American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 169–187

“Clean up and go straight”: Effects of drug treatment on recidivism among felony probationers

  • Wm. Reed Benedict
  • Lin Huff-Corzine
  • Jay Corzine
Article

Abstract

The central question we address in this article is whether participation in court-ordered drug treatment programs reduces future criminal involvement among convicted property offenders who have a history of drug abuse. Using a national sample of male property offenders sentenced to felony probation, we analyze drug treatment experience on probationers’ recidivism rates by employing proportional hazards techniques. Results indicate that how successful white men are in completing courtordered drug treatment programs has no significant effect on their recidivism rates. However, AfricanAmerican and Hispanic men who satisfy the expectations of their drug treatment programs are significantly less likely to be rearrested. Overall, our findings support the contention that drug treatment reduces further criminal behavior among men on probation for felony property offenses. Thus, we recommend that court service personnel strive to provide drug treatment programs for property offenders with a history of drug abuse and that supervisors closely monitor probationers’ activities while in treatment to assure lower rates of recidivism.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1984).Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, J. C., Rosen, L., Flueck, J. A., & Nurco, D. N. (1982). Life-time criminality of heroin addicts in the United States.Journal of Drug Issues, 12, 229–239.Google Scholar
  3. Benedict, W. R., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1997). Return to the scene of the punishment: Recidivism of male property offenders on felony probation, 1986–1989.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995).Correctional populations in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Caldwell, M. G. (1951). Review of a new type of probation study made in Alabama.Federal Probation, 15, 3–11.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, S. H., Lin, Y.-H. W., & Wallace, L. (1988).Probationer recidivism in North Carolina: Measurement and classification of risk. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Institute of Government.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables.Journal of the Royal Statistics Society, Series B, 34, 187–202.Google Scholar
  8. Cunniff, M. A., & Shilton, M. (1991).Variations on felony probation: Persons under supervision in 32 urban and suburban counties. Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Justice Planners.Google Scholar
  9. Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S., & Greenwood, P. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County’s drug court.Justice System Journal, 18, 55–73.Google Scholar
  10. Duffee, D. E., & Carlson, B. E. (1996). Competing value premises for the provision of drug treatment to probationers.Crime and Delinquency, 42, 574–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Efron, B. (1977). The efficiency of Cox’s likelihood function for censored data.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72, 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenberg, M., & Fabelo, T. (1996). Evaluation of the Texas substance abuse treatment initiative: The impact of policy research.Crime and Delinquency, 42, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. England, R. W. (1955). A study of postprobation recidivism among five hundred federal offenders.Federal Probation, 19, 10–16.Google Scholar
  14. Falkin, G. P., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M. D. (1994). Drug treatment in the criminal justice system.Federal Probation, 58, 31–36.Google Scholar
  15. Field, G. (1989). The effects of intensive treatment on reducing the criminal recidivism of addicted offenders.Federal Probation, 53, 51–56.Google Scholar
  16. Flauzer, J. P. (1993). Alcohol and other drugs are key causal agents of violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.),Current controversies on family violence (pp. 171–181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Gelles, R. J. (1993). Alcohol and other drugs are associated with violence: They are not its cause. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.),Current controversies on family violence (pp. 182–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, P. J. (1985). The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework.Journal of Drug Issues, 15, 493–506.Google Scholar
  19. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990).A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hepburn, J. R., & Albonetti, C. A. (1994). Recidivism among drug offenders: A survival analysis of the effects of offender characteristics, type of offense, and two types of intervention.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horney, J. D., Osgood, W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances.American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inciardi, J. A., & Pottieger, A. E. (1991). Kids, crack, and crime.Journal of Drug Issues, 21, 257–276.Google Scholar
  23. Irish, J. F. (1989).Probation and recidivism: A study of probation adjustment and its relationship to post-probation outcome for adult criminal offenders. Mineola, NY: Nassau County Probation Department.Google Scholar
  24. Landis, J. R., Mercer, J. K., & Wolff, C. E. (1969). Success and failure of adult probationers in California.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 6, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision.NU Research Report. Washington, DC: US National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  26. Lurigio, A. J., & Petersilia, J. (1992). The emergence of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. In J. M. Bryne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.),Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 3–17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. MacAndrew, C., & Edgerton, R. B. (1969).Drunken comportment: A social explanation. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  28. McGaha, J., Fichter, M., & Hirschburg, P. (1987). Felony probation: A re-examination of public risk.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maltz, M. D. (1984).Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mandel, J. (1979). Hispanics in the criminal justice system: The nonexistent problem.Law and Justice, May/June, 16–20.Google Scholar
  31. Morgan, K. D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome.Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Institute of Justice. (1995).Drug use forecasting: 1994 annual report on adult and juvenile arrestees. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  33. Petersilia, J. (1985).Probation and felony offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  34. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for highrisk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California.Crime and Delinquency, 36, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole.Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 281–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In J. M. Bryne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.),Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctioning (pp. 18–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Pritchard, D. A. (1979). Stable predictors of recidivism: A summary.Criminology, 17, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzo, N. D. (1981). Drug addiction ten years later.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SAS Institute, Inc. (1988).SAS/STAT user’s guide: Release 6.03 edition. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1988).Predicting recidivism using survival models. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz, J. A., Lurigio, A. J., & Slomka, S. A. (1996). The impact of IMPACT: An assessment of the effectiveness of a jail-based treatment program.Crime and Delinquency, 42, 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schinnar, R., & Schinnar, S. (1975). The effects of the criminal justice system on the control of crime: A quantitative approach.Law and Society Review, 9, 581–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, G. L., & Akers, R. (1993). A comparison of recidivism of Florida’s community control and prison: A five-year survival analysis.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tunis, S. L. (1995). Outcome evaluation of jail-based drug treatment: Effects on recidivism.NCCD Focus. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.Google Scholar
  45. Van Stelle, K. R., Mauser, E., & Mober, D. P. (1994). Recidivism to the criminal justice system of substance-abusing offenders diverted into treatment.Crime and Delinquency, 40, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., & Linster, R. L. (1991). Predicting the recidivism of serious youthful offenders using survival models.Criminology, 29, 329–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vito, G. F. (1986). Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response.Federal Probation, 50, 17–25.Google Scholar
  48. Vito, G. F. (1989). The war on drugs.Corrections Today, 51, 34, 36.Google Scholar
  49. Vito, G. F., Wilson, D. G., & Keil, T. J. (1990). Drug testing, treatment, and revocation: A review of program findings.Federal Probation, 54, 37–43.Google Scholar
  50. Wagoner, J. L., & Piazza, N. J. (1993). Group therapy for adult substance abusers on probation.Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation, 19, 41–56.Google Scholar
  51. Whitehead, J. T. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state.Justice Quarterly, 8, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamaguchi, K. (1991).Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wm. Reed Benedict
    • 1
  • Lin Huff-Corzine
    • 2
  • Jay Corzine
    • 2
  1. 1.Eastern Illinois UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando

Personalised recommendations