Collaboration: A Mechanism of Drug Court Model Adherence

Date01 April 2019
Published date01 April 2019
DOI10.1177/0022042618821196
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042618821196
Journal of Drug Issues
2019, Vol. 49(2) 253 –278
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022042618821196
journals.sagepub.com/home/jod
Article
Collaboration: A Mechanism of
Drug Court Model Adherence
Xiaohan Mei1, Jacqueline G. van Wormer2,
Ruibin Lu3, Mia J. Abboud4, and Faith E. Lutze4
Abstract
Drug courts solve problems, namely, reducing drug use and recidivism. The current research
attempts to answer the question of how to ensure program fidelity and therefore optimize the
efficacy of drug courts. Justice professionals and scholars have recognized that there are multiple
internal and external threats that could undermine the drug court operation. At this point, the
mechanism(s) by which threaten factors affect drug court program fidelity has been neither
theoretically modeled nor empirically tested. In the present study, using a national sample and
the Structural Regression Analysis (SRA), we found collaboration and judicial decision making
are the most important factors for maintaining drug court program fidelity. This is because
collaboration and judicial decision making can mediate the threats and challenges from many
quarters, including the lack of information sharing and evaluation, treatment, operational
support, and community and political support.
Keywords
drug court, collaboration, model adherence, measurement validation, direct/indirect effects
Introduction
Complex and difficult tasks demand collaboration. In the criminal justice system, no task is
more difficult than implementing programs that rehabilitate offenders through the integration
of effective punishment, treatment, and support (Donoghue, 2014). Addressing the risk and
needs of substance abuse offenders poses unique challenges to professionals working across
multiple systems including criminal justice, social services, public health, and treatment. To
meet these challenges, drug courts utilize an interdisciplinary and collaborative judicial
approach, which is designed to bring together diverse professions with the expertise and
resources to accomplish the complex task of reducing the barriers between agencies attempt-
ing to address the intersection of substance abuse and crime (Lutze & van Wormer, 2007,
2014; National Association of Drug Court Professionals [NADCP], 1997; Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) & National Council of Juvenile and Family
1California State University, Los Angles, USA
2Whitworth University, Spokane, WA, USA
3Stockton University, Galloway, NJ, USA
4Washington State University, Pullman, USA
Corresponding Author:
Xiaohan Mei, School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics, California State University, Los Angles, 5151 State
University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032-4226, USA.
Email: xmei4@calstatela.edu
821196JODXXX10.1177/0022042618821196Journal of Drug IssuesMei et al.
research-article2019
254 Journal of Drug Issues 49(2)
Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2003; Wenzel, Longshore, Turner, & Ridgely, 2001; Wenzel, Turner,
& Ridgely, 2004).
Drug courts, as a neoclassic justice innovation, operate according to their unique underly-
ing principles and strategies that are referred as the 10 key components for adult drug courts
and 16 Strategies for juvenile drug courts (NADCP, 1997; OJJDP & NCJFCJ, 2003). The
adult and juvenile drug treatment courts are founded in multiple theories that are complemen-
tary to one another. The primary theoretical foundation of the drug treatment courts is the
“therapeutic jurisprudence” which focuses on using social science to study the extent to which
laws and legal process promote the psychological and physical well-being of the individuals
involved in the legal system (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999). It aims to, instead of decreas-
ing, increase the therapeutic consequences of law (Winick, 2000). The theory of “therapeutic
jurisprudence” manifests itself into drug courts practices, including supportive court monitor-
ing, rehabilitative monitoring, responding to relapse with extending program length, proce-
dural justice, and empowering offenders and reconnecting them to their bases of support
(Senjo & Leip, 2001; Wiener, Winick, Georges, & Castro, 2010).
The interaction between drug court professionals and participants can also be explained
through structural ritualization theory (Lanier & DeVall, 2017; Liang, Knottnerus, & Long,
2016). The structural ritualization theory suggests that drug court as an intervention disrupts
the participant’s old rituals, such as drug abuse and committing crimes, and lays a foundation
for clients for building new rituals through drug court programming (Liang et al., 2016).
Consistent with the deterrence theory, drug courts use graduated sanctions and rewards to
increase participant compliance (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006; Marlowe, Festinger,
Foltz, Lee, & Patapis, 2005). Finally, juvenile drug court’s key strategies represent the appli-
cation of strength-based philosophy to juvenile drug users (Cosden, Panteleakos, Gutierrez,
Barazani, & Gottheil, 2004; Nissen, 2006). The embodiment or translation of these theories
into drug courts’ operations is considered as the major contributor of the successful rehabilita-
tion stories across the country.
The current theoretical explanations of drug treatment court model, however, often over-
look the key of collaboration in the operation of drug courts. Successful collaboration is
crucial to achieving model adherence and sustaining the therapeutic nature of drug courts.
The guidance given to drug court professionals emphasizes the importance of collaboration
by promoting the integration of treatment, social, and criminal justice services, creating a
nonadversarial environment among team members, providing a continuum of care across
agencies, coordinating strategies between team members to address participants’ adherence to
the program, providing interdisciplinary education to team members, and building partner-
ships across organizations (Lutze & van Wormer, 2007; NADCP, 1997; OJJDP & NCJFCJ,
2003). While collaboration has been conceptualized as the key to implementing successful
drug courts, its significant role as the driving force of model adherence has not received much
attention from criminal justice practitioners or scholars. Meanwhile, although the scientific
evidence is robust in showing how adult drug courts work to reduce recidivism (Aos, Miller,
& Drake, 2006; Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chrétien, 2006; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, &
Latessa, 2005; Shaffer, 2010; Wilson, Mitchel, & MacKenzie, 2006), juvenile drug courts are
shown to be less effective in reducing recidivism (Aos et al., 2006; Latimer et al., 2006;
Madell, Thom, & McKenna, 2013; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Shaffer,
2006; Stein, Deberard, & Homan, 2015; Wilson et al., 2006). Researchers argue the variation
of success between and within drug courts could be attributed to the variation of drug court
model adherence (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, &
Benasutti, 2006; Marlowe et al., 2003).
Drug courts face many challenges that could jeopardize implementation. Justice scholars and
professionals are still exploring what drug court processes, components, and practices would

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT