Treatments of drug courts

The Effectiveness of Drug Courts for Criminal Offenders
Candidate’s Name
Institution’s Name
Abstract
The achievements of Drug Courts (DCs) in decreasing drug dependence, as well as criminal conducts, have been varied. In this research proposal, the researcher proposes to conduct a study on the effectiveness of these programs through a quasi-experimental study design by contrasting two clusters. The researcher compares a cluster of participants who were under the DCs (control cluster) with a cluster who were only on probation (comparison cluster) concerning their recidivism. The DCs programs shall be drawn from Utah State. The data of the participants shall be got from the state’s juvenile court database (comparison group) while the information of the control groups shall be obtained from four DCs programs around the state. The researcher shall contrast their 30 months data after the DCs or probation. The data will be analyzed using bivariate analyses, comprising of the chi-square as well as independent sample t-tests. Therefore, this quasi-experimental research will test DCs effectiveness through investigating re-apprehensions for Alcohol/Other Drug (AOD) as well as other crimes.
Keywords: Juvenile, Drug Court, Crime, Recidivism
Methodology
Introduction
DCs programs have been vastly adopted in the US after the first achievement of the Drug Courts had been recorded from various programs in the criminal practice as well as with the general move to therapeutic justice, which requires that the interactions among the defendants and the court must be handled in ways that promote health as well as constructive development (Shaffer 2011).

During 2007, the US had over 400 DCs (Huddleston, Marlow & Casebolt, 2008). Proof backing the efficiency of DC in decreasing recidivism in adults has attained mixed outcomes (Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003). Conducting quasi-experimental studies, many researchers report that criminals undertaking DC programs do better when contrasted with those not using the programs (Anspach & Ferguson, 2005). Conversely, using the same quasi-experimental design, other researchers indicate the lack of improved results for DC participants when contrasted to those getting the conventional interventions (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004). However, this current quasi-experimental research aims at adding to the body of rising literature on DCs’ efficiency through investigating the post-program AOD crimes as well as delinquencies.
Study Sample
In this study, participants will be drawn from Utah’s four DCs between 1/1/2003- 1/5/2007 (control group) and they shall be contrasted with youth AOD criminals who got probation (comparison group). The DC cluster participants will be sampled from town juvenile court areas. The researcher shall get participants’ lists from every DC and incorporate all the partakers throughout the above period, despite their exit position.
The researcher shall choose the comparison group participants from offenders undertaking the normal probation. These participants shall be drawn from the state’s criminal court database. The researcher will identify the offenders who committed AOD offenses which caused a probation placement during the period of 1/1/2003-1/5/2007. For the offenders with over one crime, the researcher shall at random choose a single crime as the main incident. The researcher shall eliminate from the comparison cluster the criminals who had once undergone a DC program.
Measures
Independent variable: This will be the participation in DC, and it shall be coded with 0 for Probation and 1 for DC. Probation (comparison) group information will be obtained from the criminal court database. The control group’s information will be obtained from the DC records.
Control variables: the researcher shall gather the offenders’ demographic data as well as court involvement actions from the database. The demographic data will be birth dates, sex, as well as ethnicity. Court involvement actions will comprise crime type, date of commission of the crime, referral, and contempt as well as probation contraventions dates. The researcher shall utilize birth date together with the date of the crime of every offender’s first crime to calculate age during the first crime. The researcher will subtract birth date from DC as well as probation commencement dates to calculate age during the beginning of every program.
The prior crimes (priors), those that took place before the DC or probation, will be identified. The crime counts will be every unique crime type on whichever crime date. The crimes shall be divided into two kinds; a) AOD crimes and b) delinquency that shall comprise person, property, as well as public order crimes. The researcher will leave out infractions, traffic crimes and disobedience to court directives, from the crime count.
Dependent variables: It is recidivism and is described as the fresh crime committed by the participants within 30 months after DC or probation. The data on the participants’ recidivism will be obtained from the Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) criminal history data. The researcher will consider the arrests of the participants for AOD crime. The information on control and comparison clusters shall be matched with the records at the DPS. Participants who shall not match across the systems shall be recognized as non-recidivists.
Analysis
The researcher will utilize the bivariate analyses, comprising of the chi-square as well as independent sample t-tests. This analysis will contrast the DC cluster to probation cluster regarding demographics as well as the court histories. The researcher shall also utilize the chi-square together with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to contrast the participants crosswise the DCs. The chi-square will as well examine the statistical implication of the disparities in the number of offenders recidivating from every cluster at different follow-up stages. The bivariate analysis will enable the researcher to assess the connection between the participants’ character and recidivism.
Chapter Summary
In conducting this study, the researcher shall use juvenile offenders who attend the DCs in Utah State and those not attending (criminals on probation). Through bivariate analyses, the researcher will compare their recidivism to crimes. This study centers on DCs are founded on the theoretical view of therapeutic justice. The researcher will not disclose to the participants, which will ensure high internal validity. Further, the study sample shall be fairly big as well as shall include participants from various ages, backgrounds, and race and the gender representation will be relatively equal. This approach shall ensure high external validity to make the research outcomes more applicable to the broader populace.
References
Anspach, D., & Ferguson, A. (2005). Part II: Outcome evaluation of Maine’s statewide juvenile drug treatment court program. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine. https://www1.maine.gov/dhhs/samhs/osa/pubs/correct/2005/jdtcoutcomeeval.pdf
Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). The effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 171-196. https://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/pubs/gottfredson2003.pdf
Huddleston, III, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/ndci/PCPII1_web%5B1%5D.pdf
Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V. J. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 292-314. http://cad.sagepub.com/content/50/2/292.short/ doi: 10.1177/0011128703254991
Shaffer, D. (2011). Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-analytic Review. Justice Quarterly 28(3): 493-521. http://llet-131-198.uab.es/mastercriminologia/images/noticias/Deborah%20Shaffer.pdf