shelley johnson, dana jones hubbard, and edward}, … courts and treatment: lessons to be learned...
TRANSCRIPT
-1 1
Drug Courts and Treatment: Lessons To BeLearned from the "What Works" Literatu re
Shelley Johnson, Dana Jones Hubbard, and Edward}, Latessa
Drug courts have emerged as a viable T hroughout the past fe~ decade~, alternative
public policy option to deal with the courts that deal specifically WIth drug ~d
onslaught of drug offenders. The model alcohol offenders have emerged, The Ill-. . . crease in the number of drug courts acrossstands m contr~t ~o ~adl.tz~nal cour~ . the country is staggering. As of 1998, a total of 275
models by combmmg]udlClal supervIsIon drug court programs were in operation, serving anand community-based treatment in an estimated 90,000 offenders (Drug Court Programseffort to change offender behavior. Office, 1998). Moreover, the Drug Court ProgramsDrawingfrom the enormous gains in Office, Office of Justice Programs (1998) reportedknowledge regarding the effective that another 155 are in the planning process, (This
.., article is limited to the dedicated drug treatmenttreatment of offenders, thIs artIcle outlInes rt S .al' d rtth t ' d edl' ted. '. cou s. peCl lze cou s a proVl e expsuggestions for focusIng attention on the case management without community-based treat-type and quality of treatmen t services. The ment are not discussed.) One major reason for thisprinciples of effective intervention are gro\Nth stems from the popular view that drug courtsoutlined and suggestions are made as to will reduce substance abuse and criminal recidivismhow they should be included in the effort through frequent judicial monitoring and commu-
. . , nity-based treatment services, By adding a commu-to reduce substance abuse and recIdIvIsm ' ty b d tr t t t th .aliz d. . m - ase ea men componen, ese speCl eamong drug court particIpants, courts represent a major shift in how drug-involved
offenders are processed and given access to treat-Keywords: drug courts, treatment~ what works ment services, However, little attention is given to
the type and quality of the community-based treat-ments offered.
This article addresses several key issues pertainingto the likelihood that drug courts will achieve theirgoals. First, a description of how the drug court
Shelley Johnson, MS, is a Research Associate, Center forCriminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, in Cin-cinnati, Ohio.
Dana Jones Hubbard, MS, is a Research Associate, Centerfor Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
Edward J. Latessa, PhD, is Professor and Head, Division ofCriminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Address correspondence to Shelley Johnson. Division of CriminalCorrections Management Quarterly. 2000. 4(4}. 70-77 Justice, P.O. Box 210389; University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, OR@ 2000 Aspen Publishers. Inc. 45221; e-mail: [email protected].
70
II
Drug Courts and Treatment 71
model has become a therapeutic alternative to tradi- drug courts are still in treatment (primarily outpa-tionalcourtprocessingis examined. Second, a review tient drug-free) after one year" (p.21).of the extant literature surrounding the effectiveness In traditional courts, judicial monitoring is bin-of the drug court model is addressed. Even though dered by burdened court dockets. Drug court judges,the current drug court literature is limited, the cor- however, are key players in the treatment and super-rectional treatment literature indicates that commu- vision of drug-involved offenders (Drug Court Pro-nity-based treatment offers a distinct advantage over grams Office, 1997; Goldkamp, 1994; Tauber, 1994).initiatives relying on enhanced enforcement and in- In the drug court model, judges hold regular statuscarceration. However, not all treatment programs are review hearings with the offender, the counsel, andbased on theoretically grounded principles. Re- often a representative from the service provider.search indicates that the quality and delivery of ser- These hearings provide an opportunity for the judgevices are essential to effectiveness. Given the lack of to monitor participants' progress in treatment, pro-research specifically devoted to drug court treatment vide feedback (both positive and negative) to partici-programs, the third objective is to describe the re- pants, and maintain offender accountability. More-search-based principles of effective intervention and over, the treatment agencies have a systematictheir relevance to drug court practitioners. To in- opportunity to give feedback to judges, thus allowingcrease effectiveness, drug courts cannot simply pro- for the opportunity to reward or hold the offendervide a "black box" of treatment services, but rather more accountable.should consult the current literature regarding the Finally, in addition to the role of the judge, com-principles of effective intervention and hold their munity-based treatment is a crucial component oftreatment referrals to these standards. many drug courts. Experience and research demon-
strate that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing con-The Drug Court Model dition not effectively addressed by increasing sanc-
tioning (see, e.g., Belenko, Mara-Drita, & McElroy,Drug courts differ from traditional court models in 1992; Fagan, 1994). In contrast, research reveals that
several key ways. One major departure pertains to drug addiction is responsive to appropriate treat-how cases are managed. Specifically, drug courts ment. There is a growing body of evidence indicatingmanage cases quickly and make provisions for the that drug treatment-especially intensive, long-termintervention to occur as soon as possible after arrest treatment-can successfully reduce drug use and(Belenko, 1998). Potential clients are often taken im- criminality, even when treatment is involuntarymediately to the treatment agency for assessment (Anglin & Hser, 1990; Anglin, Brecht, & Maddahian,and orientation. Prompt identification of drug-in- 1989; Prendergast, Anglin, & Wellisch, 1995). In short,volved offenders and immediate intervention capi- the drug court movement has been shaped by bothtalize on the crisis of arrest, making it difficult to deny the failure of past efforts to meaningfully reducetheir addictions. Furthermore, minimizing the time drug-related crime and the improved knowledgefrom arrest to disposition is believed to maximize an about the nature of drug addiction and its treatment.offender's motivation for change (Drug Court Pro-grams Office, 1997). Effectiveness of Drug Courts
By acknowledging that the system must be in-volved in drug abuse treatment, drug courts have Despite the rapid expansion of drug courts, theiradopted a collaborative rather than the adversarial growing prevalence, and their popularity, there isapproach found in traditional courts (Drug Court limited research to support their widespread effec-Programs Office, 1998). Prosecutors and defense tiveness. It is difficult to determine whether drugcounselors work together with judges, treatment courts are effective because they differ substantiallyprofessionals, and probation officers to provide the between jurisdictions. Similarly, it is difficult to iden-best opportunity for the offender's success. In fact, tify which components or combination of featuresBelenko (1998) concluded that drug courts are able to are contributing to success or failure. There is someretain clients in treatment longer. Specifically, "it is evidence, however, to suggest that drug courts haveestimated that about 60 percent of those who enter been successful at reducing drng use and recidivism
II
-
72 CORRECrIONS MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY IF AU. 2000
plored the differences between graduates and non-Despite the rapid expansion of drug graduates and found several differences. Specifically,courts their growing prevalence and graduates had fewer prior arrests, were more likely totheir~opularit there is limited' have c?mpl~ted high s~hool or obtained a. general
y, .. education dIploma certificate, report full-time em-research to support the" wIdespread ployment, report living with their parents, and wereeffectiveness. less likely to report cocaine as their drug of choice
(peters et al., 1999).Although a great deal of the research on drug
courts is promising, other studies are providing rea-among program participants. son for pause. For example, a number of courts
Evaluations of drug courts are finally beginning to across the county have failed to show evidence of aemerge in the literature base. For example, research reduction in criminal behavior as measured by rear-by Goldkamp (1994) on the effect of the first drug rest (Belenko, Fagan, & Dumanovsky, 1994;court to emerge in 1989 in Dade County, Florida, has Deschenes & Greenwood, 1994; Granfield et al., 1998;provided insight into the drug court model. Outcome Harrell, 1998; Johnson & Latessa, 1998; Johnson,findings include lower incarceration rates, longer Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 1998). Although it is dif-time to rearrest, and less frequent rearrest among ficult to determine why some programs are failing toparticipants (Goldkamp, 1994). However, Goldkamp show evidence of effectiveness, the correctional(1994) did find higher failure-to-appear rates among treatment literature provides a strong case that thedrug court participants but attributes these rates to quality and content of the treatment programs maythe frequency of appearances required by the court. have an effect. It is unlikely that the drug court modelFurthermore, an analysis of the Maricopa County will be effective merely by holding status review hear-Drug Court demonstrated reductions in recidivism ings to gauge progress. Reducing criminality and ad-
:: and an overall delay in rearrest rates among drug dictions begins with the recognition that drug addic-~, court participants (Hepburn, Johnston, & Rogers, tion is a chronic relapsing condition that will not beJ; 1994). Finally, data from the Escambia County Drug effectively reduced by applying short-term, educa-
Court indicate that graduates are significantly less tion-based treatment services. If the drug courtlikely to be rearrested in comparison to non-gradu- model hopes to achieve behavioral change throughates of the program (Peters & Murrin, 2000; Peters, community-based treatment, the program must useHaas, & Murrin, 1999). empirically validated and theoretically driven treat-
In an effort to predict treatment success, research- ment models (Prendergast et al., 1995).i ers explored the relationship between individual
characteristics and treatment success. Specifically, Principles of Effective InterventionSchiff and Terry (1997) explored the effect of a treat-ment-oriented drug court in Broward County, Although the drug court model contains compo-Florida, and found that "higher education levels and nents that will likely result in offender change, drugdecreased levels of prior crack cocaine use increase courts and drug court treatment agencies should also
:J ~e chances of program graduation" (p. 305). In addi- concentrate efforts on the quality of treatment."": tion, a study of the Denver Drug Court found that Throughout the past few decades, evaluation studies,, l offenders with more extensive involvement with literature reviews, and statistical summaries of the
1 1' drugs are more likely to be revoked from treatment literature (meta-analyses) have demonstrated that~1 (Granfield, Eby, & Brewster, 1998). Similarly, one rehabilitation can work for offenders (e.g., see Cullen
I 'j study of the Dade County Drug Court reported that & Gendreau, 1999). On average, the best programs:: " defendants who reported high levels of drug use at tend to reduce recidivism rates by 30% (Lipsey, 1992).
program entry showed the poorest performance in Indeed, there is evidence that both institutional- andIi! the program (Goldkamp & Weiland, 1993). Finally, community-based substance abuse treatment can be: reports from the Escambia County Drug Court ex- effective at reducing both future criminal behavior
!i'1i!,
! ;f
Drug Courts and Treatment 73
and substance abuse (Millson, Weekes, & Lightfoot, tion. Each of these points will be discussed in detail.1995; Vigdal & Stadler, 1992; Wexler,. Falkin, & Lipton, ...1990). Effective classificatIon
Fortunately, drug courts recognize this literature Drug courts should develop a comprehensiveand conclude that drug and alcohol offenders can strategy designed to classify offenders according tobenefit from community-based treatment. However,. risk level. When risk is considered, traditionally at-research on rehabilitation programs in general find tention shifts to distinguishing security and custodythat not all correctional treatment is equal, and the decisions. However, recent research indicates theability to effectively change offenders' behavior var- risk principle is important for correctional treatmenties depending on the quality of the treatment efforts (Van Voorhis, 1997). Specifically, research(Andrews, Zinger, Bonta, Hoge, Gendreau, & Cullen, concludes that intensive services are more successful1990b; Gendreau & Ross, 1987; Izzo & Ross, 1990; with higher risk offenders. Moreover, the sameinten-Lipsey, 1990). Research suggests that if certain prin- sive services applied to lower risk offenders are in factciples are followed, \he likelihood of reducing recidi - ineffective and in some cases result in increasing of-vism is increased. fender risk (Andrews & Bonta, 1999; Andrews, Bonta,
Gendreau (1996b) provides a comprehensive list of & Hoge, 1990). Services, then, according to this firstthe principles of effective intervention that many re- principle, should be matched to the offenders'likeli-searchers agree are factors that all programs must hood of recidivating (Andrews et al., 1990b; Andrews,consider (Andrews & Bonta, 1999; Palmer, 1992; Van Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Gendreau, 1996a). Drug courtsVoorhis, 1997). The principles include, although are can use this information to place offenders in th~not limited to, the notion that treatment services most appropriate substance abuse program. More-should be based on behavioral approaches and use over, assessing clients using standardized, risk/needcognitive strategies, located in the offenders' natural instruments allows for treatment staff to discoverenvironment, multimodal, intensive enough to be ef- other criminogenic needs (e.g., additional areas offective, encompass rewards for pro-social behavior, clients' lives that contribute to criminality) that musttarget high-risk and high-criminogenic need indi- be addressed.viduals, and matched with the learning styles and Although many correctional programs do not useabilities of the offender. Although all of these prin- standardized, objective risk/need instruments thatciples are important for the issue of quality, several include an overall risk level, use of these instrumentsprinciples are especially relevant to drug courts and in substance abuse treatment is even more infre'-drug court substance abuse programs. quent. Moreover, in their experience assessing sub-
stance abuse programs, the authors have discoveredIncorporating the Principles into Drug that many of the programs also assume the severityCourt Treatment of the client's addiction without measuring the level
with a standardized assessment tool. This finding isThe principles of effective intervention provide the especially problematic when the need for tailoring
context for discovering ways in which drug courts services to specific populations arises. For example, acan become more effective. First, drug courts should study of drug court clients inahio finds that men andincorporate a strategy for classifying clients accord- women present different needs in the area of druging to their risk level. Second, drug court treatment abuse. Specifically, Johnson, Shaffer, & Latessareferrals should be based in a behavioral model and (2000) found that women are more likely than men touse cognitive techniques. In addition, drug court report crack cocaine as their primary drug of choice.programs must be sufficiently intensive to affect be- The use of a standardized assessment is essential tohavioral change. Third, drug courts need to ensure a tailor treatment services to different populations.continuum of care for their clients that includes af- The assessment and identification of criminogenictercare services. Finally, drug courts need to empha- factors and client characteristics are important forsize the quality of treatment by holding their referrals two reasons: (n to identify factors related to theaccountable to the principles of effective interven- individual's specific need for use in his or her treat-
i
74 CORRECTIONS MANAGEMENT QUARTERLy/FALL 2000
ment plan, and (2) factors such as motivation, per-sonality, and intelligence can affect how an indi- Drug court programs should ensure thatvidual responds or his or her amenability to treat- treatment referrals are using effectivement (VanVoorhis, Cullen, & Applegate, 1995). It is d I k #
d .. Imo e s nown to re uce CrimInafor these reasons that drug courts and drug and alco- . .hol treatment programs should not only assess cli- behavIor, such as those theoreticallyents on their level of substance abuse but also on based in behavioral and cognitivetheir overalllikelihoodofr~ci~vating. These ins.tru- strategies.ments should be both objective and standardIZedand include both static and dynamic risk factorsknown to be predictive of future criminal behavior.
. in behavioral and cognitive strategies.BehaVIoral change through treatment The intensity of services should vary according to
In addition to classifying offenders for drug court risk and should also be sufficiently intensive to besubstance abuse programs, the treatment for offend- effective. It is thought that the overall period of treat-ers should be behavioral and based on cognitive ment should be lengthy given the chronic, relapsingtechniques. There are several reasons that drug nature of substance addiction. Research indicatescourts should demand substance abuse program-that regardless of the type of treatment, any programming based on these models. First, numerous studies lasting less than 90 days will likely be ineffectivehave demonstrated that these types of programs are (Anglin & Hser, 1990). Furthermore, according toeffective in reducing recidivism in general (Andrews Gendreau and Goggin (1997), "treatment serviceset aI., 1990b; Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Garrett, 1985; should be of at least 100 hours of direct service over aIzzo & Ross, 1990; lipsey, 1990) and are also effective three- to four-month period" (p. 273). Typically, resi-with substance-abusing populations (Irvin, Bowers, dential treatment programs are able to provide the& Dunn, 1997). Second, traditional models used by structured environment necessary to provide the in-substance abuse programs, such as drug and alcohol tensive services (Anglin &. Hser, 1990). It should beeducation and 12-step models, have not been found noted that intensive treatment programs lastingto be as effective as cognitive-behavioral models more than 1 year, excluding aftercare, might begin to(lightfoot,1999). see diminishing returns (Gendreau & Goggin, 1997).
Cognitive theory suggests that offenders tend todisplay limited problem-solving skills (Ross & AftercareFabiano, 1985), have antisocial values and attitudes The drug court treatment plan should include af-Uennings, Kilkenny, & Kohlberg, 1983), and are tercare as a crucial component of community-basedknown to display thinking errors (Yochelson & treatment. Considering relapse is expected among aSamenow, 1976). Behavior therapy is based on the chronic drug-using population, aftercare services
: notion that environment affects learning and behav- can provide the offender with the means to receiveill:' ior.Although drug and alcohol abuse may be related further, albeit less-intensive, services. Although af-'I to other biochemical and psychological factors, of- tercare is often not present in treatment programs,: .. fenders still choose to use the substance. Cognitive- research is supporting its importance in increasing" behavioral therapy for offenders' targets thinking effectiveness. For example, a recent study found that
and problem-solVing skills through a system of rein- the effects of substance abuse treatment diminishedforcement, pro-social modeling,. and role-playing significantly over a 3-year follow-up period (Martin,(Van Voorhis, Braswell, & Lester, 1997). These tech- Butzin, Saum, & Inciardi, 1999). However, when anniques have been found to be effective at reducing aftercare program was added, the long-term resultsrecidivism and substance abuse (lightfoot, 1999). were more promising (Martin et al., 1999). These ef-Drug court programs should ensure that treatment fects include both reductions in recidivism and absti-referrals are using effective models known to reduce nence from substances. Similar studies concludedcriminal behavior, such as those theoretically based that participation and completion of aftercare ser-
II
Drug Courts and Treatment 75
vices decreased the likelihood of reincarceration over skilled and trained staff members. Too often pro-a 3-year period (Knight, Simpson, & Hiller, 1999; grams are unable to articulate the program design orWexler, Melnick, Lowe, & Peters, 1999). the type of services offered. In this instance, it is ex-
Aftercare should also include more than just occa- tremely difficult to isolate the components that led tosional meetings. Research on effective aftercare success or failure (Van Voorhis et al., 1995). Programsmodels (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994) indicates that should have a system in place forbothintemalevalu-aftercare should begin during the active treatment ations of staff on service delivery as well as externalphase and should include frequent contacts and evaluations of program outcome.home visits. In addition, the offender's risks and Evaluations can assist in program planning andneeds should be reassessed to determine whether improve effectiveness by indicating to staff membersthe appropriate services have been provided. More- and stakeholders the outcome of the program. In ad-over, the intensity and duration should not be fixed dition to indicating whether the program is effective,but dependent on the risk and needs of the offenders. evaluations should also specify the specific compo-
As part of this cohtinuum of care, relapse preven- nents that worked and with whom (Van Voorhis et al.,tion strategies offer tremendous promise. These 1995). Drug courts could use this information andstrategies include teaching participants ways to an- distinguish the effect of the target population, theticipate and cope with high - risk situations. Programs quality of treatment, and the frequency of judicialthat are based on cognitive or social learning strate- involvement on outcome. Given the typical druggies view relapse as a temporary setback that can be court involves a collaboration of services includingovercome through learning alternative responses frequent supervision and community-based treat-(Parks & Marlatt, 1999). The model proposes that ment, evaluation results should be used to increasewhen a person is taught effective coping responses to the efficacy of the model.high-risk or trigger situations, the probability of sub-sequent drug and alcohol use and criminal behavior ...decreases (Parks & Marlatt, 1999). Without a formaland structured program in place, offenders are likely Drug courts have increased dramatically in theto relapse when placed back into the same environ- past several decades. This article explored the historyment. of drug courts and how they differ from traditional
. courts, the effectiveness of the drug court model, andTreatment quality the relevance of the principles of effective treatment.
Finally, to be effective, drug courts should monitor The typical drug court model has many promisingtheir treatment referrals and hold them accountable components that can be effective in reducing recidi-to the principles of effective intervention. This moni- vism. However, the alarming rate at which drugtoring should include developing a system to ensure courts are expanding may serve only to decrease thequality of services and service delivery. Many courts court's overall effectiveness.assume that offender treatment programs are based The implementation of this type of therapeutic al-on theoretically driven models and that staff mem- temative requires careful planning. It is essential thatbers at these programs are trained in the most effec- courts develop detailed selection criteria, use a validtive methods. However, in an assessment of pro- risk/needs assessment, and choose an effective theo-grams across the country, Latessa and Holsinger retically driven treatment model. Unfortunately,(1998) found that this is not the case. Drug courts many courts choose a treatment referral with littlecannot assume that the local treatment programs are knowledge about the type of services offered by themeeting the principles of effective intervention or are program(s). For the practitioner, the implementationconsistently delivering quality treatment and ser- or modification of the drug court should include avices. detailed definition of the appropriate target popula-
In the event that an effective treatment model is tion, the adoption of an effective treatment model,adopted, programs must be aware of the implemen- the development of an aftercare component, and thetation of services and the existence of appropriate development of a quality assurance mechanism that
76 CORRECfIONS MANAGEMENT QUARTERLy/FAIL 2000
includes performance measures and outcome crite- Department of Justice.ria. Further research is clearly needed to establish the Drug Court :~ograms ,?ffice, Office of Justice Programs. (1 ~98.) Druge" ecti.venessofd urt . d. ul court activity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.111 rug co sservmga IVerSepop a- . .. ... .. Fagan, J. A. (1994).. Do criminal sanctions deter drug crimes? Intion m a variety of settings. Moreover, process and MacKenzie, D. L., & Uchida, C. D. (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Evalu-outcome evaluations should include measures of ating public policy initiatives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.both treatment quality and service delivery. In sum- Garrett, C. (1985) Effects of residential treatment on adjudicatedmary, to remain a viable public policy option, drug deli~quents: A meta-analysis. journal of Research in Crime and
h uld b f d d Delinquency, 22(4), 287-308.treatment courts s 0 e aware 0 avances ma e G d P (1996 ) Off d h b.I'tat . Wh tk d. . . en reau,. a . en er re a I I Ion: a we now anm the correctional treatment lIterature and plan what needs to be done. Criminal justice and Behavior, 23(1), 144-treatment services accordingly. 161.
Gendreau, P. (1996b). The principles of effective intervention withoffenders. In Harland A. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that
t work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accom-REFERENCES plishmentsand realities. In Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Lester,
D. (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (pp. 271-280).Altschuler, D. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1994). Intensive aftercare for Cincinnati: Anderson.
high risk juveniles: A community care model. Washington, DC: Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1987) Revivification of rehabilitation:Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Evidence from the 1980's. justice Quarterly, 4, 349-409.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1999). The psychology of criminal Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami's treatment drug court for felony. conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson. defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. Prison jour-., Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for nal, 74(2), 110,-157.
'I effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal justice Goldkamp, J. 5., & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of DadeIi and Behavior, ,~, 19-52. C~unty's fe/~ny drug court (National Institute o! Justice Research! Andrews, D. A., Zinger I., Bonta, J., Hoge, R. D., Gendreau, P., & Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.I Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psycho- Granfield, R., Eby, C., & Brewster, T. (1998). An examination of theI logically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. Denver drug court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug-of-
I Anglin, M. D., & Hser Y. (1990). Treatment of drug abuse. In Tonry, fender system. Law and Policy, 20(2), 183-202.
M., and Wilson, J. Q. (Eds.), Drugs and crime (pp. 393-460). Harrell, A. (1998). Drug courts and the role of graduated sanctions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (National Institute of Justice Research Brief). Washington, DC: U.S.
Anglin, M. D, Brecht, M., & Maddahian, E. (1989). Pretreatment Department of Justice.characteristics and treatment performance of legally coerced versus Hepburn, J. R., Johnston, C. W., & Rogers, S. (1994). Do drugs. Doj voluntary methadone maintenance admissions. Criminology, 27(3), time: An evaluation of the Maricopa County demand reduction
,537-555. program (National Institute of Justice Research Brief). Washington,i Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R. R. (1994). Essential components of DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
1 successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International jour- Irvin, J., Bowers, C., & Dunn, M. (May 1997). Efficacy of relapser ,i nal of Offender and Comparative Criminology, 38(2), 97-104. prevention: A meta-analysis review. Poster presented at the Ameri-I" Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. Na- can Psychological Association 105th Annual Convention, Chicago,
tional Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1),1-43. IL.i ~ Belenko, 5., Fagan, J. A., & Dumanovsky, T. (1994). The effects of Izzo, R., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs: 
Drug Courts and Treatment 77
Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year retention and arrest in drug courts. National Drug Court Institutereincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community Review, 2(1), 33-60.treatment in Texas. The Prison journal, 79(3), 337-352. Prendergast, M., Anglin,. D. M., & Wellisch, J. (1995). Up to speed:
Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating Treatment for drug-abusing offenders under community supervi-correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections sion. Federal Probation, 59(4), 66-75.Management Quarterly, 2(4), 22-29. Ross, R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think. Johnson City, TN:
Lightfoot, L. O. (1999). Treating substance abuse and dependence in Institute of Social Science and Arts.offenders: A review of methods and outcomes. In Latessa, E. J. (Ed.), Schiff, M., & Terry, C. W. III (1997). Predicting graduation fromStrategic solutions: The International Community Corrections Asso- Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court. The justiceSys-ciation examines substance abuse. American Correctional Associa- tem journal, 19(3),291-310.tion. Tauber, J. (1994). Drug courts: Treating drug-using offenders through
Lipsey, M. (1992). juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic sanctions, incentives. Corrections Today, 56(1), 28-'-35.inquiry into the variability of effects In Cook, T .D., et al. (Eds.), Van Voorhis, P. (1997) An overview of offender classification systems.Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. (pp. 83-127). New In Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Lester, D. (Eds.), CorrectionalYork, NY: Sage. counseling and rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Martin, S. 5., Butzin, C. A'I Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three- Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Lester, D. (1997). Correctionalyear outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-in- counseling and rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.volved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., & Applegate, B. (1995). Evaluatingaftercare. The Prison journal, 79(3), 294-320. interventions with violent offenders: A guide for practitioners and
Millson, W. A., Weekes, J. R., & Lightfoot, L.O. (1995). The effective- policymakers. Federal Probation, 59(3),17-28.ness of the offender substance abuse pre-release program: Analysis Vigdal, G. L., & Stadler, D. W. (1992). Comprehensive system devel-of intermediate and post-release outcomes. Ottawa, ON: Correc- opment in corrections for drug abusing offender: The Wisconsintional Service of Canada. Department of Corrections. In Leukefeld, C. G., & Tims, F. M.
Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails (pp. 126-141).Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Parks, G. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1999). Keeping "what works" working: Wexler, H. K., Falkin, G. P., & Lipton, D. S. (1990). Outcome evalua-Cognitive behavioral relapse prevention therapy with substance- tion of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treat-abusing offenders. In Latessa, E. J. (Ed.), Strategic solutions: The ment. Criminal justice and Behavior, 17, 71-92.International Community Corrections Association examines sub- Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three yearstance abuse. American Correctional Association., reincarceration outcomes for amity in-prison therapeutic commu-
Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based nity and aftercare in California. The Prison journal, 79(3), 321-336.drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal justice and Yochelson, 5., & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The criminal personality-Behavior, 27(1), 72-96. volume 1: A profile for change. New York: Jason Aronson.
Peters, R. H., Haas, A. L., & Murrin, M. R. (1999). Predictors of