Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts.

Methods

We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process.

Results

Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents.

Conclusions

Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashford, J. B. (2004). Treating substance-abusing parents: a study of the Pima County family drug court approach. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55(4), 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R., Gibbons, C., & Guo, S. (2006). Substance abuse treatment and the recurrence of maltreatment among caregivers with children living at home: a propensity score analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, G., Brindis, C., Clayson, Z., & Peterson, S. (1996). Options for recovery: promoting success among women mandated to treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 28(1), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boles, S. M., Young, N. K., Moore, T., & DiPirro-Beard, S. (2007). The Sacramento dependency drug court: development and outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, B. (2014). Policing and social identity: procedural justice, inclusion and cooperation between police and the public. Police and Society, 24(1), 22–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brank, E. M., & Haby, J. A. (2010). The intended and unintended consequences of problem-solving courts. In R. L. Wiener & E. M. Brank (Eds.), Problem solving courts: Social science and legal perspectives (pp. 239–251). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brecht, M. L., Anglin, D., & Wang, J. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 19(1), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitenbucher, P., Pfeifer, J., & Wheeler, M. (2018). Beyond guidance: a sneak preview of upcoming national FDC standards. Training session presented at 2018 National Association of Drug Court Professionals Annual Training Conference, Houston, Texas. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from http://www.nadcpconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TS-13-1.pdf.

  • Bruns, E. J., Pullmann, M. D., Weathers, E. S., Wirschem, M. L., & Murphy, J. K. (2012). Effects of a multidisciplinary Family Treatment Drug Court on child and family outcomes: results of a quasi-experimental study. Child Maltreatment, 17(3), 218–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the key components of drug courts: a comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223853.pdf

  • Carey, S. M., Sanders, M. B., Waller, M., Burrus, S. W. M., & Aborn, J. A. (2010). Jackson county community family court – process, outcome, and cost evaluation: final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Byrne_06101.pdf.

  • Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2014). Parental substance use and the child welfare system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/parentalsubabuse.pdf.

  • Copeland, J., & Maxwell, J. C. (2007). Cannabis treatment outcomes among legally coerced and non-coerced adults. BMC Public Health, 7, 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M. D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frailing, K. (2010). How mental health courts function: outcomes and observations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 207–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer, M. S. (2006). The impact of the community court model on defendant perceptions of fairness: a case study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., & Summers, A. (2013). Exploring the value-added of specialized problem-solving courts for dependency cases. In R. L. Wiener & E. M. Brank (Eds.), Problem solving courts: Social science and legal perspectives (pp. 33–53). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, M. M., González, R., Carvacho, H., Jiménez-Moya, G., Moya, C., & Jackson, J. (2018). On the justification of intergroup violence: the roles of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and group identity in attitudes toward violence among indigenous people. Psychology of Violence, 8(3), 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Kearly, B. W., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2007). How drug treatment courts work: an analysis of mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), 3–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gover, A. R., Brank, E. M., & MacDonald, J. M. (2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: an example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13(6), 603–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. L., Furrer, C. J., Worcel, S. D., Burrus, S. W. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2007). How effective are family treatment drug courts? Results from a 4-site national study. Child Maltreatment, 12(1), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. L., Furrer, C. J., Worcel, S. D., Burrus, S. W. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2009). Building the evidence base for family drug treatment courts: results from recent outcome studies. Drug Court Review, 6(2), 53–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Broome, K. M., & Simpson, D. D. (1998). Legal pressure and treatment retention in a national sample of long-term residential programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. L., & McCaughrin, W. C. (1996). The treatment effectiveness of outpatient substance misuse treatment organizations between court-mandated and voluntary clients. Substance Use & Misuse, 31(7), 895–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, K. A., & Holtfreter, K. (2016). An integrated theory of specialized court programs: using procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence to promote offender compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. S. (2008). Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice. Melbourne University Law Review, 32, 1096–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klag, S., O’Callaghan, F., & Creed, P. (2005). The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: an overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use and Misuse, 40, 1777–1795.

    Google Scholar 

  • L.L. v. Colorado. 10 P.2d 1271 (2000).

  • Langkamp, D. L., Lehman, A., & Lemeshow, S. (2010). Techniques for handling missing data in secondary analysis with large surveys. Academic Pediatrics, 10(3), 205–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture: variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 767–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looney, M., & Metcalf, S. (1974). The “fatigue factor” in drug addiction: insufficient motive for treatment. Hospital Community Psychiatry, 23, 528–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCullum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, B. (2016). The judge is the key component: the importance of procedural fairness in drug-treatment courts. Court Review, 52, 8–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, J. F. (1988). Clinical experience with civil commitment. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: research and clinical practice. NIDA Monograph No 86 (pp. 35–56). Rockville, MD: NIDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D. B., & Carey, S. M. (2012). Research update on family drug courts. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from http://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/Reseach%20Update%20on%20Family%20Drug%20Courts%20-%20NADCP.pdf.

  • McIvor, G. (2009). Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Principles of drug addiction treatment: a research-based guide (Third ed.) Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/principles-effective-treatment.

  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43–250(2). Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=43-250.

  • Oliveros, A., & Kaufman, J. (2011). Addressing substance abuse treatment needs of parents involved with the child welfare system. Child Welfare, 90(1), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perron, B. E., & Bright, C. L. (2008). The influence of legal coercion on dropout from substance abuse treatment: results from a national survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 92(1–3), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poythress, N. G., Petrila, J., McGaha, A., & Boothroyd, R. (2002). Perceived coercion and procedural justice in the Broward mental health court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25, 517–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M. L., Farabee, D., Cartier, J., & Henkin, S. (2002). Involuntary treatment within a prison setting: impact on psychosocial change during treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, M. C. (2001). Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 26, 37–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redlich, A. (2010). The past, present, and future of mental health courts. In R. L. Wiener & E. M. Brank (Eds.), Problem solving courts: social science and legal perspectives (pp. 147–161). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rempel, M., & Destefano, C. D. (2001). Predictors of engagement in court-mandated treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33(4), 87–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman, J.,K., Yahner, J., & Zweig, J.M. (2011). How do drug courts work? In 94–120. Rossman, S.B, Roman, J.K., Zweig, J.M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C.H. (Eds.), The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: the impact of drug courts, 92–120. Urban Institute: Justice Policy Center.

  • Rosenthal, M. P. (1988). The constitutionality of involuntary civil commitment of opiate addicts. Journal of Drug Issues, 18(4), 641–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosky v. (1982). Kramer, 455 U.S. In 745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, P. (2012). To dream the impossible dream? Therapeutic jurisprudence in mainstream courts (2012). International Conference on Law and Society. Retrieved on February 1, 2019, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083370.

  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 830–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: a report to congress on substance abuse in child protection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States General Accounting Office (GAO). (1998). Foster care agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wales, H. W., Hiday, V. A., & Ray, B. (2010). Procedural justice and the mental health court judge’s role in reducing recidivism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 265–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., Cham, H., & Liu, Y. (2014a). Causal inference and generalization in field settings: experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 49–80). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., Cham, H., Thoemmes, F., Renneberg, B., Schultze, J., & Weiler, M. (2014b). Propensity scores as a basis for equating groups: basic principles and application in clinical treatment outcome research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(5), 906–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., & Brank, E. M. (2010). Problem solving courts: social science and legal perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., Winick, B. J., Georges, L. S., & Castro, A. (2010). A testable theory of problem solving courts: avoiding past empirical legal failures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 417–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, T. C., Newton-Taylor, B., & Alleto, R. (1998). Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: Structural and psychological determinants. Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B. J. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1055–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B. J. (2013). Problem solving courts: therapeutic jurisprudence in practice. In R. L. Wiener & E. M. Brank (Eds.), Problem solving courts: social science and legal perspectives (pp. 211–236). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B. J., & Wexler, D. B. (2002). Drug treatment court: therapeutic jurisprudence applied. Touro Law Review, 18, 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worcel, S. D., Furrer, C. J., Green, B. L., Burrus, S. W. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2008). Effect of family treatment drug courts on substance abuse and child welfare outcomes. Child Abuse Review, 17, 427–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, N. K., Boles, S. M., & Otero, C. (2007). Parental substance use disorders and child maltreatment: overlap, gaps, and opportunities. Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This program evaluation was made possible by a Drug Court Enhancement Grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (C-16-0724) of the United States Department of Justice; The Nebraska Resource Project for Vulnerable Young Children; The University of Nebraska Center on Children, Families, and the Law; and the Nebraska Court Improvement Project. Additionally, the authors would like to thank the attorneys; Department of Health and Human Services case workers, supervisors, and administrators; court administrators and staff; research assistants; and families of Lancaster County, Nebraska, for their dedication and determination to making this project a success.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center on Children, Families, and the Law and the Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 206 S. 13th Street, Suite 1000, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Melanie Fessinger, Katherine Hazen & Eve Brank

  2. Center on Children, Families, and the Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 206 S. 13th Street, Suite 1000, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Jamie Bahm & Jennie Cole-Mossman

  3. Lancaster County Juvenile Court, 575 10th St., Lincoln, NE, USA

    Roger Heideman

Authors
  1. Melanie Fessinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Hazen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jamie Bahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennie Cole-Mossman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roger Heideman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eve Brank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Hazen.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fessinger, M., Hazen, K., Bahm, J. et al. Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court. J Exp Criminol 16, 49–77 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation