Koetzle, D., Garman, J., & Sudula, S. (2025). Predicting placement in residential treatment in a drug court program. Criminal Justice Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034251316878
With a growing emphasis on alternatives to incarceration for high-risk/high-need individuals who use drugs or alcohol, there is an increased need for intensive treatment services in the community. The current study examines referrals to residential treatment in a drug court setting. Using a sample of 378 drug court participants, this study compares characteristics of drug court participants who received traditional drug court services and those who received residential services. Multivariable logistic regression model analyses indicate that drug of choice (i.e., heroin/opiate use), substance use severity (i.e., early onset of drug use at 15 years and below), and noncompliance (i.e., rearrests prior to referral) were significant predictors of referral to and placement in residential treatment, when controlling for demographic characteristics (i.e., age, race, gender). Research and policy implications are discussed.
Fanarraga, I., & Koetzle, D. (2021). Mental health courts: Policy and practice. In E. M. Ahlin & A. S. Douds, Taking Problem-Solving Courts to Scale. Lexington Books.
This book chapter on mental health courts includes an overview of their origins, a description of the model, and a review of their effectiveness. Criticisms of the model, as well as recommendations to address them, are also included.
Koetzle, D. & Listwan, S.J. (Eds). (2018). Drug courts and the criminal justice system. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher.
Drug courts—a rare success story in the criminal justice system—are generally credited with reducing recidivism and providing a lower-cost alternative to incarceration. They have also spawned the development of other specialty courts. The authors of Drug Courts and the Criminal Justice System provide a comprehensive analysis of just how drug courts work, systematically examining the model and exploring its broader significance.
Koetzle, D., Listwan, S. J., Guastaferro, W. P., & Kobus, K. D. (2015). Treating high risk offenders in the community: The potential of drug courts. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13515635
The drug court model, which integrates drug treatment with community supervision and uses the authority of the court to facilitate compliance and behavioral change, provides an innovative alternative to processing as usual. While drug courts have enjoyed considerable empirical support, research suggests that they could increase their effectiveness through further refining their target population. In particular, it is hypothesized that drug courts are particularly well suited to treat drug offenders who have a high risk for recidivism. The purpose of the current study is to compare recidivism rates of high-risk drug court participants and high-risk probationers. Using new charges as a measure of recidivism, the results indicate drug court participants had significantly better outcomes than probationers. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Shaffer, D. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.525222
There has been a rapid proliferation of drug courts over the past two decades. Empirical research examining the effectiveness of the model has generally demonstrated reduced rates of recidivism among program participants. However, relatively little is known about the structure and processes associated with effective drug courts. The current study seeks to address the issues by exploring the moderating influence of programmatic and non-programmatic characteristics on effectiveness. The methodology goes beyond previous meta-analyses by supplementing published (and unpublished) findings with a survey of drug court administrators. Consistent with previous research, the results revealed drug courts reduce recidivism by 9 percent on average. Further analyses indicated target population, program leverage and intensity, and staff characteristics explain the most variability in drug court effectiveness. These findings are discussed within the context of therapeutic jurisprudence and effective interventions.