How To Understand The Effects Of A Drug Court

Effects of Drug Courts on Criminal Offending and Drug Use A Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Protocol David B.Wilson, Ph.D. Administration of Justice Program 10900 University Blvd., MS 4F4 George Mason University Manassas, VA 20110-2203, USA dwilsonb@gmu.edu Ojmarrh Mitchel, Ph.D. University of Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice 600 Dyer Hall P.O. Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0389 ojmarrh.mitchell@uc.edu Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology 2220 LeFrak Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-8235, USA dmacken@crim.umd.edu August 31, 2007

Drug Court Protocol 1 Contents 1 Background for the Review 2 2 Objectives of the Review 4 3 Methods 4 3.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review......... 4 3.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies............. 4 3.3 Description of methods used in the component studies............ 5 3.4 Criteria for determination of independent findings.............. 6 3.5 Details of study coding categories...................... 6 3.6 Statistical procedures and conventions.................... 6 3.7 Treatment of qualitative research....................... 7 4 Timeframe 7 5 Plans for Updating the Review 8 6 Acknowledgments 8 7 Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest 8 References 8 A Eligibility Checklist 14 B Coding Protocol 15

Drug Court Protocol 2 1 Background for the Review Drug courts are based on an emerging theory of therapeutic jurisprudence that hypothesizes that therapeutic effects can result from judicial actions (Hora, 2002). In its simplest form, a drug court uses the power and authority of a judge to keep a drug offender in treatment, providing rewards for successes and sanctions for failures (U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997; Drug Court Professionals, 1997). Typically, a judge closely monitors the progress of a drug offender (generally referred to as a client) and doles out sanctions for drug use relapse, failure to attend treatment, or other drug court infractions. The judge also reinforces successes through praise and encouragement, and possibly a reduction in formal requirements or other reward. Depending on the structure of the drug court, successful completion may be accompanied with dropping the charges that brought the offender before the court (pre-plea/diversionary court) or expunging the offense from the record (post-plea court). Many drug courts also have a formal graduation ceremony for those successfully completing the program. The atmosphere of the drug court is non-adversarial and provides a case management function, connecting drug abusers with appropriate treatment programs. As described by the Drug Court Professionals (1997), The judge is the central figure in a team effort that focuses on sobriety and accountability as the primary goals. Because the judge takes on the role of trying to keep participants engaged in treatment, providers can effectively focus on developing a therapeutic relationship with the participant. In turn, treatment providers keep the court informed of each participants progress so that rewards and sanctions can be provided. (Drug Court Professionals, 1997, p. 7) The essential features of a drug court are the (a) integration of alcohol and other drug treatment and justice system case processing, (b) a non-adversarial courtroom approach, (c) random urine drug screens or other monitoring of abstinence, (d) judicial monitoring of a participants progress via status hearings, and (e) a system of sanctions and rewards for program infractions and achievements (Drug Court Professionals, 1997; Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006). Drug courts are presumed to affect an offender s drug use and criminal behavior through both the actions and influences of the court and the involvement of the offender in mandated drug and alcohol abuse treatment (e.g., Marlowe et al., 2006; Banks, 2001). Drug involved offenders processed in a traditional manner by the criminal justice system are also routinely referred to drug treatment. However, treatment compliance is a major problem with this population and a clear impediment to successful outcomes (Simpson et al., 1997; Drug Court Professionals, 1997). The design and structure of drug courts is intended to address this problem by using the power of the judge to compel treatment compliance. Drug courts began in Dade County Florida in 1989 as a diversion program for drug offenders. Since that time, drug courts have become popular throughout the United States. There were nearly 800 established or recently implemented drug courts in the United States as of January 2002, with many more being planned (Drug Court Clearinghouse, 2002).

Drug Court Protocol 3 The rapid expansion of drug courts throughout the United States criminal justice system has proceeded despite a lack of solid empirical evidence establishing the effectiveness of drug courts in achieving their aims of reduced drug use and ancillary criminal behavior. A review of the drug court literature conducted by the U. S. General Accounting Office (1997) concluded that the existing evidence was insufficient to draw any firm conclusion on the effectiveness of these programs with respect to recidivism. More specifically, the U. S. General Accounting Office (1997) identified several limitations of the 20 evaluations examined, including a failure to examine outcomes beyond program participation and a failure to use a comparison group design. Twelve of these evaluations included a comparison group and six of these examined recidivism post-program. Summarizing these studies, the GAO stated that: Some studies showed positive effects of the drug court programs during the period offenders participated in them, while others showed no effects, or effects that were mixed, and difficult to interpret. Similarly, some studies showed positive effects for offenders after completing the programs, while others showed no effects, or small and insignificant effects. (U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997, p. 85) Belenko (2001) drew a cautious but positive conclusion on the impact of drug courts on long-term drug use and criminal offending based on a review of 37 evaluations. Not all of the evaluations reviewed by Belenko examined drug use or other criminal activity outcomes. Belenko was critical of the field s dearth of evaluations that examined post-program drug use and other criminal behavior, noting that only six of the studies he reviewed examined the long-term effects of these programs. The process data reviewed by Belenko suggested that drug courts have achieved considerable local support and have provided intensive, long-term treatment services to offenders with long histories of drug use and criminal justice contacts, previous treatment failures, and high rates of health and social problems (Belenko, 2001, p. 1). A more recent systematic review of drug court evaluations was recently completed by the GAO (U. S. General Accountability Office, 2005). It examined 27 evaluations and concluded that adult drug court programs led to recidivism reductions during periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court (p. 5). The evidence on the effectiveness of drug courts to reduce substance use, based on this review, was mixed. This study also reviewed four cost-benefit evaluations and concluded that drug courts do yield a net benefit. The rapid adoption of drug courts throughout the United States during the past 16 years has been phenomenal and reflects widespread belief in the effectiveness of drug courts at reducing criminal behavior. Prior reviews, however, draw cautions conclusions regarding the effectiveness of these programs. Numerous new evaluations have been completed in recent years, warranting a fresh look at the evidence.

Drug Court Protocol 4 2 Objectives of the Review The objective of this review is to systematically review all existing evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts with respect to future criminal offending and drug use behavior. At issue is the effectiveness of these programs relative to existing criminal justice system alternatives. The review will also critically assess the methodological soundness of the existing evidence and examine the relationship between features of the drug court and effectiveness (i.e., are some types of drug courts more or less effective than other types?). 3 Methods 3.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review The population of studies eligible for this review is experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of drug courts that utilized a comparison group. The criteria for inclusion are (a) that the study evaluated a drug court program (defined as specialized court for handling drug cases that is nonadversarial with a mechanism for referring offenders to appropriate treatment programs and a judge who actively monitors progress and provides sanctions for misbehavior); (b) that the study included a comparison group that was treated in a traditional fashion by the court system (e.g., probation with or without referral to treatment); and (c) that the study reported a measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction for some measurement period following the start of the program (the measure may have been based on official records or self-report and may have been reported on a dichotomous or continuous scale). These criteria are inclusive with respect to methodological quality, allowing for the inclusion of studies with clear methodological weaknesses. However, studies without a comparison group or that use drug-court drop-outs as the comparison group will be excluded. The quality of the methods will be coded and the robustness of the findings examined in relationship to this methodological variability. The form for establishing study eligibility is provided in Appendix A. 3.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies The search strategy is designed to locate all eligible evaluations of drug courts, published or otherwise. Toward this aim, we will perform keyword searches of the following databases: Criminal Justice Periodical Index, Computerized Index to National Criminological Holdings (CINCH), Dissertation Abstracts Online, Government Publications Office Monthly Catalog, Government Publications Reference File, NCJRS, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social SciSearch, and U.S. Political Science Documents. The keyword drug court will be used. This will cast a broad net that will be examined to identify potentially eligible studies. To identify unpublished evaluations, recent years (1999 2004) of the American Society of Criminology conference program will be reviewed for rele-

Drug Court Protocol 5 vant studies. We also will contact researchers working in this field, including individuals at NPR Research, RTI, Glacier Consulting, Urban Institute, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research at the University of Kentucky. Finally, we will examine the bibliographies of literature reviews of the drug court literature (e.g., Belenko, 2001; U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997; U. S. General Accountability Office, 2005; Latimer, Morton- Bourgon, & Chrtien, 2006; Shaffer, 2006, and any other review articles we locate in the search process) and the bibliography maintained by the Drug Court Clearinghouse (http: //spa.american.edu/justice/drugcourts.php). The latter bibliography is updated regularly, is fairly comprehensive, and includes unpublished works. An initial search using these procedures has already been completed and has identified 51 eligible documents representing 38 unique studies (see reference list). We anticipate identifying several additional studies that have been completed since the time of the last search in April 2005. 3.3 Description of methods used in the component studies The methods used by the studies included in this review are variations on a treatment versus comparison group research design. Experimental studies will have randomly assigned drug involved offenders to either the drug court or a regular court. The essential features of a drug court are defined above. Quasi-experimental studies will rely on naturally occurring groups of offenders processed by a drug court, by a regular court, or diverted from prosecution. Common quasi-experimental design variations may include historical controls, adjacent jurisdictions, offenders eligible for the drug court but who chose not to participate or for whom the prosecutor does not divert to the drug court, and eligible offenders who did not participate due to limited space in the drug treatment program. There is likely to be variability across studies in the nature of the comparison group. We will code the nature of the comparison group and any treatment components they receive (see the coding protocol for specifics). The studies will also vary with respect to the degree to which they employ statistical controls (matching, covariate analysis, etc.) to reduce the threat of selection bias. In all cases the participant samples will be adults or juveniles charges with a criminal offense. The influence of these methodological variations on observed effects will be examined through moderator analyses. All studies included in this review will have a measure of continued involvement in either crime or drug use. That is, studies must have some measure of criminal involvement such as arrest, conviction, or incarceration, following entry into the program, or a measure of drug use, including arrest or conviction for a drug offense. Most typically, these measures will be official indicators of arrest or conviction. We anticipate that a small number of studies may have self-report measures of these construct, such as self-report measures of drug use. A few studies may also report the results of drug testing, such as urinalysis.

Drug Court Protocol 6 3.4 Criteria for determination of independent findings There are two potential sources of nonindependence of findings in this synthesis. The first is multiple indicators of recidivism and drug use reported at multiple time points, that is, multiple effect size generated from a single study. The methods for handling multiple effect sizes from a single study to ensure statistical independence are detailed below in the section on statistical procedures and conventions. In short, no analysis or compilation of effect sizes will use more than one effect size per independent study sample. The second potential source of nonindependence is the same data being reported across multiple documents. We will use author names, court location, and study time frame to identify multiple publications of the same evaluation. When such multiple publications are identified, the most complete and detailed manuscript will be designated as the primary coding source. Additional manuscript will be consulted to flush-out coding if necessary. 3.5 Details of study coding categories An elaborate coding protocol was developed for this synthesis that provides for a systematic method of extracting information regarding each study s research design, program and offender characteristics, nature of the outcome measure, and outcome data. The protocol allows for the coding of any number of effect sizes for each drug-court/comparisongroup contrast reported in a study. The method of handling the statistical dependencies this produces is discussed below. Also note that the protocol defined the drug-court/comparisongroup contrast as the primary unit-of-analysis. The coding protocol is provided in Appendix B. All studies will be double-coded by independent coders. Coding differences will be resolved by the lead author. 3.6 Statistical procedures and conventions The effect of a drug court on recidivism, including general criminal behavior and drug use, will be encoded using the odds-ratio. The odds-ratio is well suited to dichotomous outcomes such as those commonly used in drug court evaluations (e.g., percentage of the drug court and comparison group sample with an arrest or conviction at follow-up). When the measure of drug use or criminal behavior is measured continuously, we will compute a standardized mean difference type effect size and transformed it into an odds-ratio (see Hasselblad & Hedges, 1995; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). All analyses will be performed on the logged odds-ratio using the inverse variance method (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). We will assume that the true program effects estimated by the studies vary both as a function of measured between study differences (moderators such as method of assignment and type of drug court) and unmeasured differences. As such, we will implement a random-effects model, or in the case of moderator analyses, a mixed-effects model (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Raudenbush, 1994). These anal-

Drug Court Protocol 7 yses will be performed using program code written for Stata that is available at http: //mason.gmu.edu/ dwilsonb/ma.html. Many studies will report data on more than one indicator of recidivism and a few studies will report on the same indicator at multiple follow-up points. The multiple effect sizes coded from a single drug-court/comparison-group contrast are statistically dependent (see Gleser & Olkin, 1994, for a discussion). Several methods exist for addressing this complication of meta-analytic data (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The approach that will be adopted in this synthesis will be to select one effect size for each of the following outcome types: (1) any future criminal behavior, (2) drug use behavior, and (3) non-drug use criminal behavior. Preference will be given to indicators that do not include technical violations as a component of the measure. If an outcome measure is reported for multiple follow-ups, the longest follow-up that retained 90 percent of the baseline sample will be used. Finally, any multiple effect sizes remaining within a study after implementing the a priori selection criteria, these will be averaged and the average will be used as the effect size for the primary analyses. Moderator analyses will be performed using analog-to-the ANOVA and meta-analytic regression methods (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Both substantive and methodological quality measure will be examined, individually and collectively. The latter will be achieve by creating a multivariate model with method variables (e.g., random assignment to conditions, attrition, use of statistical controls, etc.) to assess for the affect of these variables collectively on important substantive moderators. That is, the meta-analytic regression analysis will examine whether the effect of a moderator variable remains after controling for method variation. 3.7 Treatment of qualitative research At this time we have no plans to include qualitative research in this systematic review. We would welcome any collaborator with expertise in the area of qualitative research to contribute a review of qualitative evaluations to this synthesis. 4 Timeframe The protocol was developed out of prior meta-analytic work by the authors on the effectiveness of drug courts. Results from this prior work has been presented at several professional conferences (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2002, 2004; Wilson, 2005) and a recent journal article (Wilson, Mitchel, & MacKenzie, 2006). This protocol updates this work. As such, once the protocol is approved the proposed systematic review can be completed in a timely fashion. More specifically, we anticipate that the review could be completed by August of 2007.

Drug Court Protocol 8 5 Plans for Updating the Review We plan to update this review every three years in accordance with Campbell Collaborative guidelines. 6 Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Jerry Lee Foundation for partial support of this project. 7 Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest We do not have any conflicts of interest regarding drug courts. None of the authors work as part of a drug court or have any financial interest in promoting drug courts as a criminal justice system policy. References *Anspach, D. F., & Ferguson, A. S. (1999). Cumberland County s drug court program: An evaluation report of Project Exodus. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. Banks, D. C. (2001). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court program: Drug court effect on time until rearrest (Maryland). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12A), p. 4341) *Bavon, A. (2001). The effect of the Tarrant County drug court project on recidivism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 13 22. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 4, 1 60. *Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177 206. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. *Cosden, M., Crothers, L., & Peerson, S. (1999). Superior Court of California County of Ventura: Drug Court (Summary Findings). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Education. *Deschenes, E. P., Cresswell, L., Emami, V., Moreno, K., Klein, Z., & Condon, C. (2001). Success of drug courts in Orange County, California: Process and outcome evaluations (Tech. Rep.). Long Beach, CA: California State University Long Beach, Department of Criminal Justice.

Drug Court Protocol 9 *Deschenes, E. P., & Greenwood, P. W. (1994). Maricopa County s Drug Court: An innovative program for first time drug offenders on probation. Justice System Journal, 17, 99-115. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. NCJ 152007) *Deschenes, E. P., Iman, I., Foster, T., Castellonos, E., Ha, C., Michaels, K., et al. (2000). Evaluation of Los Angeles County drug courts: 1994 1997 (Abstract & Executive Summary). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research. *Deschenes, E. P., Iman, I., Foster, T. L., Diaz, L., Moreno, V., Patascil, L., et al. (1999). Evaluation of Orange County Drug Courts (Tech. Rep.). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research. *Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S., & Greenwood, P. W. (1995). Drug court or probation: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County drug court. Justice System Journal, 18, 55 73. *Dickie, J. L. (2000). Summit County Juvenile Court Drug Court (Evaluation report: July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000). Akron, OH: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron. *Dickie, J. L. (2001). Summit County Juvenile Court Drug Court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001). Akron, OH: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron. Drug Court Clearinghouse. (2002). Summary of drug court activity by state and county, January 17, 2002 (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/drugcourts.html) Drug Court Professionals, N. A. of. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. *Ericson, R., Welter, S., & Johnson, T. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Hennepin County Drug Court (Tech. Rep.). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime & Justice. Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (p. 339-356). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. *Godley, M. D., Dennis, M. L., Funk, R., Siekmann, M., & Weisheit, R. (1998). Madison County alternative treatment and court (Final evaluation report). Normal, IL: Lighthouse Institute, Chestnut Health Systems. *Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami s treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. The Prison Journal, 73, 110 166. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. NCJ 151178) *Goldkamp, J. S., & Weiland, D. (1993a). Assessing the impact of Dade County s felony drug court (Executive Summary). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. 145302) *Goldkamp, J. S., & Weiland, D. (1993b). Assessing the impact of Dade County s felony drug court (Final report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. *Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2000). Retrospective evaluation of

Drug Court Protocol 10 two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clack County, Nevada, and Multnomah County, Oregon (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. *Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (no date). Do drug courts work?: Getting inside the drug court black box (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. *Gottfredson, D. C., Coblentz, K., & Harmon, M. A. (1996). A short-term outcome evaluation of the Baltimore City drug treatment court program (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., & Exum, M. L. (2000). The Baltimore City drug court: First evaluation report (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2002a). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2002b, November). A randomized study of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from the three-year follow-up. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, IL. *Granfield, R., Eby, C., & Brewster, T. (1998). An examination of the Denver Drug Court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug-offender system. Law & Policy, 20, 183 202. *Harrell, A., Roman, J., & Sack, E. (2001). Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court: 1996 1999 (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. *Harrison, R. S., Parsons, B. V., Byrnes, E. I., & Sahami, S. (no date). Salt lake County drug court evaluation report: July, 1996 through September, 1998 (Tech. Rep.). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Social Research Institute. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 167 178. Hora, P. F. (2002). A dozen years of drug treatment courts: Uncovering our theoretical foundation and the construction of a mainstream paradigm. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1469 1488. *Johnson, G. D., Formichella, C. M., & Bowers, D. J. (1998). Do drug courts work?: An outcome evaluation of a promising program. Journal of Applied Sociology, 15, 44 62. *Johnson, S., & Latessa, E. J. (2000). The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., Lowenkamp, C., & Ratansi, S. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of Ohio s drug court efforts. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., & Chrtien, J.-A. (2006, August). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? (Tech. Rep. No. rr06-7). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada.

Drug Court Protocol 11 Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Latessa, E. J. (2001a). The Akron Municipal Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Latessa, E. J. (2001b). The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *M M Bell Inc. (1998). King County drug court evaluation (Final Report). Seattle, WA: Author. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 52 76. *Martin, T. J., Spohn, C. C., Piper, R. K., & Robinson, J. (1999). Phase II Douglas County drug court evaluation (Final report). Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska, Institute for Social and Economic Development. *McNeece, C. A., & Byers, J. B. (1995). Hillsborough County Drug Court two year followup study (Tech. Rep.). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Institute for Health and Human Services Research. *Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 522 541. *Miller, M. L., Scocas, E. A., & O Connell, J. P. (1998). Evaluation of the juvenile drug court diversion program (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. 172247) *O Connell, J. P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware Juvenile Drug Court diversion program (Tech. Rep.). Dover, DE: Statistical Analysis Center. *Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (1998). Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida s First Judicial Circuit (Tech. Rep.). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of Mental Health Law & Policy. *Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72 96. Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301 321). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (n.d.). (References marked with an asterisk were identified by prior bibliographic meeting the eligibility criteria) *Rempel, M., Fox, D., Farole, D., & Cissner, A. (2002, November). The impact of three New York drug courts on recidivism: Results for post-arrest and post-program recidivism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, IL. (Center for Court Innovation, New York) *Roehl, J. (1998). Monterey County Drug Court (Evaluation report No. 1). Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center.

Drug Court Protocol 12 *Santa Clara County Courts. (no date). Santa Clara County Courts drug treatment court (Third progress report, March 1, 1996 March 31, 1997). Santa Clara, CA: Author. *Sechrest, D. K., Shichor, D., Artist, K., & Briceno, G. (1998). The Riverside County drug court: Final research report for the Riverside County probation department, Riverside County, California (Tech. Rep.). San Bernardino, CA: California State University, Criminal Justice Department. Shaffer, D. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectivenss: A meta-analytic review (Tech. Rep.). Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada. Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Rowan-Szal, G. A. (1997). Program diversity and treatment retention rates in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(4), 279 293. *Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frenkel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 149 176. *Stageberg, P., Wilson, B., & Moore, R. G. (2001). Final report on the Polk County Adult Drug Court (Tech. Rep.). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. *Tauber, J. S. (1993, March). The importance of immediate and intensive intervention in a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: The President s Commission on Model State Drug Laws. *Tauber, J. S. (1995, January). An evaluation of the Oakland County Drug Court after three years: A drug diversion program of the Oakland Piedmont Emeryville Municipal Court and the Alameda County Probation Department. Paper presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Training Conference, Las Vegas, NV. *Terry, W. C., III. (1995). Repeat offenses of the first year cohort of Broward County, Florida s drug court (Tech. Rep.). Miami, FL: Florida International University. *Terry, W. C., III. (1999). Broward County s dedicated drug treatment court: From postadjudication to diversion. In W. C. Terry III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. drugs, health, and social policy series (Vol. 7, pp. 77 107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. U. S. General Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: author. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: author. *Utah Substance Abuse & Anti-Violence Coordinating Council. (2001). Salt Lake County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation. Salt Lake City, UT: Author. *Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998a). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) Drug Court program. Federal Probation, 62, 46 51. *Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998b). Jefferson County drug court program: Impact evaluation, 1997 (Tech. Rep.). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville. Wilson, D. B. (2005, May). Effects of drug courts on recidivism: A systematic review. (Fifth Annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium, Washington, DC) Wilson, D. B., Mitchel, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court

Drug Court Protocol 13 effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459 487. Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002, November). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.) Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2004, May). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. (Societies of Criminology 1st Key Issues Conference, Paris, France)

Drug Court Protocol 14 A Eligibility Checklist First Author s Last Name Document Identification Number Coder s Initials Date Eligibility Determined Document Status Eligible Not Eligible Relevant Review To be eligible, a study must meet the following criteria. Answer each question with a yes or no. Yes No The study evaluated a drug court defined as specialized court for handling drug cases that is nonadversarial with a mechanism for referring offenders to appropriate treatment programs and a judge who actively monitors progress and provides sanctions for misbehavior. To be a drug-court, all of these features must be present. The study included a comparison group that received routine criminal justice system processing. The essential feature is that the comparison group did not participate in the specialized drug court. Study design may be experimental or quasi-experimental. One-group research designs are not eligible. The study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system. There is no age or gender restriction for this review. The study reported a post-program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. The measure may be based on official records or selfreport and may be reported on a dichotomous or continuous scale. The study was conducted in or after 1989, the year drug courts first emerged. For documents that do not meet the above criteria, answer the following questions: Notes: The document is not a quantitative evaluation study (i.e., this document does not report any data regarding the effects of a drug court). The document is a review article relevant to this project (i.e., may have references to additional eligible studies or background information useful for preparing written manuscripts for this synthesis).

Drug Court Protocol 15 B Coding Protocol Study Level Code Sheet Use one study level code sheet for each study. Note that a single study may be reported in multiple documents. In such cases, the study identifier is the document number for the primary publication. List all other document numbers in items 2 through 4 below. Identifying Information 1. Study (document) identifier studyid If multiple documents were used to code this study, indicate the supplemental study ID numbers. 2. Cross references document identifier crosref1 3. Cross references document identifier crosref2 4. Cross references document identifier crosref3 5. Coder s initials coder 6. Date coded date 7. Author author 8. Publication type pubtype 1. Book 2. Book Chapter 3. Government Report, Federal 4. Government Report, State/Local 5. Journal (peer reviewed) 6. Unpublished (tech report, convention paper, dissertation) 7. Other 9. Publication year pubyear 10. Number of different treatment comparison contrasts included in this report mods 11. Is the same control/comparison group used in different contrasts? (1=yes; 0=no; 8=na) same cg

Drug Court Protocol 16 Treatment Comparison Code Sheet A study may report on multiple independent evaluations, such as independent treatment comparison group contrasts, or may have a design that includes multiple interventions of interest contrasted with a single control group. Code separately each treatment comparison contrast eligible for the review. Note that multiple treatment groups must have independent (non-overlapping) participants. A single comparison group may be contrasted with multiple treatment groups (in this case, code item 11 of the Study Level Code Sheet as 1 ). Identifying Information 12. Study (document) identifier studyid 13. Treatment Comparison identifier modid 14. Coder s initials codermod Program Description 15. Describe what happens to the treatment group 16. Describe what happens to the comparison group progdes1 progdes2 17. What happens to the comparison group? compgrp 1. No treatment 2. Wait-list control 3. Placebo control 4. Management as usual 6. Nonparticipants in program 7. Mixed 8. Mental health treatment 9. Cannot tell 18. What is the nature of the comparison group? cgrptyp 1. Same as treatment group (random assignment) 2. Historical controls 3. Non-referred but eligible 4. Declined/rejected/withdrew 5. Noneligible drug offenders 6. Regular probation/diversion 7. Non drug court cases 8. Other treatment program 9. Could not tell

Drug Court Protocol 17 19. Who delivers or provides the treatment? txstaff 1. Mental health professional 2. Criminal justice professional 3. Professional educator 5. Nonprofessional 6. Other 9. Cannot tell 20. Length of primary intervention in months (weeks/4.3) 1. Minimum txmon1 2. Maximum txmon2 3. Mean txmon3 4. Fixed (same for all subjects) txmon4 23. Length of aftercare or follow-up program component (weeks/4.3; record a 0 if no aftercare; record 999 if cannot tell) txafterm 24. In what format or social setting is the treatment delivered? txformat 1 One-on-one (e.g., therapist/client) 2 Group setting (e.g., classroom, group therapy) 3 Family setting (e.g., family therapy) 4 Mixed (i.e., any combination of the above) 9 Cannot tell 25. Specify the type(s) of drug abuse treatment components provided to the drug court group (2=primary component; 1=secondary component; 0=not a component): a. methadone maintenance prgtyp2a b. individual psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp2b c. group psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp2c d. individual psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp2d e. group psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp2e f. NA/AA prgtyp2f g. therapeutic community prgtyp2g h. other residential program prgtyp2h i. TASC prgtyp2i j. drug courts prgtyp2j k. other referral or case management type program prgtyp2k l. detoxification prgtyp2l m. other prgtyp2m 26. Specify the type(s) of drug abuse treatment components provided to the comparison group (2=primary component; 1=secondary component; 0=not a component): a. methadone maintenance prgtyp3a b. individual psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp3b c. group psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp3c d. individual psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp3d

Drug Court Protocol 18 e. group psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp3e f. NA/AA prgtyp3f g. therapeutic community prgtyp3g h. other residential program prgtyp3h i. TASC prgtyp3i j. drug courts prgtyp3j k. other referral or case management type program prgtyp3k l. detoxification prgtyp3l m. other prgtyp3m 27a. What happens to the drug charges upon successful graduation? dismissd 0. Nothing 1. Charges initial diverted; charged if failure to graduate 2. Charges dismissed upon successful graduate 3. Mixed options (judge decides) 27b. What type of adjudication model is used? dctype 1. pre-plea diversion 2. post-plea, pre-sentencing 3. post-plea, post-sentencing 4. other 27c. Is there a formal assessment of treatment needs (e.g., psychosocial assessment)? assess 0. No 1. Yes 9. Cannot tell 27d. Does the drug court use multiple treatment service providers (i.e., not have a single-provider arrangement or provide the treatment services in-house)? multprov 0. No 1. Yes 9. Cannot tell 28. Is there a formal assessment of treatment needs? (1=yes; 0=no; 9=cannot tell) 29. Does the drug court refer to multiple treatment providers? (1=yes; 0=no; 9=cannot tell) Methodological Rigor 30. Used control variables in statistical analyses to account for initial group differences (1=yes; 0=no) assess multprov cntrlvar 31. Used subject level matching (1=yes; 0=no) matching

Drug Court Protocol 19 32-33. List of variables used to control/match on pretest differences. cvarlist 34. Used random assignment to conditions (1=yes; 0=no) random 35. Measured prior criminal involvement; not necessarily arrest (1=yes; 0=no) pretest