Correction Class- Criminal Justice Class

http://cjp.sagepub.com

Criminal Justice Policy Review

DOI: 10.1177/0887403408327378

2009; 20; 236 originally published online Dec 5, 2008;Criminal Justice Policy Review Cary Heck, Aaron Roussell and Scott E. Culhane

Criminal Trajectories: A Research Note Assessing the Effects of the Drug Court Intervention on Offender

http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/236 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania

can be found at:Criminal Justice Policy Review Additional services and information for

http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://cjp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/20/2/236 Citations

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

236

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Volume 20 Number 2 June 2009 236-246

© 2009 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0887403408327378

http://cjp.sagepub.com hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Assessing the Effects of the Drug Court Intervention on Offender Criminal Trajectories A Research Note Cary Heck Aaron Roussell Scott E. Culhane University of Wyoming, Laramie

Using a combination of NCIC and local police data from Wyoming, this study focuses on the short-term effects of the drug court intervention on offender criminal trajecto- ries. Wyoming’s drug courts operate in a manner consistent with most drug courts around the nation by focusing on offender supervision, judicial oversight, frequent and random drug testing, and intensive substance abuse treatment. The results of this out- come analysis suggest dramatic reductions in criminal offending both during the drug court program and for the year immediately following the program participation.

Keywords: drug courts; recidivism; life-course criminality

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Newton’s First Law of Motion

One of the few noncontentious claims in criminology is that the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs is correlated with criminal activity. Although much is debated about the causes of crime and delinquency, few will argue this point (Dawkins, 1997). Moreover, there is a significant body of literature linking drug users with both serious and violent criminality (Schroeder, Giordano, & Cernkovich, 2007). These under- stood links have been the beginning point for criminal justice policy for decades, and the exact nature of their relationship is continually explored by the field.

Another fertile area for research has been the trajectory—persistence or desis- tance—of offenders’ life course. Since the Wolfgang Birth Cohort study (1972) there has been a growing body of research that suggests a clear differentiation between those offenders who limit themselves to adolescent activities and those who sustain their criminality throughout their life (Farrington, 1986; Moffitt, 1993). However,

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heck et al. / Drug Court Recidivism 237

this presumed stability of offender life-course trajectory has recently been challenged by Laub and Sampson (2003) who suggested that change is possible for individuals regardless of their criminal histories. They argue that the prosocial net- works created from such important life events as stable marriages and good jobs pro- vide opportunity for social bonding, which in turn can create impetus for desisting from criminal behavior.

Furthermore, there is also a growing body of literature suggesting that heavy alco- hol and illicit drug use interferes with the user’s ability to participate in these prosocial activities (see Schroeder et al., 2007). Laub and Sampson (2003) suggested that heavy use of alcohol and drugs leads to reductions in social connectedness, which leaves users free from informal social control and promotes unconventional routine activities (Schroeder et al., 2007). Serious alcohol and drug use tends to marginalize the offender from the wider society (Coumans & Spreen, 2003) and simultaneously encouraging immersion in criminal subcultures (Hagedorn, 1994; Schroeder et al., 2007). These criminal subcultures act to reinforce and sustain criminal activity and substance abuse while restricting access to more conventional networks in a continuing cycle. As Schroeder et al. (2007) stated, “Drug users, especially chronic drug users and addicts, are involved in criminal networks and associate with deviant others on a regular basis, and maintaining these associations is not conducive to ending a life of crime” (p. 197).

Drug courts are designed to replace the informal social networks and subcultures adopted by abusing and addicted offenders with prosocial networks supported by judicial oversight, continuous supervision, drug testing, and a behavior modification strategy. These networks are centered on assessment and treatment related to the assessed needs of the offender, including but not limited to substance abuse treat- ment. They are also frequently referred to the mental health, medical, employment, and educational services needed to further ensure their desistance from substance- using behavior and acquisition of a prosocial lifestyle.

Research suggests that successful drug court programs target mainly those with relatively severe addiction and abuse problems (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003). In addition, drug courts select participants with significant criminal histories to provide the necessary incentive (suspended sentences) to remain in the program— the “stick,” together with the treatment “carrot.” Although those with prior violent offenses are generally excluded from participation, drug courts do serve both mis- demeanants and felons and nearly all drug court participants are repeat offenders. Given this target population and the associated research regarding their criminal behavior patterns, the vast majority of Wyoming drug court participants are immersed in the deviant subcultures described above. Thus, barring life-course inter- ventions (Laub & Sampson, 2003), it remains likely that the majority of this popu- lation will continue to offend after normal criminal justice adjudication.

The purpose of the present study is to determine the extent to which the drug court intervention influences the criminal trajectories of a particular group of offenders. Successful drug court clients should demonstrate a clear trend of reduced criminality

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

238 Criminal Justice Policy Review

as a result of their increased involvement in both formal and informal prosocial net- works. The data used for this study comprise the arrest records of all adult drug court participants who graduated from their respective programs in Wyoming before July 1, 2005 (N = 273). These arrest records specifically cover the year prior to program admission, the time spent in the program, and the one year following program completion. The data set includes both male and female participants.

Drug Court Recidivism

First established in 1989, the drug court model is designed to influence repeat offenders with significant substance abuse problems. Although originally an effort sustained locally, the drug court model quickly attracted the attention of the White House and funding from the U.S. Department of Justice for implementation quickly followed. Recent changes in funding structure and the limitations of federal start-up grants have forced an increasing number of state governments to begin assuming the mantle of drug court funding and expansion (Heck & Roussell, 2007). Despite these changes, the basic drug court model remains largely unchanged from its original incarnation (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997).

Drug courts are a specialized method for handling substance-involved drug offenders through a focus on community offender management. Combining efforts from such diverse actors as the judiciary, prosecution, defense, law enforcement, treatment, and various social service organizations, drug courts use appropriate diag- nostic tools to determine the severity of drug addiction and match appropriate ser- vices to clients (Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006). They also attempt to provide offenders with a clear and compelling reason to complete treat- ment (Satel, 2000). Based on a cyclical theory of crime and addiction, drug courts intervene directly in clients’ substance abuse and thus attempt to reduce their asso- ciated criminality. Courts hold offenders accountable for their actions and manage their behavior both in and out of treatment through judicial status hearings, proba- tion, and a regularized system of sanctions and incentives (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997).

The drug court model is premised on research from the fields of medicine, psy- chology, and sociology. Individuals are targeted for this intervention based on their personal risk and need factors. These factors include such things as substance abuse severity, criminal history, and social functioning. The drug court intervention is espe- cially well suited for offenders with both high-risk factors (i.e., criminal history) and high-need factors (i.e., addition severity) in such a way that improved functioning occurs for the individual while community safety is maintained (Marlowe et al., 2006).

Since their inception nearly two decades ago, the expansion of drug courts has been nearly exponential; more than 1,600 were documented in 2004 (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, Marlowe, & Roussell, 2005). Despite this impressive history, the

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heck et al. / Drug Court Recidivism 239

innovative nature of drug court has necessitated a constant flow of research to convince critics and assure policy makers of its effectiveness and efficacy (Marlowe, 2005). Admittedly, early drug court research proved to be of somewhat erratic qual- ity. However, recent reviews of drug court research reveal an ever-expanding number of well-designed studies and an overall upswing in the quality of the body of research as a whole. This has been aided in part by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice (BJA), which requires evaluations of its federal drug court grantees and specifies the manner in which they ought to be accomplished (see Heck, 2006).

One of the primary outcome concerns of drug court research is the issue of recidi- vism. Because drug courts claim to reduce the future recidivism of their clients, especially their graduates, a preponderance of research has focused on this claim (for an overview, see Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001). Rearrest is the most widely accepted method of measuring recidivism. Besides the relative ease of data collection, rear- rest tends to occur in quick succession to the offense compared to other measures such as reconviction (Heck & Thanner, 2006; Rempel, 2006). This can make a sig- nificant difference when examining a time frame spanning only 1 or 2 years. Though perhaps more accurate, conviction becomes cumbersome as a research measure because such processes as trials, appeals, plea bargains, and sentencing must occur in their entirety before a conviction can be registered. Further, one of the hallmarks of drug courts is that they reduce costs (Carey & Finigan, 2003; Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, & Boone, 2004). Arrests consume law enforcement and judicial

Figure 1 Abbreviated Logic Model

Individual

Characteristics

Risk and Need

Factors

Intervention

Treatment

Judicial Oversight

Intensive Supervision

Drug Testing

Short-Term

Outcomes

Program

Completion

Clean Drug Tests

Employment and

Educational

Attainment

Outcomes

Sobriety

Reduced Criminality

Improved Social

Function

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

resources regardless of whether the outcome results in a conviction; arrest captures this dynamic more fully than does conviction (Rempel, 2006).

In 2005, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) performed their fourth national review of drug court program evaluations (GAO, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2005), finding the research body to be of sufficient maturity to declare drug courts effective in reaching their recidivism goals. Adult drug courts effected positive changes on recidivism outcomes for participants of the 39 jurisdictions reviewed (27 total eval- uations; GAO, 2005). Of the evaluations considered by the GAO, statistically sig- nificant reductions in recidivism for drug court clients were between 5% and 25% after 1 year or more postprogram. GAO also measured the rate of rearrest per 100 clients and found it to be between 9 and 90, fewer arrests while in program. This sug- gests that these drops in recidivism are due to decreased use of illegal substances because one of the categories experiencing the greatest declines was drug arrests.

Very few researchers are able to use true experimental designs when evaluating drug courts due to the legal standing of the individuals and the setting in which the intervention takes place. One exception, however, the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court evaluation (Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003), employed an experimental research design and discovered that 66.2% of participants (both graduates and fail- ures) were rearrested in 2 years, as compared to the 81.3% rearrested in the control group. This was found to be significant at the .05 alpha level, and the difference in the average number of rearrests between the two groups (1.6 for participants and 2.3 for the control group) was statistically significant at an alpha level of .01. Differences between the groups in terms of individuals with a new drug charge (40.6% for par- ticipants and 54.2% for the control group) were also significant at the .05 level (Gottfredson et al., 2003). Drug courts have thus demonstrated positive effects on offender recidivism at the gold standard of social science research.

Still, most drug court–outcome evaluations that include a recidivism component use comparison group analyses. These are of varying quality, depending largely on the availability of funding and the existence of a viable comparison group (Rempel, 2006). The best of these compare drug court participants to those processed through the criminal justice system in competing programs or through “business as usual” methods. Belenko compiled the best of these into a series of meta-analyses (Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001). These meta-analyses reveal that national postprogram rearrest rates for drug court graduates ranged from 18% to 48%, and comparison group rates ranged from 22% to 55% (Belenko, 1999).

Unfortunately, it is not always clear how these groups were matched. Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003) undertook their own study of national graduate recidivism rates to avoid the issue of unlike comparisons between evaluations, using a consistent methodology and a national random sample. According to this study, 14.4% of drug court graduates across the country recidivated over the first year, whereas the numbers climbed to 25.5% over the second year1 (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

240 Criminal Justice Policy Review

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heck et al. / Drug Court Recidivism 241

Except for the study by Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute, most of the evaluations considered for meta-analysis and cited by researchers and proponents are local program research. Drug courts have also been evaluated at the state level, which offers a number of advantages compared to the typical local evaluation. First, the resources that a state must allot to bring an evaluation to fruition are a testament to its political investment in its drug court system. Second, local drug court evaluations often differ in their scope and methodology, thus making cross-evaluation compar- isons difficult. State evaluations, by contrast, incorporate multiple counties and courts for the same years using the same methodology. Furthermore, they act to hold con- stant those differences between court evaluations that relate to differing state laws.

An evaluation of drug courts in the state of Washington revealed that graduates had lower overall recidivism rates both before and after court as well as before and after referral, although they also had lower arrests going into the program (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, 2000; Cox, Brown, Morgan, & Hansten, 2001). The eval- uation revealed small statistically significant effect sizes for the drug court interven- tion, inclusive of three counties for which there was sufficient information to permit analysis (Cox et al., 2001).

The New York State drug court evaluation considered six drug court sites for recidivism analysis, ranging from New York City boroughs to smaller cities such as Syracuse (Rempel et al., 2003). Comparison groups were rigidly controlled, con- sisting of individuals without drug court contact and with the same legal and per- sonal eligibility as drug court participants. Though rates varied over the sites, the average reduction in recidivism 3 years after initial arrest (i.e., inclusive of time in program) was 29%, and 1 year postprogram yielded a 32% reduction in arrests. All were significant at the p < .10 alpha level or higher (Rempel et al., 2003). After breaking out groups into graduates and noncompleters, it is clear that it is the per- formance of the graduates that accounts for most of the success of the programs.

In Kentucky, one of the few studies to use conviction data, the drug court cohort from 1997 to 1998 had in-program felony reconviction rates for graduates that were only 2.6%, whereas misdemeanor reconvictions were 11.6%. Reconvictions ranged from 3.7% to 10.6% for felonies and misdemeanors, respectively, after 1 year post- program (Logan, Hoyt, & Leukefeld, 2002). Wyoming’s own statewide drug court study revealed that 8% of participants were rearrested in-program (excluding proba- tion violation; Butler, Heck, Powell, Binder, & May, 2005).

Wyoming Graduate Recidivism

The current study builds on this body of research by considering the drug court graduates as a single group, tracking their arrest statistics for a time span that is gen- erally between 3 and 5 years. Most Wyoming adult drug court participants fall, by definition, into the category of life-course criminal. As we have suggested, drug and

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

alcohol use are strongly correlated with continued offending (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Schroeder et al., 2007). Thus, if alcohol and drug use are significantly affected by the drug court intervention, the results should be improved desistance capacity. Using official records, we seek to determine the extent to which criminality, mea- sured by arrests, is reduced during and immediately after drug court participation.

This study is limited in a couple of important ways. First, it only considers drug court graduates. This limits the scope of the findings to those who have developed the requisite skills to complete an intensive and time-consuming process. Although program retention rates seem to be fairly high, there remains some concern about the generalizability of this study. Second, there is no comparison/control group for this study. As such, it is impossible to claim a causal relationship between the drug court intervention and the improved outcomes for participants. However, given the claim that these offenders are highly likely to continue offending without an intervention, these findings are of import to the drug court field.

Data Collection

Surveys were administered to all adult drug court programs around the state of Wyoming with participants who had graduated before July 1, 2005. These surveys were followed up by on-site data collection visits. Drug court coordinators were asked to collect the formal police records of all program graduates. Most programs used local law enforcement records further supported by NCIC data to create a com- plete picture of the graduate’s relevant legal involvement. These data were coded into the three categories: arrests in the year prior to program admission, arrests dur- ing program participation, and arrests in the year immediately following program completion. To better reflect the impact of the drug court intervention, technical vio- lations of probation were excluded from review. However, a number of participants were admitted to drug courts on probation violations; thus, they were not considered as part of the data set. The reason for this exclusion is that these participants did not clearly reflect the impact of the drug court intervention and were not adjustable by statistical means (Heck, 2006). These data were supplied to researchers without any personal identifiers.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. In addition, a mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed with gender serving as a between- subjects variable and the three arrest counts (1 year prior to the program, during the program, and 1 year postprogram) as a within-subjects variable. Because of the highly skewed data in the three arrest counts, an inverse + 1 transformation was com- puted for the data. Although this greatly helped to normalize the data, it did not completely eliminate the skew. This is to be expected with such data, however.

242 Criminal Justice Policy Review

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Findings

As Figure 2 shows, there is a clear linear trend of decreasing arrests for drug court participants from the 1 year prior to program admission to postprogram completion. Although participants averaged two arrests in the year immediately preceding their drug court participation, only 39.2% of the participants were arrested during the program and an impressively low 19.3% were arrested in the year immediately following program completion. Not surprisingly, the ANOVA results indicated a significant difference for the three arrest counts, F(1, 261) = 293.06, p < .001, η2 = .53. Furthermore, the F test for a linear trend was highly significant and had a large effect size, F (1, 261) = 819.72, p < .001, η2 = .76.

Figure 2 also suggests that there is a slight gender effect such that females (n = 60) were less likely to be arrested during and following treatment than males (n = 203). Although the overall test for gender differences approached significance, the effect size was minimal, F (1, 261) = 3.41, p = .066, η2 = .01. Furthermore, the interaction between gender and arrest counts was not significant, F (1, 261) = 1.10, p = ns, η2 = .00.

These findings suggest that drug courts can serve the purpose of improving desis- tance factors for adult offenders. Although it is impossible to identify the specific ele- ments of drug courts that are most effective from this research, the theoretical framework provided by Laub and Sampson (2003) suggested that something, be it newly formed prosocial relationships or other improved social capitol, has helped to change behavior patterns among this group. Whatever the specific cause, drug courts do seem to have an impact on the trajectory of criminal offending for this population.

Conclusion

Although it is impossible to scientifically attribute the changes in criminal behavior among drug court program graduates to the program itself, there is strong evidence that a correlation exists between the drug court intervention and reductions in criminality for those participants who graduate. And with Wyoming drug court retention rates hov- ering between 48.1% and 63.8% (National Center for State Courts, 2007), there is an excellent chance that the desired effects of these programs will take hold for a large number of offenders who are otherwise likely to reoffend. The costs of these programs tend to be appreciably less than that of incarceration and the benefits, at least in the short term, are significant. Further research should be conducted to determine who best is suited for the intensive nature of the drug court program. This type of research should promote better use of resources and higher retention rates.

The promise of drug courts lays in the impact of the programs on individual offenders who, based on the foundations of criminological literature, are likely to reoffend. Indeed, the initial program was designed to reduce the “revolving door” of justice for many low-level offenders who carry the baggage of addiction and other

Heck et al. / Drug Court Recidivism 243

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

244 Criminal Justice Policy Review

co-occurring mental health disorders. The literature seems fairly clear that for many offenders, the only true expectation is that without considerable help they will cer- tainly return to custody. Although the positive results of drug courts are often attrib- uted to the clinical treatment (Satel, 2000) and regularized sanctions and incentives (Marlowe et al., 2006), another considerable component of crime desistence may be found through the participant investment in social networks. Certainly the results of this study, combined with previous research (Laub & Sampson, 2003), suggest that the artificial creation of prosocial connections acquired through drug court—when fully realized through graduation—are effective in reducing criminal activity.

Note

1. After statistical weighting, the numbers come to 16.4% and 27.5%, respectively (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

References

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute. (2000, August 11). Analysis of Washington State patrol arrest data for King, Pierce, Spokane, Thurston, Skagit, and Kitsap counties. NW HIDTA/DASA drug court evalua- tion. Seattle, WA: Author/University of Washington.

Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, I(1), 1-42.

Figure 2 Mean Number of Arrests 1 Year Prior to Treatment,

During Treatment, and 1 Year After Treatment

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heck et al. / Drug Court Recidivism 245

Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, II(2), 1-58.

Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Butler, S., Heck, C., Powell, S. C., Binder, D. M., & May, C. K. (2005). Drug courts in Wyoming, FY 2005: Statewide and local evaluation. Report to the Wyoming Department of Health, Substance Abuse Division. Laramie: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center.

Carey, S., & Finigan, M. (2003, July). A detailed cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: A cost-ben- efit evaluation of the Multnomah County drug court. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Coumans, M., & Spreen, M. (2003). Drug use and the role of homelessness in the process of marginal- ization. Substance Abuse and Misuse, 38(3), 311-338.

Cox, G., Brown, L., Morgan, C., & Hansten, M. (2001, July 13). NW HIDTA/DASA drug court evalua- tion project: Final report. Seattle: University of Washington, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute.

Dawkins, M. (1997). Drug use and violent crime among adolescents. Adolescence, 32(2), 395-406. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual

review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence

from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 171-196. Government Accountability Office (1995, May). Drug courts: Information on a new approach to address

drug-related crime. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author. Government Accountability Office (1997, July). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and

results. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author. Government Accountability Office (2002, April). Drug courts: Better DOJ data collection and evaluation

efforts needed to measure impact of drug court programs. Report to congressional requesters. Washington, DC: Author.

Government Accountability Office (2005, February). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author.

Hagedorn, J. M. (1994). Neighborhoods, markets, and gang drug organization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(3), 264-294.

Heck, C. (2006). Local drug court research: Navigating performance measures and process evaluations (Monograph Series 6). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Drug Court Institute.

Heck, C., & Roussell, A. (2007). State administration of drug courts: Exploring issues of authority, fund- ing, and legitimacy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 418-433.

Heck, C., & Thanner, M. (2006). Evaluating drug courts: A model for process evaluation. Drug Court Review, V(2), 51-82.

Huddleston, C. W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. (2004, May). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, I(1). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Drug Court Institute.

Huddleston, C. W., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D. B., & Roussell, A. (2005, May). Painting the cur- rent picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, I(2). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., & Leukefeld, C. (2002). Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: Behavior, costs, and avoided costs to society. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research.

Marlowe, D. B. (2005). Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 5, 1-2/15-16 (Reprinted from www.jointogether.org, Sept. 29, 2004).

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

246 Criminal Justice Policy Review

Marlowe, D. B., Dematteo, D. S., & Festinger, D. S. (2003). A sober assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 153-157.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judi- cial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 52-76.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent limited and life-course-persistent anti-social behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(1), 674-701.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key com- ponents. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.

National Center for State Courts. (2007). Wyoming Drug Court Performance Measures Project. Denver, CO: Author, Court Consulting Services.

Rempel, M. (2006). Recidivism 101: Evaluating the impact of your drug court. Drug Court Review, V(2), 83-112.

Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D., et al. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants, and impacts. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003, July). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates, final report. San Diego, CA: Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute.

Satel, S. L. (2000). Drug treatment: The case for coercion. National Drug Court Institute Review, III(1), 1-22.

Schroeder, R. W., Giordano, P. C., & Cernkovich, S. A. (2007). Drug use and desistance processes. Criminology, 45(1), 191-217.

Cary Heck, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Wyoming and until recently served as the director of research for the National Drug Court Institute. In his role as the direc- tor of research, he has been instrumental in developing and publishing materials related to drug court eval- uation and performance measures. His research agenda includes drug courts and other problem-solving courts, policy construction, juvenile delinquency, and policing. He also serves as a consultant for several states and localities on substance abuse and crime issues including policy formulation, program adminis- tration, and management information systems.

Aaron Roussell, MA, is currently a PhD student at the University of California, Irvine, in the criminol- ogy, law, and society program in the School of Social Ecology. He has worked with drug courts at both the national and the state level at the National Drug Court Institute and at the state level with the Wyoming Department of Health, Substance Abuse Division.

Scott E. Culhane, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Wyoming. He received his doctorate in legal psychology from the University of Texas at El Paso. His research program focuses on jury decision making with a particular interest in the presentation of alibi witnesses. He is also researching the formation of alibi statements and the ability to detect lying in such statements. Other interests include psychometric evaluations of psychological scales in minority samples.

at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on November 7, 2009 http://cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from