Should Violent Offenders Be Excluded From Drug Court Participation?

• Author: Christine A. Saum,Matthew L. Hiller
• Published date: 01 September 2008
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808322267
• Date: 01 September 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

Should Violent Offenders Be

Excluded From Drug Court

Participation?

An Examination of the Recidivism of Violent

and Nonviolent Drug Court Participants

Christine A. Saum

Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ

Matthew L. Hiller

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

Policy often stipulates drug court funding cannot be used for offenders with violent criminal

histories, although it has been argued that increasing funding to community programs for these

individuals represents an important means for controlling crime. Because little research has

examined whether a violent offense history is related to recidivism following drug court par-

ticipation, predrug court criminal history and postdrug court arrest and charge data have been

collected for 452 offenders in a postplea drug court program. Bivariate analyses show violent

offenders have higher rates of recidivism following drug court discharge. However, multivari-

ate analyses controlling for age, ethnicity, drug of choice, time at risk, and discharge status

show the extent of criminal history, not violent history, is significantly related to recidivism.

Results suggest that violent offenders should not be systematically excluded from the oppor-

tunity to participate in the unique combination of treatment and supervision offered in drug

court programs.

Keywords: violent offenders; recidivism; drug court; policy

As the number of substance-abusing offenders served by drug courts continues to esca-

late, an increasingly diverse population of clients is entering these judicially super-

vised treatment programs. Indeed, it is becoming more typical for drug court participants

to have chronic substance abuse problems that require intensive treatment and to have

extensive criminal records that frequently include a history of serious offending (Belenko,

1999, 2001; Gebelein, 2000; National Institute of Justice, 2006). This is not surprising

given that it is routine for serious and violent offenders to be sentenced directly to both

traditional and alternative forms of community supervision rather than incarcerated in jail

or prison (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007; Petersilia, 1995). Trend data indicate that most

291

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 33 Number 3

September 2008 291-307

© 2008 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016808322267

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: This research was supported by grant R01 DA12424, Drug Court Offenders in Outpatient

Treatment, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of

the authors. Please address correspondence to Christine A. Saum, PhD, Department of Law and Justice Studies,

Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028; e-mail: saum@rowan.edu.

drug court programs currently have a probation or postplea condition suggesting that drug

courts are including higher-risk populations (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, Marlowe, &

Roussell, 2005). To date, little is known about the ability of treatment-oriented drug courts,

which were originally designed to divert less serious offenders from the criminal justice

system, to successfully incorporate these more complex clients. A special report by the

National Institute of Justice (2006) described this second decade of drug courts: “Increasingly

courts have moved from targeting low-level and first-time offenders to focusing on those

whose substance abuse and criminal activity may be more serious and pose a greater threat

to society—and a greater challenge to drug courts” (p. 2). The goal of this article, therefore,

is to examine recidivism outcomes for drug court participants who have serious and violent

criminal histories to determine whether they pose a greater threat to society than do the less

serious drug court offenders.

Early drug courts limited participation in their programs to nonviolent offenders (Cooper

& Trotter, 1994), and most drug courts today continue to target nonviolent offenders (U.S.

General Accounting Office, 2005). One reason for this is that federal funding for drug courts

stipulates that offenders with any previous crimes of violence be excluded from participat-

ing in drug court. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 established

the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, currently operated through the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, to provide Federal funds each year (FY 2007 funding was US$10 mil-

lion) for the implementation and enhancement of drug courts. Programs receiving these

funds are required to target nonviolent offenders (see, for example, Bureau of Justice

Assistance, 2007). Accordingly, a major goal for early drug courts, to better manage less

serious offenders in the community to help ensure prison space for repeat and violent offend-

ers (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1995) still appears to be a major goal

of federal policy related to the establishment and operation of drug courts.

Despite this goal, there is evidence that some drug court programs have expanded their

admission criteria to include more serious and high-risk offender populations (Huddleston

et al., 2005; National Institute of Justice, 2006), particularly after federal funding has run

out. Once a drug court is established, different funding streams and new resources may be

secured, allowing for the continuation of the program with less restrictive eligibility require-

ments. It is advantageous as well for drug courts to have greater flexibility in terms of client

selection to ensure that their programs are filled to capacity. Yet notwithstanding procedural

changes in some jurisdictions, there are likely numerous substance-using offenders with a

history of violent offending who are in need of treatment but for whom policies preclude the

expenditure of federal drug court funds. Because community and political sentiments often

do not favor spending money and/or offering programs to violent offenders and because of

the community safety responsibility of the criminal justice system, courts may be hesitant to

include those with a history of violence in drug courts, regardless of funding issues.

Evidence suggests that violent offenders have much to gain from substance abuse treat-

ment under the supervision of a drug court. Research has shown an association between

drugs, crime, and violence (Goldstein, 1985). Furthermore, because corrections-based drug

treatment has been found to reduce substance use and criminal activity in serious and vio-

lent offender populations (Hiller, Knight, & Simpson, 1999; Martin, Butzin, Saum, &

Inciardi, 1999), it may be a good policy to include offenders with a history of violence in

intensive supervision and treatment programs such as drug court when these offenders are

292 Criminal Justice Review