NCJ Number
224373
Journal
Criminal Justice Review Volume: 33 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2008 Pages: 329-342
Date Published
September 2008
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This study measured the perceptions of drug court judges and administrators in five States to examine factors identified by respondents as key to program success.
Abstract
The results revealed several noteworthy findings. First, State and local variables were positively related to the dependent variable drug court success. Second, Federal factors were negatively related to perceived drug court success. Third, the positive perception of State factors may be attributable to the important role of State judicial administration agencies known as AOC (Administrative Office of Court) with the AOC providing technical and funding assistance with the initial implementation of drug courts and then overseeing the operation of drug court programs. Fourth, the connection between decreased educational levels and higher perceived success is an interesting finding pertaining to drug court operations. From a policy perspective, the results of this study reveal that innovative programs for criminal offenders can thrive in conservative States. Overall, Federal, State, and local factors influenced the success of drug court programs, with State and local factors consistently identified as most supportive and influential. Literature indicates that drug courts produce lower recidivism rates, increased retention rates, and lower costs than traditional criminal justice case processing. However, as drug courts approach their second decade, there is a void in the literature regarding factors that influence the success of drug court programs. This work aims to equip policymakers with meaningful evidence regarding drug court success. It seeks to provide scholars and policymakers with relevant information regarding factors that facilitate and challenge the implementation of drug court programs. Five States (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah) were selected for inclusion based on the collective conservatism of their political and social landscapes in conjunction with their similarities. Tables, appendix and references