Do Drug Courts Work? Crime News-Crime in America.Net

Crime in America.Net

We posted an article on a 20 year study of a successful offender-based treatment program addressing an effort to teach criminal offenders to change their thinking patterns (Cognitive Based Therapy) as to how they dealt with life’s issues (i.e., you don’t use violence to solve everyday problems). We received reader inquiries as to additional offender-based programs that provide successful outcomes, thus we  started a series on successful programs where the methodology (research methods) is sound and the results usable.

The summary below from the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the US Department of Justice examines drug courts. If you go to the categories portion of this site, you will see nine previously posted drug court related documents with the best cited at the end of this document.

The bottom-line regarding past and future documents cited in this series is that they lower recidivism (new crimes, arrests and incarcerations) by 10-20 percent. 

Please note, however, that none of this is an exact science and we need to learn much more about the precise  methods necessary for success. Not all offender based programs work and some have been shown to increase, not decrease recidivism. Some within the field have suggested that we may know approximately 30 percent of what we need to know to bring a precise set of standards to the field. When that happens, we may be able to lower recidivism by larger percentages.

As to the document below, it’s  interesting that the judiciary (judges) are finally coming out of their self-protected shell and are becoming full partners with other members of the criminal justice system. For generations, judges have thought it necessary to remain aloof from the rest of us to guard their constitutionally protected separation of powers (to the rest of us, however, they were just being obstructionists).

Now there are a wide array of programs that are judge led that are quite successful. We suspect, however, that this still represents a minority of judges and many more need to get involved on a day-to-day basis.

The summation below is intact in the way the National Institute of Justice presented it, but the source is available at

NIJ’s Summiation:

Since its 1993 evaluation of the first drug court (the Miami-Dade County Felony Drug Court), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) of the US Department of Justice has sponsored research examining drug court processes, outcomes and costs. A recent example is the 10-year study of the Multnomah County drug court in Portland, Oregon.

Impact of Drug Courts on Recidivism and Cost

Lower recidivism. Using retrospective data, researchers in several studies found that drug courts reduced recidivism among program participants in contrast to comparable probationers. For example, one study found that within a two-year follow-up period, the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 40 percent before the drug court to 12 percent after the drug court started in one county, and the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 50 percent to 35 percent in another county. [1]

In an unprecedented longitudinal study that accumulated recidivism and cost analyses of drug court cohorts over 10 years, NIJ researchers found that drug courts may lower recidivism rates (re-arrests) and significantly lower costs. They used data from a primarily pre-plea adult drug court in Portland, Oregon, to track 6,500 offenders who participated in the Multnomah County Drug Court between 1991 and 2001. Re-arrests were lower five years or more later compared to re-arrests for similar drug offenders within the same county.

The researchers also found, however, that the drug courts’ impact on recidivism varied by year as a result of changes in programming and judge assignments over time. Reductions in recidivism ranged from 17 to 26 percent.

Lower costs. Compared to traditional criminal justice system processing, treatment and other investment costs averaged $1,392 lower per drug court participant. Reduced recidivism and other long-term program outcomes resulted in public savings of $6,744 on average per participant (or $12,218 if victimization costs are included).[2]

Factors for success. Although general research findings are that drug courts can reduce recidivism and promote other positive outcomes such as cost savings, several factors affect a drug court program’s success:

  • Proper assessment and treatment.
  • The role assumed by the judge and the nature of offender interactions with the judge.
  • Other variable influences such as drug use trends, staff turnover and resource allocation.

These and other issues, such as treatment service delivery and judicial interaction, are addressed in the NIJ special report, Drug Courts: The Second Decade.

Through the Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation program, NIJ researchers are now examining underlying processes to identify what practices are effective, for whom, and under what conditions.

%d bloggers like this: