Introduction
The effects of different punishments on offenders’ recidivism, incarceration, and reintegration into society are among the most important topics in criminology research. The belief that harsh consequences deter crime is challenged in research, suggesting alternatives for people’s circumstances and behavior affecting factors (Turner et al., 2002). Currently, many locations, such as Maricopa County, AZ, offer diversion programs – initiatives where offenders with substance use disorders are offered treatment in combination with or as a replacement for incarceration (Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, n.d.; Turner et al., 2002).
Programs are developed to better suit individuals with specific substance use problems, a major issue being opioid-addictive disorder (Martin et al., 2021). The present study considers the effectiveness of this approach, and it is vital to review whether the existing scholarship supports it as well. The following review considers five studies on the topic of drug court treatments for substance use disorders, focusing on the issue of recidivism. The discussion includes an analysis of primary studies conducted in the United States within the last ten years and identifies major themes in the selected articles.
Theoretical Considerations
The idea that treating mental health issues, including substance use disorders, decreases recidivism is consistent with the defiance theory. This approach stands in contrast to a commonly supported concept of deterrence, which poses that people are less likely to reoffend if they are scared of severe punishments (Hazra & Aranzazu, 2022). Proponents of the defiance theory argue that sentences perceived by the offender as unjust lead to feelings of disrespect, increasing recidivism as an act of protest (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2016). Based on this framework, one may argue that paying attention to the offender’s needs and the circumstances that influenced their decision to commit a crime can have the opposite effect and lower recidivism rates. Thus, the relationship between variables in the present research is rooted in the defiance theory, as it investigates the connection between an alternative solution for substance use disorder treatment and reoffending.
Literature Review
Major themes in research are the link between drug courts and recidivism, the perception of the alternative as just, and predictors of reoffending directly and indirectly connected to one’s drug court treatment. Notably, all selected studies support the notion that the treatment of substance use disorders and the system of drug courts are effective in reducing recidivism (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2016; Evans et al., 2022; Gallagher et al., 2014; Peters et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2018). Enrollment in the program reduces people’s risk of reoffending, and longer participation and completion of these initiatives are the most effective in preventing recidivism (Gallagher et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2018). This theme is present in all considered studies, highlighting the value of this alternative treatment. However, while all articles follow one major topic, some of them build on it, presenting new ideas, such as the concept of fairness or underlying factors that make the issue of recidivism more complex.
Several articles focus on this theme, analyzing data from one or several drug court programs. The study by Peters et al. (2015) considers the parolee population in one Midwestern state and investigates their reoffending rates two years after treatment completion. The scholars use Iowa Department of Correction data to build their sample, including 1,270 parolees (Peters et al., 2015). As a result of a quantitative investigation, they determine that parolees who completed their programs were approximately 20-25% less likely to reoffend than those who did not undergo treatment (Peters et al., 2015).
In particular, the risk of recidivism decreased with time, reaching its lowest levels one year after treatment (Peters et al., 2015). The reliance on existing data over two years is a strength of the study as it demonstrated long-term outcomes, but a weakness may lie in the selection of one state. Such limitations as the use of strata to conduct the analyses can be identified, as it lowers the presence of some groups in the sample. Nevertheless, the article supports the argument that treatment of substance use disorders is highly effective in reducing recidivism rates.
Another recent study concerning reoffending and drug court therapy aligns with these findings. In their article, Evans et al. (2022) examine the effect of administering buprenorphine to the incarcerated population for opioid use disorder on their recidivism risks. The researchers examine treatment and control groups (n=197 and n=272, respectively) and determine that individuals who underwent therapy were less likely to reoffend or be reincarcerated (Evans et al., 2022). In particular, the difference between the two groups was about 11% in the rates of recidivism and 18% in repeated incarceration (Evans et al., 2022).
Although these results appear less significant than those reported by Peters et al. (2015), they support the overall positive effect of substance use disorder treatment on incarcerated people’s future after jail exit. The limitations of this study are the lack of randomization in participant selection, which could contribute to bias. The weakness is its relatively small sample; however, the authors adjusted their calculations according to the participant’s demographics and used administrative records, which is the study’s strength.
The next theme identified in the research is the factors contributing to people’s recidivism rates. Although the findings support the positive connection between drug court treatments and lower reoffending risks, some articles focus on other circumstances that influence offenders’ future decisions. Gallagher et al. (2014) evaluate the outcomes of the Indiana drug court. They determine that age, previous criminal records, program termination, and violation within a month after the program’s start are the most common factors that increase recidivism rates (Gallagher et al., 2014).
Their investigation is much smaller than other considered investigations, considering a sample of 197 participants, which is a limitation for the study’s findings (Gallagher et al., 2014). Furthermore, a weakness is its quasi-experimental design and does not randomly assign participants to probation and drug court groups. Nonetheless, the strength of this analysis is that the connection between variables is transparent, presenting significant results.
Such factors as gender, education, ethnicity, drug choice, and mental health are not linked to reoffending risks in the study. In contrast, employment, age, violations, criminal history, and program graduation can influence one’s recidivism. The most notable finding is that participants who completed the treatment were twice as likely to reoffend (32%) than those who did not finish it (65%) (Gallagher et al., 2014). This considerable difference supports the overall thesis and highlights the effectiveness of drug court treatments – the main theme.
A similar study about the predictors of recidivism in those who completed the program comes to the same conclusions. In their article, Wilson et al. (2018) investigate approximately 2,300 participants of drug court treatments to see which factors, apart from the program, may influence their reoffending rate. The quantitative study uses data from 12 sites that administered treatments for substance use disorders and 11 sites that used cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and examined participants within six months after treatment. The results demonstrate that employment was a strong predictor – unemployed participants were more likely to reoffend, which is consistent with the previous study. However, the authors also found that the male gender, non-White ethnicity, and higher substance use levels can be linked to higher risks of recidivism (Wilson et al., 2018).
The larger sample of this research increases its validity compared to the previous study. The weakness may arise in the use of CBT as well as drug court therapy, which produces less replicable results. A major limitation is the short-term follow-up of six months after treatment. Both articles agree that therapy is effective, and employment after being released is highly influential in further lowering rates.
Finally, the last identified theme in research is the focus on participants’ perceptions of the drug court system. As noted previously, the defiance theory poses that people’s view of punishments as unjust incentivizes them to reoffend. Such studies as the one by Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong (2016) aim to confirm this connection and determine whether offenders see drug court treatment judgments as fair. The scholars conduct a survey of participants from one drug court, which may show some selection bias. The results demonstrate that the majority of individuals found the system just and valid in accordance with their offenses (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2016).
However, this perception does not appear to correlate with the participants’ graduation or recidivism rates. It should be noted that the scholarship on this topic is much less represented, and the authors’ small sample (n=113) is a limitation to the article’s validity (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2016). The strength of this research is its transparent survey use description, although the selection of participants from one court weakens the results. Thus, it is essential to conduct more research in this sphere.
Summary and Conclusions
The review of the literature demonstrates that the theme of connecting recidivism rates and drug court treatment is prevalent in scholarship. The idea that successful completion of these programs leads to lower reoffending rates is supported by research from different states, and the selection of studies ranges from small to large samples. Another common topic is the factors that affect people’s recidivism after undergoing treatment. Here, the research reports different findings with consistent support for the need to fully complete substance use disorder programs and graduate. Another consistent conclusion is that having a job positively impacts one’s behavior after reintegration into society.
Conflicting results surround other factors, such as age, gender, education, ethnicity, and more. It is unknown how these factors connect to recidivism and one another, creating a complex socioeconomic system. Finally, the last theme being developed in research is the perception of the drug courts as just and the outcome of this view on recidivism. This topic is less investigated than others and requires additional studies to support the link.
To conclude, the research on the relationship between recidivism and drug court treatments is robust. Scholars seem to agree that this alternative to incarceration effectively reduces people’s risks of reoffending upon release. However, additional studies in this sphere can contribute to the overall understanding of what makes these programs effective and how a better initiative can be created to lower the rates of recidivism even more. Furthermore, questions arise about the factors that contribute to offenders’ behavior after program completion as well as circumstances that increase their chances of graduating successfully.
References
Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Armstrong, G. S. (2016). An examination of the impact of drug court clients’ perceptions of procedural justice on graduation rates and recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(8), 525-547. Web.
Evans, E. A., Wilson, D., & Friedmann, P. D. (2022). Recidivism and mortality after in-jail buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 231, 109254. Web.
Gallagher, J. R., Ivory, E., Carlton, J., & Miller, H. J. W. (2014). The impact of an Indiana (United States) drug court on criminal recidivism. Advances in Social Work, 15(2), 507-521. Web.
Hazra, D., & Aranzazu, J. (2022). Crime, correction, education and welfare in the US – What role does the government play? Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(2), 474-491. Web.
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. (n.d.). Diversion programs. Web.
Martin, M., Phillips, M. A., Saxon, M., Love, K., Cessna, L., Woodard, D. L., Page, M., Curry, K., Paone, A., Pennington-Stallcup, B., & Riley, W. (2021). Recovery support specialists inside the jail: A program description of treatment engagement for opioid use disorder. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 17(4), 497-508. Web.
Peters, D. J., Hochstetler, A., DeLisi, M., & Kuo, H. J. (2015). Parolee recidivism and successful treatment completion: Comparing hazard models across propensity methods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 149-181. Web.
Turner, S., Longshore, D., Wenzel, S., Deschenes, E., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., Harrell, A., Morral, A., Taxman, F., Iguchi, M., Greene, J., & McBride, D. (2002). A decade of drug treatment court research. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(12–13), 1489–1527. Web.
Wilson, J. L., Bandyopadhyay, S., Yang, H., Cerulli, C., & Morse, D. S. (2018). Identifying predictors of substance use and recidivism outcome trajectories among drug treatment court clients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(4), 447-467. Web.