1
Evaluation Strategy/Logic Model
Adam King
Liberty University
CJUS 801: Criminal Justice Program Evaluation
Dr. Stacey White
9/7/2025
EVALUATION STRATEGY 2
Abstract
Drug court programs across the country have been created since the late 1980s with the hope
that a focused deterrence method lowers rates of recidivism. A classical approach of swift and
certain punishment helps drive lower recidivism rates through focused and specific deterrence.
This paper evaluates the long and short-term outcomes of drug courts and what the specific
goals and objectives should be. Utilizing the SMART framework, goals and objectives will be
outlined that seek to maximize the evaluability of the program. A logic model accompanies the
work to visualize how all aspects of the program interact with each other. Research indicates
that drug courts are most effective when sanctions are predictable in the process and
punishment.
Keywords: drug court, recidivism, classical, deterrence
EVALUATION STRATEGY 3
Evaluating Drug Court Effectiveness
Drug use across America is more prevalent than most citizens want to believe or can
even comprehend. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, which is under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 2023, 70
million Americans self-reported using an illicit drug. Admittedly, nearly 62 million surveys
indicated that the drug used was Marijuana, over eight million admitted to using hallucinogens
or misused prescription pain medication (United States Health and Human Services, 2023). Drug
courts were created to combat the growing drug problem that corrections and law enforcement
have historically been unable to fix with imprisonment. It moves the burden of rehabilitation
into the hands of the prosecutors and judiciary (Sevigny et al., 2013). In this paper, drug-court
effectiveness will be evaluated, and a discussion will be had about how to improve drug-court
results.
Drug Court Effectiveness
Drug courts were introduced in the late 1980s to reduce recidivism, which was the
driving factor behind them. Punitive punishment for drug offenders had begun to sour in the
minds of the public. They saw that these drug users were being locked away for a period and
then being released back into the community from which they came, without any of their
substance abuse problems being dealt with. The three-year recidivism rate for a drug offender
before the implementation of drug courts was 68%. Drug courts use a Risk-Needs-Responsivity
model to create interventions on an individualistic level to co-author the best program with the
user (Gonzalez & Choo, 2024).
Vito & Higgins (2015) discuss the process in which a program is created then how it
should be evaluated. They discuss the SARA method, which is a widely known course of
Scanning for problems, Analyzing what is the cause of the problem, Responding to the problem
with selected actions, and assessing the response and its effectiveness. During this process, Vito
& Higgins implore the program evaluator to utilize the S.M.A.R.T. goals methodology. This entails
EVALUATION STRATEGY 4
that goals be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. Furthermore, the
evaluator needs to develop measures that gauge the effectiveness of the program, its efficiency,
and the attitudes of those within it. Vito & Higgins’ logic model will be used to understand how
all these processes can be simplified with a drug-court program in mind.
Theory
Two theories are at play when it comes to drug court programs. They are not in
competition with one another but attempt to create harmony in a full-scale attack against the
drug use problem. From the classical school of thought, deterrence theory aims to reduce the
overall level of criminal activity by threatening punishment, thereby preventing crime (Miceli et
al., 2022). Social learning theory, born from sociological study, posits that the interaction
between personal factors, the external environment, and the behavior itself is what influences
behavior. Drug courts attempt to intervene in these areas and interrupt the relationships to
create better long-term outcomes for participants (Smith, 2021). These two theories attempt to
split a needle to get the results that drug courts are hoping for. The deterrent aspect could easily
be seen as adversarial, which could undermine the social learning portion. Drug court programs
may want to lean into one theory over the other to fully realize the program.
Goals & Objectives
A drug court program modeled on deterrent strategies would have different goals and
objectives than one framed with social learning theory. Goals for a deterrent program should be
to reduce recidivism through swift and certain sanctions. Swiftness (Celerity), severity, and
certainty were three principles that the classical thinker Cesare Beccaria believed to be
important in deterrence, with celerity being the most important (Buckenmaier, 2021). A drug
court program built with these principles from Beccaria at the fore-front would be able to create
SMART goals. Another goal of the program should be to promote accountability in recovery.
Participants would need to take ownership of their actions and tie them to legal as well as
EVALUATION STRATEGY 5
personal outcomes. Once a member graduates from the program, the third goal would come
into focus, and that is to reduce long-term recidivism rates.
Objectives are different than goals. Goals serve as the lighthouse that programs are
trying to reach. Objectives are the measurable facets that will tell the program how it is going to
get there. Goals without the driving force of objectives may not ultimately be reachable in an
efficient and organized manner (Ogbeiwi, 2021). Reasonable and measurable objectives for a
drug court aiming at the goals previously discussed would look like the following.
- Reduce positive drug tests in 70% of participants by 50% within the first six months.
- Within 6 months of enrollment, 80% of participants will not have missed a court
date.
- An increase in substance abuse treatment by 75% of participants within the first
year.
- During the 12-month program, new criminal charges will decrease by 70%
- Three years after the completion of the program, recidivism from new criminal
offenses will decrease by 25%.
These objectives are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. The scope is
purely on the evaluation of the success of the program. Supporting the successful completion of
these objectives through certain sanctions of violators will ensure that the goals of any drug
court program are also realized.
Parameters and Logic Model
After goals, objectives, and performance indicators, all lead to the understanding of the
theory that applies to the program. Once the theory is understood, coordinators can select
treatments and come to terms with the players involved in the aspects of the program. This
concept is called the logic model. The logic model works like a chart that allows those involved
in the program to understand what is needed to carry it out and who is involved, and how they
impact the program. The following is a representation of a logic model for a deterrence-focused
drug court program. Note how it is not only those involved in the courtroom aspect who have
control over how the program functions.
EVALUATION STRATEGY 6
Inputs/Resources Activities Outputs Short-Term Long-Term
Courtroom Personnel Screening &
Intake
Assessment
Entries into
Program
Increased
Awareness of
Sanctions
Lower Recidivism
among Graduates
Court & Admin
Infrastructure
Frequent
Status
Hearings
Number of Court
Appearances
Improved
Compliance with
Court
Higher
Employment
Among
Graduates
Drug Testing
Technology
Frequent
Random
Testing
Number of Drug
Tests
Reduction in
Positive Tests
Lower Rates of
Drug Use Among
Graduates
Community service
partnerships
Swift/Certain
Punishment
Length of
Sanctions
Perceived
Fairness in
System
Stronger Public
Confidence in
Corrections
Systems
Funding Incentivization
of proper
behavior
Number of
incentives
Higher
Engagement with
Support Services
LEA partnerships Check in with
jail logs and
discipline
record
Compliance
Records
Biblical Perspective
Drug court programs sit at a unique intersection of justice and mercy. There has been a
realization that drug offenders should not be let off clear and free, but they need help to heal
from the addiction that has festered in their lives. The Bible calls for believers in Proverbs 31 to
speak up for those who need it and the rights of the poor and needy. This must be balanced
with what Paul writes in Galatians 6:7, “… a man reaps what he sows.” (Christian Standard Bible,
2017). Drug courts allow for this balancing of these Biblical principles. There is a hope in the
restoration of the fellow man, while also acknowledging through the legal system that their
actions are criminal, while giving them a hand up to pull them from addiction.
Conclusion
With nearly one quarter of the country admitting to some form of substance abuse and
the millions of Americans who are incarcerated for drugs, programs are needed to curb the
behavior. Drug courts aim to create immediate accountability in line with Beccarian principles.
EVALUATION STRATEGY 7
Swift and certain sanctions are utilized to create a specific deterrent that keeps people from
reoffending. Drug court programs also lean into social learning theory by placing offenders in
environments with supportive parties. Education also plays a role in drug courts to teach
participants accountability and to equip them with life skills. All these different functions come
together to ultimately reduce the recidivism of the participant. If recidivism can be lowered,
then so will the cost of crime to the public.
References
Buckenmaier, J., Dimant, E., Posten, A., & Schmidt, U. (2021). Efficient institutions and effective
deterrence: On timing and uncertainty of formal sanctions. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 62(2), 177-
201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09352-x
Christian Standard Bible. (2017) Holman Bible Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee Gonzales, T. A., &
Cho, A. (2024). Exploring Dimensions of Adult Drug Treatment Courts Related to Successful
Completion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(1), 79-
97. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241280289
Miceli, T. J., Segerson, K., & Earnhart, D. (2022). The role of experience in deterring crime:
A theory of specific versus general deterrence. Economic Inquiry, 60(4), 1833-
1853. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13083
Ogbeiwi, O. (2021). General concepts of goals and goal-setting in healthcare:
A narrative review. Journal of Management and Organizations, 27(2),
324-341. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.11
EVALUATION STRATEGY 8
Sevigny, E., Fuleihan, B., & Ferdik, F. (2013). Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration?: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice. 41(6). 416-
425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.005
Smith, M. (2021). Social Learning and Addiction. Behavioral Brain Research.
398(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112954
United States Health and Human Services. (2023). Key Substance Use and
Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2023
National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt47095/Natio nal
%20Report/National%20Report/2023-nsduh-annual-national.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2015). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice.
Waltham, MA: Elsevier.
