smykla The article by Sloan and Smykla intends to show that the research and study of drug courts in juvenile systems have such variance that the results of much of the work are skewed by the inconsistency of the individual programs. The research shows that there are great variances that affect the overall success and failure of the programs. In the process of creating the work, the researchers used the work of Goldkamp (1999) in order to define the purpose of a drug court. Three elements define the drug court system. The first is that the drug court is court centered approach that has treatment and the ending of the issues of drug abuse at its core. The second is that the judge takes on roles of sentencing, supervising, and determining a course of treatment. Finally, the third element is that the courts and treatment facilitators work together to come up with solutions that provide a more solid foundation for decreased recidivism (Sloan and Smykla 343). The data was derived from previously collected data done by Cooper and Bartlett in 1998. Cooper and Bartlett collected a series of data about the participants in juvenile drug programs which included types of usage, treatments, demographics, and agencies and their policies. Sloan and Smykla utilized this data in order to create two sets of variables. One set of variables captured the general characteristics of the courts, while the other captured variables that corresponded to Goldkamp’s typology of adult drug court. As a result, there is a great disparity in the specifics of juvenile drug courts under topics that are concerned with the amount of money spent by each offender (which can range from 500.00 to more than 2100.00 in fees) to the annual capacity for providing this type of system to offenders. The results of the study are somewhat disconcerting where research into drug courts for juvenile offenders is concerned. The researchers state that “Without understanding a particular juvenile drug court’s uniqueness, validity is compromised” (Sloan and Smykla 358). This strongly suggests that much of the available research on juvenile drug courts does not hold true or valid as the work doesn’t take into consideration the wide variety of variables that differ from one system. As Sloan and Smykla theorize, the juvenile drug court system cannot be considered a static variable when doing research on the topic (358). The implications of this finding changes the way in which all previous research can be viewed for its viability. Since the differences that can be appreciated from one court system to the next are profound, the results of studies that do not take this into consideration will be in question. As well, on a sociological level, this means that there is a severe inequity in the available resources that one system has over another. This suggests that a great deal of the current research will have only a small amount of relevancy because the advantages of one system will change the way it compares to a system without those advantages. The researchers conclude that the idea that juvenile drug courts should all be the same does not correspond to an understanding that there will be differing needs from one place to another. As well, it is clear that the systems are currently operating at their capacity to do so with available funding and given resources. However, the conclusion has been drawn that to try and study if the juvenile drug court systems are working overall cannot be accomplished without taking into consideration the wide discrepancies in the variables. If research that is done makes the mistake of considering the juvenile drug court system as a static variable, the work will have no real life relevance and may actually harm the advances that could have been made if those differences were taken into consideration. This research is innovative and fresh in its approach to the problem of the topic as it has effectively challenged the methodologies of earlier studies. Outcome Trajectories in Drug Court: Do All Participants Have Serious Drug Problems? By David DeMatteo, Douglas B. Marlowe, David S. Festinger and Patricia L. Arabia The research done by DeMatteo, Marlowe, Festinger and Arabia has significance in that it discusses the use of drug courts and the validity as to whether all the participants are in need of drug therapies and have actual drug usage problems. They state that the success rate is between 50% to 70%, however there appears to be an approximate one third of all participants that are not in need of drug rehabilitation. Their results show that approximately one fifth of those in need of help respond well while one half of the participants had drug issues as soon as 14 weeks after participating in drug court (354). These results take into consideration that the one third did not need drug intervention when taken into drug court. In order to prepare their study, the researchers used 254 participants from three different adult drug court programs. The dependant measure of the study was the use of urine tests in order to determine compliance. Exploratory cluster analytic techniques were used to identify typographies in reference to different trajectories of drug treatments. Of the participants, 87% were in a program where it was necessary to meet with the judge every two weeks. Of these participants, this was the most effective structure under which a success rate could be achieved for those who were determined to have an actual drug problem. The model of interaction with the judge where they were seen as needed, which was represented by the 13% did not have the same level of success (DeMatteo et al 356). The participants took the fifth addition ASI in order to determine past and current problems in drugs, alcohol, legal, medical, family, social, employment, and psychiatric matters. They also took the Antisocial Personality Disorder Interview as well as the Prior Treatment Questionnaire. This allowed for the researcher to develop a fully comprehensive insight into the issues that each of the participants was facing as well as the level of drug abuse problems that were being experienced in their life. The participants were requires to participate in their court ordered drug testing and provide those results as well as urine tests then given 6 and 12 months after completion of the program (DeMatteo et al 357-358). From the methods of study, the researchers were able to determine that one third of the participants did not have a serious drug problem because of the ability they showed in abstaining from drugs in a short period of time. This suggests that drug use by these individuals did not require a treatment program in order to end the drug use (DeMatteo et al 356). The drug court program has more serious consequences from not giving a urine test than for giving a positive result for drugs so it was not unusual to see a positive result in those who had a real problem with abusing drugs. Therefore, these individuals did not need the costly programs that real drug users needed in order to discontinue their use and were benefiting from a program whose funds should have been used for others. The consequences of this study are determined by the reported success rates of drug court programs in that it is possible that a portion of the success is overstated as one third more or less of the participants would have been able to discontinue drugs without the program. Realistically speaking, this means that of the 50% success rate, only 20% were dependant on drugs and needed programmed intervention. This reduces the success rate to one fifth of those involved. This research provides a point of view that must be taken into consideration when examining the success of drug court programs. The data was collected from a sufficient participant group and their histories were well enough explored that the results can be considered viable. In conducting further research and exploration on drug court programs, this study will provide an insight that will adjust the perceived success that other researchers may report. The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: the Cincinnati Experience By Shelly Johnson Listwan, Jody L. Sundt, Alexander M. Holsinger and Edward J. Latessa Johnson Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger and Latessa have designed a study that looks at the recidivism of drug court program participants as a way to determine the success of the program. The Hamilton County Drug Court program was used as the locus of the study. The following research questions were used in order to provide more focus to the work: 1. Do drug court participants differ from comparison group members with regard to arrest or incarceration rates for drug-related offenses? 2. Do drug court participants differ from comparison group members on arrest for any offense? 3. Does participation in the drug court affect the likelihood that an individual will recidivate? 4. Does participation in status review hearings influence the likelihood that an individual will recidivate. Through the use of these research questions the study was able to reach some conclusions upon the success rate of the program through the examination of recidivism. The methodology of this study was designed around a nonequivalent control group. The participant group was comprised of members who qualified as both having a drug abuse problem and being put into the drug court program. The comparison group was comprised of those who had committed drug related crimes but either did not qualify for or were simply not put into the drug court program. The drug court group did have a higher level of women and repeat offenders, but the groups were similar in age, race, and education (Johnson Listwan et al 396). The data was collected from demographic information, the drug court docket, recidivism data from the Regional Crime Information Center, and incarceration information was provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (Johnson Listwan et al 397). The independent variables for the study were determined by the group in which the participant belonged (1 = drug court, 0 = comparison group). Other independent variables include fines, drivers’ license suspension, a sentence to probation supervision, gender, age, education, OPI score, prior record, time at risk #1 for arrests, and time at risk #2 for incarceration (Johnson Listwan et al 398). Dependent variables were designed for arrest and or incarceration for any charge subsequent to participation in the drug court program (Johnson Listwan et al 398). The results of the data collection provided an outcome that suggested that while arrests for drug related charges had decreased, overall rates of incarceration after the program saw little difference between the control group and the drug court participant group. This suggests that the drug court system does nothing to significantly lower recidivism, which puts into question the success of the program. However, the outcome that has a startling suggestion of success is that the offenders who are compelled to go through treatment have an equal or better chance at success in handling their drug abuse issues as does those who do it of their own free will. This suggests some rate of success as it means that those who would not choose to seek treatment will still have a good chance at successfully completing treatment and rehabilitating their lives. The recommendations of the researchers are that the drug courts examine a system of classification that will eliminate a one size fits all approach to assisting those who are in trouble with drug abuse, thus removing the associated crimes that drug abusers commit from society. The study provides an interesting approach to the subject in that it examines what comes after the program. This approach suggests that being in the system is inclined to keep someone in the system with repeat offenses, but can diminish the effects of drug abuse, thus helping individuals and society. The study was hampered by a somewhat uncooperative system that declined allowing the participants in the program to be randomly assigned to the study. However, through researching public records and utilizing that information in order to track participants, the researchers provide insight into the success rates and rates of failure that the drug court system provides. Works Cited DeMatteo, David, Douglas B. Marlowe, David S. Festinger and Patricia L. Arabia. Outcome Trajectories in Drug Court : Do All Participants Have Serious Drug Problems? Criminal Justice and Behavior. 36 (2009): 354-368. Print. Johnson Listwan, Shelly, Jody L. Sundt, Alexander M. Holsinger and Edward J. Latessa. The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: the Cincinnati Experience. Crime and Delinquency. 49 (2003): 389-411. Print. Norad, Lisa S. and Phillip E. Carlen. Success of Drug Court Programs: Examinations of the Perceptions of Drug Court Personnel. Criminal Justice Review. 33.3 (September 2008): 329-342. Print. Sloan, John J. and John Ortiz Smykla. Juvenile Drug Courts: Understanding the Importance of Dimensional Variability. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 14.3 (September 2003): 339- 360. Print. Read More