What Matters More in Explaining Drug Court Graduation and Rearrest: Program Features, Individual Characteristics, or Some Combination

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221086558
• Author: Alex Breno,Niloofar Ramezani,Wendy Guastaferro,Andrew Cummings,Amy Murphy,Faye S. Taxman
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(12) 1211 –1229

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X221086558

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

What Matters More in

Explaining Drug Court

Graduation and Rearrest:

Program Features, Individual

Characteristics, or Some

Combination

Alex Breno1* , Niloofar Ramezani1*,

Wendy Guastaferro2, Andrew Cummings3,

Amy Murphy1, and Faye S. Taxman1

Abstract

This study examines the program- and individual-level factors that impact the

success of drug court clients in terms of: (1) graduation; and (2) not being arrested

while participating in the court program. The data consist of 848 individuals in

nine drug courts. This paper discusses how different individual- and program-

level factors impact the success of drug court participants. The findings suggest

that individual- and program-level factors are both important in predicting

program graduation and arrest during drug court participation, while controlling

for participant demographics. Clients’ education, drug/alcohol usage, program

staffing, and clinical standards impact program graduation while criminal history,

drug/alcohol usage, number of program hours offered, program staffing, and use

of rewards and sanctions predict in-program arrest. Models combining both

program- and individual-level factors performed better than either alone, leading

to recommendations that agencies should emphasize improving program quality

while targeting clients’ needs to achieve greater success.

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

2Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, USA

3Council of Accountability Court Judges, Atlanta, GA, USA

*These authors shared their first authorship for this article.

Corresponding Author:

Alex Breno, Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence!, George Mason University, 3351 Fairfax

Drive, MSN 3B1, Arlington, VA 22201, USA.

Email: abreno@gmu.edu

1086558IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X221086558International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBreno et al.

research-article2022

1212 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(12)

Keywords

drug courts, hierarchical linear modeling, programming, risk need assessments,

program graduation, rearrest

Background

The United States government appropriated $93.9 million dollars for grants to foster

the growth and implementation of drug courts in 2014, a 47% increase over the previ-

ous 5 years (Marlowe et al., 2016). With nearly 4,000 drug courts in operation and a

sound research base demonstrating their effectiveness in reducing criminal behavior

and improving some psychosocial outcomes (Aos et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2012),

one might assume drug courts are ubiquitous in the justice programs landscape.

However, nearly half of the counties in the United States do not have a drug court

(Marlowe et al., 2016) and drug courts serve about 5% of the individuals with addic-

tion disorders (Belenko et al., 2011). While certain grants can stimulate the adoption

of new programs, sustainability depends on the altering of criminal justice (CJ) prac-

tice and policy to deliver effective strategies (Taxman & Belenko, 2012). In turn,

implementation with integrity would affect client-level outcomes (Bourgon &

Armstrong, 2005; Gutierrez & Bourgon, 2012).

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) identified 10 key

components, covering research and implementation issues, which have been the guid-

ing framework for integrating substance abuse treatment, drug testing, sanctions and

incentives, and court hearings (National Association of Drug Court Professionals

[NADCP], 1997) which were clarified and modified as standards twenty years later

(NADCP, 2018a, 2018b). These key components were specified as standards for oper-

ating drug courts and they cover programmatic issues such as eligibility requirements

for participants, swift enrollment in the program, and ongoing judicial interaction with

participants. These guidelines elucidate how the drug court model differs from stan-

dard case management, probation and/or parole services, and other routine programs.

The guidelines provide guidance on how to frame programming and services to ensure

integrity in the drug court brand.

Several meta-analyses and program evaluations have found that drug courts reduce

recidivism by an average of 9% to 24% and, in some instances, positively impact sub-

stance use outcomes for drug-involved offenders (Aos et al., 2001; Mitchell et al.,

2012; Shaffer, 2011). Drug courts garner better retention in treatment, especially when

compared to community-based programs (Belenko, 2001; Cissner & Rempel, 2005).

Some drug courts offer supplemental social services such as employment, housing,

family counseling, and psychiatric illness, and these improve treatment utilization and

recidivism (Carey et al., 2012; Mendoza et al., 2013). Individuals that are less likely to

graduate from drug courts tend to be men, younger adults, minoritized populations,

and those in rural areas (Sechrest & Shicor, 2001). Drug courts that do not adhere to

the key components tend to have smaller impacts, generally up to half (Gutierrez &

Bourgon, 2012; NADCP, 2018a, 2018b).