The challenges of conducting research in drug treatment court settings

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 37, Issue 12-13, 2002, Pages 1635-1664

  Belenko, Steven ^a  

^a Yale School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Criminal justice based treatment; Drug treatment court; Drug treatment court evaluation; Recidivism

Indexed keywords

COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIDIVISM; RESEARCH; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036446768     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/JA-120014425     Document Type: Review

References (105)

1. American University. Drug Court Activity Update: Composite Summary Information, December 2000; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project: Washington, DC, 2001.
2. [4].
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, 1999; U.S. Department of Justice: Washington DC, 2000.
4. Belenko, S. The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Rev. 2000, 63 (3), 833-876.
5. Belenko, S. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 2000.
6. Musto, D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control (Expanded Edition); Oxford University Press: New York, 1987.
7. McAdoo, W. Narcotic addiction as it really is. Saturday Evening Post 1923, March 31, 9.
8. Anglin, M.D. The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction. In Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice; Leukefeld, C.G.; Tims, F.M., Eds.; NIDA Research Monograph 86; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, MD, 1988; 8-34.
9. Belenko, S. The impact of drug offenders on the criminal justice system. In Drugs, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System; Weisheit, R., Ed.; Anderson Publishing Co.: Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
10. Inciardi, J.A. Some considerations on the clinical efficacy of compulsory treatment: Reviewing the New York experience. In Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice; Leukefeld, C.G., Tims, F.M., Eds.; NIDA Research Monograph 86; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, MD, 1988; 126-138.
11. McGlothlin, W.M.; Anglin, M.D.; Wilson, B.D. An Evaluation of the California Civil Addict Program; National Institute on Drug Abuse Services Research Monograph Series, DHEW Publication No. (ADM) 78-558; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1977.
12. Inciardi, J.A.; Martin, S. S. Drug abuse treatment in criminal justice settings. J. Drug Issues 1993, 23 (1), 1-6.
13. De Leon, G. The Therapeutic Community: Theory, Model, and Method; Springer Publishing: New York, 2000.
14. Wexler, H.; Williams, R. The stay'n out therapeutic community: Prison treatment for substance abusers. J. Psychoactive Drugs 1986, 18, 221-230.
15. Knight, K.; Simpson, D.D.; Hiller, M.L. Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. Prison J. 1999, 79 (3), 337-351.
16. Martin, S.S.; Butzin, C.A.; Saum, C.A.; Inciardi, J.A. Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. Prison J. 1999, 79 (3), 294-320.
17. Wexler, H.K.; Melnick, G.; Lowe, L.; Peters, J. Three-Year reincarceration outcomes for amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. Prison J. 1999, 79 (3), 321-336.
18. Belenko, S.; Peugh, J. Fighting crime by treating substance abuse. Issues Sci. Technol. 1998, 15 (1), 53-60.
19. Lindesmith, A.R. The Addict and the Law; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, 1965.
20. Belenko, S.; Dumanovsky, T. Special Drug Courts: Program Brief; U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance: Washington, DC, 1993.
21. Japha, A. The Nation's Toughest Drug Law: Final Report of the Joint Committee on the NY Drug Law Evaluation; National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: Washington, DC, 1978.
22. Kleiman, M.A.R.; Barnett, A.; Bouza, A.V.; Burke, K.M.; Chaiken, M.P. Street Level Drug Enforcement: Examining the Issues; U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC, 1988.
23. Zimmer, L. Operation Pressure Point: An Occasional Paper of the Center for Crime and Justice, New York University Law School; New York University School of Law: New York, 1987.
24. Belenko, S. Crack and the Evolution of Anti-Drug Policy; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1993.
25. Belenko, S.; Fagan, J.A.; Chin, K.L. Criminal justice responses to crack. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 1991, 28 (1), 55-74.
26. Zimring, F.E; Hawkins, G. The Search for Rational Drug Control; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992.
27. Goerdt, J.S.; Martin, J.A. The impact of drug cases on case processing in urban trial courts. State Court J. 1989, Fall, 4-12.
28. Smith, B.E.; Davis, R.; Lurigio, A. J. Introduction to the special issue. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), v-x.
29. [31]
30. Cooper, C.S.; Trotter, J. Recent developments in drug case management: Re-engineering the judicial process. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 83-98.
31. Jacoby, J. Expedited drug case management program: Some lessons in case management reform. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 19-40.
32. Cooper, C.S.; Solomon, M.; Bakke, H.; Lane, T. BJA Pilot Differentiated Case Management (DCM) and Expedited Drug Case Management (EDCM) Program: Overview and Program Summaries; Bureau of Justice Assistance: Washington, DC, 1992.
33. Davis, R.; Smith, B.E.; Lurigio, A.J. Court strategies to cope with rising drug caseloads. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 1-18.
34. Belenko, S. Diverting drug offenders to treatment courts: The Portland experience. In The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation; Terry, C., Ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1999; 108-138.
35. Mahoney, B. Drug courts: What have we learned so far? Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 127-133.
36. Terry, W.C. Judicial change and dedicated treatment courts: Case studies in innovation. In The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation; Terry C., Ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1999; 1-18.
37. Belenko, S. Drug Courts. In Treatment of Drug Offenders Policies and Issues; Leukefeld, C., Tims, F., Farabee, D., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2002.
38. Hora, P.F.; Schma, W.G.; Rosenthal, J. 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 Rev. 1999, 74 (2), 439-537.
39. Taxman, F. Unraveling "what works" for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (2), 93-132.
40. Eisenstein, J.; Jacob, H. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts; Little Brown, and Company: Boston, 1977.
41. Kamisar, Y.; LaFave, W.; Israel, J. Modern Criminal Procedure; West Publishing Company: St. Paul, MN, 1995.
42. Slobogin, C. Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychol. Public Policy Law 1995, 1.
43. Blumstein, A.; Beck, A.J. Population growth in U.S. prisons. 1980-1996. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research; Tonry, M., Petersilia, J., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1999.
44. Smith, B.E.; Davis, R.; Goresky, S. Strategies for Courts to Cope with the Caseload Pressures of Drug Cases: Final Report; American Bar Association: Chicago, 1991.
45. Hillsman, S.T. Pretrial diversion of youthful adults: A decade of reform and research, Justice Syst. J. 1982, 7, 361-387.
46. Goldkamp, J.S.; Weiland, D. Assessing The Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug Court: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice; Criminal Justice Research Institute: Philadelphia, PA, 1993.
47. Haas, Judge. H. S.T.O.P., An Early Drug Intervention and Case Management Program, August 1991-January 1993; Multnomah County Circuit Court: Portland, OR, 1993.
48. Tauber, J. An Evaluation of the Oakland (CA) Drug Court After Three Years; Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Municipal Court: Oakland, CA, 1995.
49. Goldkamp, J. Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court Movement (A working paper of the First National Drug Court Conference); U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice: Washington DC, 1993.
50. Terry, W.C. Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court: From postadjudication to diversion. In The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation; Terry, C., Ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1999; 77-107
51. Deschenes, E.P.; Greenwood, P.W. Maricopa County's drug court: An innovative program for first-time drug offenders on probation. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 99-116.
52. Turner, S.; Greenwood, P.; Fain, T.; Deschenes, E. Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (1), 1-58.
53. U.S. General Accounting Office. Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 1997.
54. U.S. General Accounting Office. Drug Courts: Better DOU Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs. Report No. GAO-02-434; United States General Accounting Office; Washington, DC, 2002.
55. Drug Courts Program Office. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo.htm, 2001.
56. Finigan, M. Assessing cost off-sets in a drug court setting. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (2), 59-92.
57. Peters, R.H.; Murrin, M.R. Evaluation of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Florida's First Judicial Circuit; University of South Florida: Tampa, 1998.
58. Belenko, S. Research on drug courts: A critical review. 1999 Update. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (2), 1-58.
59. Belenko, S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. 2001 Update. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: New York, 2001.
60. Mahoney, B.; Carver, J.; Cooper, C.; Polansky, L.; Weinstein, S.; Wells, J.; Westerfield, T. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems; Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office: Washington, DC, 1998.
61. Tauber, J.; Snavely, K.R. Drug Courts: A Research Agenda; National Drug Court Institute: Alexandria, VA, 1999.
62. Belenko, S. Research on drug courts: A critical review. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1998, 1 (1), 1-42.
63. Broner, N.; Borum, R.; Gawley, K. Criminal justice diversion of individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance use. In Serving Mentally Ill Offenders and Their Victims: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Workers and Other Mental Health Professionals; Landsberg, G., Rock, M., Berg, L., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2001.
64. Hammett, T.; Harmon, P.; Maraschak, L. 1996-1997 Update: HIV/AIDS, STDs, and TB in Correctional Facilities; U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC, 1999.
65. Marquart, J.; Merianos, D.; Hebert, J.; Carroll, L. Health conditions and prisoners: A review of research and emerging areas of inquiry. Prison J. 1997, 77 (2), 184-208.
66. Peters, R.H.; Hills, H.A. In Mental Illness in America's Prisons; Steadman, H.J., Cocozza, J.J., Eds.; National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System: Seattle, WA, 1993.
67. Teplin, L. Mental Health: An Emerging Issue; Presented at the annual conference of the American Correctional Health Services Association, Atlanta, GA, March, 2001.
68. Carroll K.M. Enhancing retention in clinical trials of psychosocial treatments: Practical strategies. In Beyond the Therapeutic Alliance: Keeping the Drug-dependent Individual in Treatment; Onken, L., Blaine, J., Boren, J., Eds.; NIDA Research Monograph Series #165, 4-24; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1997.
69. Chou, C.P.; Hser, Y.I.; Anglin, M.D. Interaction effects of client and treatment program characteristics on retention: An exploratory analysis using hierarchical linear models. Subst. Use Misuse 1998, 33 (11), 2281-2301.
70. Lang, M.; Belenko, S. Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison program. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 2000, 19, 145-160.
71. Simpson, D.D.; Joe, G.W.; Rowan-Szal, G.A. Drug abuse treatment retention and process effects on follow-up outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997, 47, 227-235.
72. Simpson, D.D.; Joe, G.W.; Rowan-Szal, G.A.; Greener, J.M. Drug abuse treatment process components that improve retention. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 1997, 14, 565-572.
73. Harrell, A.; Cavanagh, S.; Roman, J. Final Report: Findings from the Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program; Urban Institute: Washington, DC, 1999.
74. Deschenes, E.P.; Peters, R.H.; Goldkamp, J.S.; Belenko, S. Drug Courts. In Drug Abuse Treatment Through Collaboration: Practice and Research Partnerships that Work; Sorensen, J.L., Rawson, R.A., Guydish, J., Zweben, J.E., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
75. Wenzel, S.L.; Longshore, D.; Turner, S.; Ridgely, M.S. Drug courts, a bridge between criminal justice and health services. J. Crim. Justice 2001, 29, 241-253.
76. Peyton, E.A.; Gossweiler, R. Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts: Report on the 1999 National Drug Court Treatment Survey; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and Drug Courts Program Office: Washington, DC, 2001.
77. Cole, G. F. The Decision to Prosecute. In Criminal Justice: Law and Politics; Cole, G.F. Eds.; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Monterey, CA, 1985.
78. Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components; U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1997.
79. Holland, S.R. Practical Guide for Applying Federal Confidentiality Laws to Drug Court Operations; Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University: Washington, DC, 1999.
80. Tauber, J.; Weinstein, S.P.; Taube, D. Federal Confidentiality Laws and How They Affect Drug Court Operations; National Drug Court Institute: Alexandria, VA, 1999.
81. Hoffman, M. The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Rev. 2000, 78, 1437.
82. [83] Charges will be dismissed following successful completion of probation and treatment.
83. California Legislative Analyst's Office. Implementing Proposition 36: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities; Legislative Analyst's Office: Sacramento, 2000.
84. Tauber, J. Rational Drug Policy Reform; Center for Problem Solving Courts: Alexandria, VA, 2001.
85. Cook, T.D.; Campbell, D.T. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings; Houghton-Mifflin Company: Boston, 1979.
86. Gottfredson, D.; Exum, M. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: One-Year Results from a Randomized Study; University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice: College Park, MD, 2000.
87. Breckenridge, J.F.; Winfree, L.T.; Maupin, J.R.; Clason, D.L. Drunk drivers, DWI "drug court" treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Res. Pol. 2000, 2 (1), 87-105.
88. Dickie, J.L. Summit County Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation Report: July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000; The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron: Akron, OH, 2000.
89. Goldkamp, J.S.; White, M.D.; Robinson, J.B. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. J. Drug Issues. 2001, 31 (1), 27-72.
90. Marlowe, D.B.; Kirby, K.C. Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (1), 1-32.
91. Satel, S. Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1998, 1 (1), 43-72.
92. Deschenes, E.P.; Moreno, K.; Condon, C. Success of Drug Court Participants: Central and South Justice Centers of the Superior Court of Orange County California; California State University Long Beach and Orange County Health Care Agency: Long Beach, 2001.
93. Spohn, C.; Piper, R.K.; Martin, T.; Frenzel, E.D. Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. J. Drug Issues 2001, 31 (1), 149-176.
94. Goldkamp, J.S. The drug court response: Issues and implications for justice change. Albany Law Rev. 2000, 63 (3).
95. Longshore, D.; Turner, S.; Wenzel, S.; Morral, A.; Harrell, A.; McBride, D.; Deschenes, E.; Iguchi, M. Drug courts: A conceptual framework. J. Drug Issues 2001, 31 (1), 7-26.
96. Stringer, E.T. Action Research, 2nd Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999.
97. Whyte, W.F., Ed. Participatory Action Research; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1991.
98. Farabee, D.; Prendergast, M.; Anglin, M.D. The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 1998, 62 (1), 3-10.
99. Young, D. Impacts of perceived legal pressures on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2002, 29 (1), 27-55.
100. Kleiman, M.A.R.; Rudolph, J.W. Breaking the Cycle: Direct Demand Reduction in the Criminal Justice System; BOTEC Analysis Corporation: Cambridge, MA, 1996.
101. Sung, H.; Belenko, S.; Feng, L. Treatment compliance in the trajectory of treatment progress among offenders. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 2001, 20, 153-162.
102. Young, D.; Belenko, S. Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. J. Drug Issues 2002, 32 (1), 297-328.
103. Joe, G.W.; Simpson, D.D.; Broome, K.M. Retention and patient engagement models for different treatment modalities in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999, 57, 113-125.
104. Peters, R.H.; Haas, A.L.; Murrin, M.R. Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts. Natl. Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999, 2 (1), 33-60.
105. Belenko, S.; Fagan, J.A.; Dumanovsky, T. The effects of legal sanctions on recidivism in special drug courts. Justice Syst. J. 1994, 17 (1), 53-81.