Skip to main content
Log in

Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study

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

Abstract

This study uses an experimental design comparing 235 offenders assigned either to drug treatment court or treatment as usual. It extends prior analyses of this study sample to examine whether differences observed between drug treatment court subjects and control subjects at one and two years after the start of the program persist after three years, when many of the subjects had ceased active treatment. Further, it extends earlier analyses that showed that the quantity of drug treatment court services received was related to lower recidivism rates by using an instrumental variables approach to handle the endogeneity problem that sometimes arises when subjects self-select into different levels of service. Results show a sustained treatment effect on recidivism, controlling for time at risk. This effect is not limited to the period during which services are delivered. Rather, it persists even after participation in the drug court program ceases. Results also show that the recidivism is lowest among subjects who participate at higher levels in certified drug treatment, status hearings, and drug testing. These positive findings are tempered with findings that more than three-fourths of clients are re-arrested within three years, regardless of participation in the drug treatment court, and that drug treatment court cases spend approximately the same number of days incarcerated as do control cases. Implications for strengthening drug treatment courts are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anglin, D. M. & Hser, Y. (1990). Legal coercion and drug abuse treatment: Research findings and social policy implications. In J. A. Inciardi (Ed.), Handbook of drug control in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D. (2005). Instrumental variable methods in experimental criminological research: What, why and how. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/t0314.

  • Banks, D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (2003). The effects of drug treatment and supervision on time to re-arrest among drug treatment court participants. Journal of Drug Issues 33(2), 385–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (2004). Participation in drug treatment court and time to re-arrest. Justice Quarterly 21(3), 637–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar Association of Baltimore City (1990). The drug crisis and underfunding of the justice system in Baltimore city. Report of the Russell Committee 9.

  • Belenko, S. (1993). Crack and the evolution of anti-drug policy. Contributions in Criminology and Penology 42(10), 13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review I(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review II(2), 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. J. & Allison, B. (1983). Legal coercion and retention in drug abuse treatment. Hospital Community Psychiatry 34, 1145–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. S. (1997). Drug court survey report: Executive summary. Available Online: http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/exec1.htm.

  • Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S. & Greenwood, P. W. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. The Justice System Journal 18, 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drug Courts Program Office (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finigan, M. W. (1999). Assessing cost off-sets in a drug court setting. National Drug Court Institute Review 15(1), 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, E. M. & McLanahan, S. (1996). An illustration of the use of instrumental variables: Do neighborhood conditions affect a young person's chance of finishing high school? Psychological Methods 1, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkamp, J. S. & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court: Research in brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D. & Robinson, J. B. (2001a). Context and change: The evolution of pioneering drug courts in Portland and Las Vegas (1991–1998). Law & Policy 23(2), 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D. & Robinson, J. B. (2001b). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 31, 27–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C. & Exum, L. M. (2002). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39, 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Coblentz, K., & Harmon, M. A. (1997). A short-term outcome evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court program. Perspectives, Winter: 33–38.

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B. W., Najaka, S. S. & Rocha, C. M. (2003a). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Three-year self-report outcome study. Evaluation Review 29(1), 42–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B., Najaka, S. S. & Rocha, C. (2003b). Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Evaluation of client self-reports at three-year follow-up. Technical report available from the authors.

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S. & Kearley, B. (2003c). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy 2(2), 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D. & Newman, J. P. (1990). The revised Psychopathy Checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment 2, 338–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S. & Roman, J. (1998). Findings from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Final report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. D. & Scarpitti, F. R. (2002). Drug treatment courts: Progress and issues. Substance Use and Misuse 37, 1441–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G. & Rosenthal, J. T. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74(2), 439–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Morral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., Deschenes, E. & Iguchi, M. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues 31, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McColl, W. D. (1996). Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court: Theory and practice in an emerging field. Maryland Law Review 55(2), 467–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., Pettinati, H. & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 9, 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (2001). Drug court activity update: Summary information on all programs and detailed information on adult drug courts, June, 2001. Available Online: http://www.american. edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/allcourtactivity.pdf.

  • Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (2004). Summary of drug court activity by state and county, May, 2004. Available Online: http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/drugchart2k.pdf.

  • Peters, R. H. & Murrin, M. R. (1998). Evaluation of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Florida's First Judicial Circuit. Tampa, FL: Department of Mental Health, Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, D. K., Shichor, D., Artist, K. & Briceno, G. (1998). The Riverside County Drug Court: Final research report for the Riverside County Probation Department. Riverside County, CA: California State University, Criminal Justice Department, San Bernardino, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T. & Frenzel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues 31, 149–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice (1998). Looking at a decade of drug courts. NCJ 171140. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (2002). Drug courts: Better DOJ data collection and evaluation efforts needed to measure impact of drug court programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O. & MacKenzie, D. (2002). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

  • Wish, E. D. & Johnson, B. D. (1986). The impact of substance abuse on criminal careers. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth & C. A. Visher (Eds.), Criminal careers and “career criminals” (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise C. Gottfredson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gottfredson, D.C., Najaka, S.S., Kearley, B.W. et al. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. J Exp Criminol 2, 67–98 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-5128-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-5128-8

Key words

Navigation