Quasi-Experimental Group Design To Compare Recidivism Rates Of Opioid Offenders?

Drugs have been known to be detrimental to American society. Commonly known as “ The war on drugs”. Majority of individuals who are incarcerated have been convicted of some type of drug offense and if not a drug related crimes. In many instances, a person can be sent to a jail or prison without receiving the required treatment to help the individual overcome their drug of choice. Remarkably, there is a court solely focused on an individual with a drug problem, which is known as Drug courts.

Drug courts, and other recovery programs hold promise for retaining offenders involved with drugs in treatment services (SAMHSA, 2014, p.131-132). The first drug court formed in 1989 in Southern Florida. The change in the criminal justice system came when, tired of seeing the same offenders appear before the court under the same or similar charges. The group of professionals in Miami-Dade County combined drug treatment programs with criminal justice structure and authority of the judicial system (Franco, C. 2010). Since then, over 2,000 drug court programs have been adopted in communities across the country, though each court houses its own eligibility requirements, making it somewhat difficult to account for the success of drug courts as a

This journal article discusses how the government has increased “mandatory sentencing” using “aggressive initiatives” for drug related crimes. Additionally, these government implemented sentencing guidelines have made the prison population grow

In assignment one, I stated that substance abuse disorders can cause barriers for ex-prisoners reentering back into the community because research shows that “individuals who are released from prison are more likely to encounter difficulties with substance abuse, as 73.6% individuals in the criminal justice system have drug and alcohol involved with their criminal behavior. “Researchers found that 80% of individuals incarcerated in state prison have serious substance abuse problems. Substance abuse has a significant role in recidivism upon release from prison and desire to use substances or craving of substance was the most common barrier to reentry” (Phillips and Spencer 127-128). In order to decrease substance abuse in prison reentry and create defensible solutions for ex-offenders, the criminal justice must create incarceration-based therapeutic programs for adults that will use an in-depth drug treatment program model for treating ex-offenders who are addicted to drugs, and change the ex-offender’s attitude, perception, and behavior linked to substance abuse. The program will aim to stop the ex-offender from using drugs and create will power inside the ex-offender not to back track into a life of drug

The sixth key component requires that sanctions and rewards be coordinated into the programs to govern responses to participant’s compliance and non-compliance (NADCP, 1997). Some rewards could be praise from the judge, reduced supervision, reduced fines and etc. while some sanctions could be fines, community service, or even jail confinement. The seventh key component focuses on the importance of judicial interaction throughout the program, which can sometimes occur on a weekly basis. Key component number eight explains how imperative monitoring and evaluation is to measure the achievement of program goals and measure effectiveness. It is imperative for drug courts to display some sort of positive outcome by “gathering and managing information due to them monitoring daily activities, evaluating the quality of services provided, and producing longitudinal evaluations” (Mackin et al., 2012). The ninth and tenth components promote the importance of interdisciplinary education and forging partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations. Education and training are important to maintain a specific level of professionalism and expanding collaborations would be helpful to provide a continuum of services for drug court participants.

In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).

The Maryland drug court system has failed plenty of people since it was first introduced 1993, because of the goals and requirements are unrealistic and the offenders with an actual serious drug problem in the program are not getting the proper treatments they need to successfully stay clean once they graduate. In this essay elaborate on the practices that should be changed and if rehabilitation, detoxification and opioid treatments need to be available were to be implemented it would improve the program and keep people like my loved one on the right track and not headed to prison.

Drug courts improve lawbreakers mental wellbeing, allowing for a halt of criminal activity. Improvements of wellbeing is a result of drug courts. A study from Mendoza et al (2013, p.787) found psychological symptoms have a significant impact on the completion of drug courts, implicating the likelihood of relapse and recidivism. There is a clear relationship between the completion of drug courts and a reduction of substance abuse and child wellbeing; allowing many drug affected families becoming reunified (Child & McIntyre, 2015, p.67,85). A study from Boles et al displayed that children reunified with offenders who partake in drug court treatments are safe from repeated mistreatment when compared with children not associated with drug court treatments (Boles et al cited in Child & McIntyre, 2015). It is clear drug courts increase mental wellbeing and allow for offenders to return to a family orientated

This data is based on public meetings, hearing from victims, correctional experts, organizations, and citizens around the state. The data that was gathered help develop strategies to reduce spending on corrections, and reinvest in public safety (Justice Reinvestment in Maryland). Maryland developed the Maryland Justice Reinvestment Act in Bipartisan with 26 other states that changed or amended earlier policies adopted from the war on drugs. The JRA aimed to reduce Maryland’s prison population and to use the savings to focus on rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration (Smoot). The JRA made changes to Maryland’s sentencing, release, and supervision policies. First, this act reduces the maximum penalty time for convictions on drug distribution charges. Second, this act repeals mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Finally, this act offers sanctions for parole and probation violators rather than reincarceration

Other models include more intensive measures involving campus drug courts and the involvement of administrators, local police, and the judicial system. Dutmers delves into the legality of this issue and provides a new viewpoint by explaining that prevention programs should implement campus drug courts, instead of focusing prevention solely on educational methods. As this idea is new and innovative, most research is based off the success within state mandated drug courts. Nonetheless, campuses will too reap the benefits that result from these establishments, which includes a decrease in repeat offenders. Dutmers notes that, “only 27.5% of offenders recidivated” (203). This direct correlation can be taken a step further because if people are not

In 1989, the first drug court came into existence in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They emerged in response to demands for change in the criminal justice system because of the War on Drug. (Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2003) By 2007, drug courts were established in all 50 states. Statistics show that the prison population of women increased because of the War on drug policies. (Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009) The drug court model became an alternative to sanctions given to drug offenders. Drug courts address addiction by merging treatment services, judicial monitoring, and probation supervision. (King & Pasquarella, 2009; NADCP, 2005; Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009)

The Larimer County 8th Judicial District Adult Drug Court program is a governmental agency that provides helps to individuals within the judicial system with drug abuse related offenses gain the tools for success to become a positive member of the community. The clients in this program have voluntarily chosen to be in this program and follow the terms and conditions of their probation as signed by a drug court contract that follows there terms and conditions set by the court. This may seem like a forced step or little step to some, but in reality, this is the first biggest step for drug abuse individuals because it means they are admitting they have a problem with drug abuse. Now it’s the Adult Drug Court team’s opportunity to provide the

Drug abuse is shown to be connected to all different kinds of crime in the United States, and in many circumstances, crime is inspired by drug abuse and addiction. In fact, 80% of criminal offenders abuse drugs or alcohol (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Also, 60% of those who are arrested test positive for illicit drugs when they are arrested, and 60-80% commit another crime, typically drug-related, after leaving prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). And, even after these individuals put in the time in prison that would allow them to go through the uncomfortable process of detoxing, 95% of them will chose to go back to drug abuse after prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Given these overwhelming statistics, it is clear that drug abuse, and repeated or continued drug abuse, are a serious problem facing the criminal justice system.

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.