skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 243269   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Statewide Evaluation of New York's Adult Drug Courts: Identifying Which Policies Work Best
  Document URL: PDF 
Author(s): Amanda B. Cissner ; John K. Roman ; Samuel Bieler ; Robyn Cohen ; Carolyn R. Cadoret ; Michael Rempel ; Allyson Walker Franklin
Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
United States of America

Center for Court Innovation
United States of America
Date Published: 06/2013
Page Count: 118
  Annotation: Findings and methodology are presented for an evaluation of 86 adult drug courts in New York State (the most sites ever included in a single drug court evaluation) for the primary purpose of determining why some drug courts were more successful than others in reducing recidivism and improving sentencing outcomes.
Abstract: The evaluation found a positive, albeit relatively modest, impact on re-arrest and re-conviction for participants in New York’s adult drug courts. There were significant variations in policies and practices among the drug courts, which led to significant variations in their impact. The drug courts that had the greatest positive impact on participants served a higher risk population and a population over whom the drug court had greater leverage in imposing consequences for failure (e.g., felony as opposed to misdemeanor defendants). The more effective courts also maximized legal leverage in other ways (e.g., through predetermined jail or prison alternatives imposed on those who fail). Other features of the most successful courts were the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance; the inclusion of prosecutor and defense representatives on the drug court team; greater use of residential treatment for “high-need” participants with a serious addiction; and the use of cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence-based practices when indicated by needs assessment. The evaluation compared recidivism and sentencing outcomes between statistically matched samples drawn from 86 drug courts and conventional courts in the same jurisdictions. The samples came from cases that either enrolled in a drug court or were resolved in a conventional court in 2005 or 2006. Using propensity score matching techniques, the final samples were virtually identical on key characteristics, including criminal history, charges, and demographic background. The analysis of data assumed that the drug court impact might vary based on local context and specific court policies and practices. Extensive tables, 75 references, and appended study instruments and supplementary data
Main Term(s): Drug Courts
Index Term(s): Recidivism ; Program evaluation ; Evaluation techniques ; Evaluation measures ; Drug treatment ; Comparative analysis ; Corrections effectiveness ; Cognitive therapy ; BJA grant-related documents ; New York
Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance
US Dept of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America

New York State Unified Court System
Division of Court Operations
United States of America
Grant Number: 2009-DC-BX-0018
Type: Program/Project Evaluation ; Report (Study/Research) ; Report (Grant Sponsored)
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.