Article Summary Drug Court Models

ArticleSummary: Drug Court Models

ArticleSummary: Drug Court Models

Drugcourt models have, for a long time, served as the ultimate solutionto rehabilitate as well as punish offenders with drug-related crimes.The statistics over time and in diverse places where the model iseffective have indicated the success of this model in establishingcorrective measures for addicts and restoring sanity in the proneareas. Graduates of the drug court model have shown signs ofimprovement and reform. These reports have led to the adoption of themodel in more regions within the country as well as internationally.On the other hand, there is increasing concern over the accuracy ofthe data in the reports that determine the success of the program.Critics of the drug court model have highlighted specific issues thatprove sufficient evidence of a wide miscalculation and inaccuracy inthe conclusive remarks of the success story. For instance, thereports do not include studies of a wide range of participants. Theyonly focus on graduates of the program consequently hindering apossible trend of progressive processes that are crucial indetermining the outcome. Other opposing authors give theirdisappointment in the system by claiming that the model not onlyignores other demographic factors, but also leads to racialdiscrimination in arresting offenders. Although the current system islikely to be consistent in retaining jurisdiction, an explicitresearch on the extent of damage caused by the model is extremelyimportant in helping provide the best of solutions for the futuredrug-related crimes. The solutions should ,for instance, cater forthe families of the offenders (keep them out of punishment) and offerlasting solutions to poverty, which is the major cause of drug abuseespecially in areas considered prone to drug-related crimes. In thispaper, I examine four articles that respond to the drug court modeldata to provide insight on the reality of the situation because theoutcome is not only crucial for knowledge but also helps in determinethe most appropriate of solutions for the future generations.

SocialDisadvantage and Economic Hardship as Predictors of Follow-UpAddiction Severity after Substance Abuse Treatment: Does Referral toTreatment by the Criminal Justice System Matter? By Elizabeth Wahler.

Wahlerfocuses her study on the challenges facing treatment of patients withdrug abuse. She gives a comprehensive report that highlightstreatment as a fairer option compared to incarceration, a solutionoffered by the criminal justice system. Using two groups ofparticipants, the author successfully outlines the implications,challenges and outcome of both strategies of treating addiction andsubstance abuse. Although studies reveal the evidence of quickrecovery rates in coerced court-led treatment than other means oftreatment, she observes that the studies ignored other crucialfactors, such as poverty and crime in determining an accurateoutcome. In her study, she divided the respondents into groups andsought specific issues, such as addiction severity, economichardship, demographics associated with social disadvantage, andstress levels.

Theauthor acknowledges the positive impact of legal means of treatment,but highlights the underlying issues often ignored when makingconclusions. For instance, she expounds on the social disadvantage asa vital issue to predict drug-related arrests making the processbias. African Americans living in poor neighborhoods are more likelyto get arrested than the other races having higher standards ofliving. The issue of poverty is so important in determining theoutcome of treatment that ignoring it gives an inaccurate result.Although poverty is a major factor in initiating drug abuse and othercrimes, Wahler explains that banning offenders from federal benefits(such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) has extreme effectson the financial status of these families. Consequently, thisincreases the poverty levels in the neighborhoods. Persons convictedof drug-related offenses often report high levels of financialinsecurity and hardship due to such bans imposed on them.

Theresearch article utilizes a variety of sources. The author quotesearlier authors and uses credible sources and studies to assess andcompare their results before making her judgment. The sources includea wide variety of related information, such as census, racial issuesaffecting the nation, crime in poor neighborhoods and criminaljustice records of treatment of addicts.

Theauthors concern for detail and accuracy is evident in her criticalanalysis of earlier studies. She conducts a quantitative study with 3hypotheses. Using participants who were referred to the criminaljustice system of treatment, the study uses secondary data of over1,000 participants in a survey. In the qualitative research, at least6,000 participants completed interviews. However, only 50% of theseindividuals volunteered with the study to the follow-up stages tocomplete the study.

Inher data analysis, she re-examined and reviewed the data to verifyits accuracy. She performed analytical tests on her models todetermine the potential differences between the court-led groups andthe non-criminal group in their treatment. The direct comparison gavean accurate result for the study. For instance, the primary studyutilized ordinary least squares regression in SPSS.

Thearticle is not only comprehensive, but also detailed and precise. Itgives a summary of the issues surrounding drug addicts, the potentialoutcomes as well as the inaccuracies. In the conclusion, Wahleracknowledges the fact that the area of study is under-exploited andrequires more studies to determine the accurate outcome and suggestbetter solutions. She sticks to her sentiments that the impact of thecriminal justice system on addicts is greater than alternatives.

TheEffects of Net-Widening On Minority and Indigent Drug Offenders: ACritique Of Drug Courts by Joel Gross

JoelGross vehemently supports the net-widening phenomenon as a moresuitable method of determining the success of a treatment program fordrug addicts. According to Gross, the net-widening phenomenon is theexpanded group of offenders charged under a drug court in the beliefand hope that the corrective facilities will offer a reliable andlasting impact on them. He criticizes the reports and calls them biasbased on the fact that they are limited to studying graduates of thecorrective institutions rather than a wider scope of participants.

Theauthor chooses to give more information on the critics of the drugcourt model. He cites various authors (such as Maurice B Hoffman) whoundermine the validity of the reports and disputed statistics thatthe supporters rely on to make conclusions of a success story. ,Gross, on the other hand, observes that the supporters cite the lowrecidivism rates as an indication that the drug court model is arealistic and appropriate solution offering admirable results.However, he notes that since the studies target the wrong group (onlygraduates of the system), the low recidivism rates are meaninglessand inappropriate.

Themain purpose of Gross’s article is to critique the existing biasreports and studies and publicize his concern over vital issuesconcerning drug related offenders that go unnoticed and unrecorded.His disappointment in the current system of drug court reliance isevident in his description of the inability of the reports toeffectively account for the accurate data using a bias test. Thejudicial system ultimately sends more drug defendants to prison withthe belief that the low recidivism in the statistics proves thesuccess of the prison in rehabilitating the individuals.

Grossutilizes secondary data resources from previous studies to make hisanalyze and derive conclusions. He utilizes a wide range of articlesto study the trend over a long period of time. These articles includereports on the success of drug court models in various parts of thecountry.

Grossis keen to put emphasis on the increasing discrimination especiallythe racial majority who suffer the consequences of being AfricanAmericans and are highly likely to get arrested while the whiteminority maintain arrogance as they are not exposed to the treatmentprogram. Although the model seems to help addicts, its concentrationon a particular race makes it not only bias but also frustrating asit increases poverty.

Hemaintains his stand in the conclusion claiming that while the drugcourt model available in most of the States across the country seemdependable and helpful it has serious side effects with a long-termnegative impact on the families and individual offenders. Thenet-widening has caused discrimination on neighborhoods and racialdifferences where African Americans are vulnerable to arrests ascompared to their white counterparts. Gross is concerned that thereis little possibility of eradicating the drug court system in thefuture, and therefore, the course of change and improvement shouldfocus on balancing the concentration such that the arrests wouldinclude the white minority. Such a program would reduce the violenceand hate as there is the likelihood of free white offenders (who arealso the minority), who he explains, will learn from therehabilitative program and reduce their indulgence.

Associationswith Substance Abuse Treatment Completion among Drug CourtParticipants Randall Brown

Browngives an explicit examination of the history and progress of the drugcourt model treatment since its inception in Florida 26 years ago asit spread to other states in the United States. He examines theunderlying factors that influence and that are affected by the entireprocess. The main reason for this article is to show the impulse ofassociations with the treatment of substance abuse addicts withintheir drug treatment courts. The initial drug treatment court wasinstituted in the year 1989 in Florida. The Court justice found itprudent for offenders with substance use maladies to be incarceratedin such courts where they would recover from their addictions. Thestart of this one drug treatment court led to the blooming of manyother drug treatment courts that are now existent over 1,800 countieswithin the United States of America. Participating in a drugtreatment court is voluntary. According to Albert, he advocated foroffenders in the drug treatment program to graduate from the courtssuccessfully as it would reduce the sentenced period. Particular drugtreatment programs can vary the type of judgment verdict the courtwill impose on the offender. They are based on the level ofparticipation the perpetrator has in substance treatment program, theindividual case management, screening of urine to determine theamount of drug in it and the contact with the drug court judge whoanalyzes the offender’s progress, and determines the sanctions tobe imposed and the eligibility for graduation. However, the drugtreatment courts reject to take in high-level offenders that areusually involved in the manufacture and distribution of the drugs.

Theresearch made was a courtesy of the University of Wisconsin’shealth sciences institutional review board that approved it. The bestform of research method done was through the use of questionnairesand also data that was sourced from the drug treatment courtarchives. Clinical and related data were sourced from the County’sHealth Centre’s staff. These staffs has well-educated backgroundsin the fields of social works and counseling. The drug treatmentcourt is in a one-on-one relation with the offender the closepersonal contacts comes second fiddle. Demographic and socioeconomicdata are fished out from the interview with the perpetrator.Information, for instance, criminal records and drug use history fromthe drug treatment courts help track the participant NIL theprogress. Assessments were made according to a number of individualcharacteristics namely, gender, age, race, which covered Asian,African American, Native American, Hispanic or Caucasian, maritalstatus, and living situation, which involved whether the offender isliving with a spouse, spouse and children, alone or with family. Theother features considered comprised of employment attainment, whichregarded whether one was in a full-time job or part time job, studentor unemployed, educational attainment, criminal history records,presence or absence of mental health diagnosis, drug use history, anddiagnosis of drug use disorder.

Thedrug treatment court had their data analysis from their programdatabase. They put down their analysis on possession of drugparaphernalia, drug related theft, possession with intent to deliverdrugs and disorderly conduct.

Manyof the offenders who were found to have little education attainmentand had a streak of unemployment were unlikely to finish theirgraduation and were prone to get back to habits of recidivism. Theoffenders who were under the influence of cocaine had impetuousconducts, and this made it hard for them to complete treatmentsuccessfully. Impulsivity seen in the users of cocaine develops anegative influence towards the motivation to change, affectingtreatment completion rates.

Thezenith of this research has enabled us to identify that a lowsocioeconomic status, unemployment and the use of cocaine deterparticipants from completely getting satisfactory treatment from thedrug treatment courts. 

DrugCourt Graduation Rates: Implications for Policy Advocacy and FutureResearch by John R. Gallagher

Themain reason this article has been put down is to unearth theconstraints substance abusers are bound to under the effects of theirsocial and economic statuses. Criminals who have been incarceratedfor the act of substance abuse struggle to break free from theaddictions only because there is no practice of a preferable methodto be used for the prisoners to break free from their addictions.

Amongthe social effects that detect citizens from a drug-free life is thelack of a good education, their employment status or the age thatthey are in. According to a quantitative survey done, the people whowere employed tended to hobble out of the manacles of addiction thanthose who were not employed. Ethnicity is the other key factors thathave effects on the lives of substance abusers. The two major racialgroups in America are the whites and the African Americans. From theresults of research carried out on the two groups, the whites areless vulnerable than the African Americans to fall short of theabsence of destructive drugs.

Federaljurisdiction plays a crucial role in managing the drug abusers withinthe local area. However, due to poverty levels within the AfricanAmerican people than the whites, more scrutiny is undertaken in theAfrican American neighborhood pulling down further the financialstatus of the people who live in the state of poverty. The federalstate will deny the family of the criminal benefits such as thesupport for needy families. It is definite that the poverty levelsskyrocket.

Themethod of research to collect and gather all information has beendistinctively on a quantitative basis. The data was gathered fromelectronic charts of prior participants of a drug court in Texas. Itshowed that the total number of participants were 376 people, 61.7%graduated from the program while 38.3% were flunked out of theprogram. The research was in reference to the various factorsnamely, gender, ethnicity, age, education, employment, drug ofchoice, first 30 days, and time between arrest and admission.

Thenumber of whites that graduated from the program exceeded the numberof African Americans. Also, a higher number of participants who wereolder had a high school diploma and were employed had a better chanceof graduating from the court. Being employed or being a student,having fewer positive drugs and being white are the highest variablesof graduating from the court.

Itis, therefore, evident that social disadvantages and economicconstraints can make a substance abuser to get back to his or her oldpaths. Lack of a better education like possession of a high schooldiploma might get the abuser reeling back to his or her old ways. Thelack of employment will make a substance abuser get the propellingpower to quit slowly his addiction to the drugs. Ethnicity is majorlyevident that not many white drug addicts might be familiar with thedrugs sold in the African American neighborhood. However much goodthe criminal justice system is toiling to make America a drug-freenation, it is faced with unanswered questions what better way canthere be to curb addictions across the eight factors that undermineit? What lenient laws should be put in place in order to save theaddicts whose families are living in acute poverty to surface backagain? The criminal justice system falls short of these crucialfactors and so should look for alternatives that would bringequilibrium across the 8 undermining factors so that all addicts cangraduate from their courts and be embraced back to society.


Allauthors disapprove the accuracy in the reports that portray thecorrective legal system of drug offenders. They also agree on thefact that the system may work for a longer period of time without asuitable alternative but with a hefty price for the victims. The sideeffects of the legal program not taken into account are extremelysevere and have a long term impact on the individuals and theirfamilies. The main point of concern being poverty, a system that doesnot help to resolve the issue and instead worsens the situation isnot only appropriate but exploitative and hinders the economicgrowth. The authors give sufficient proof of an exploitative systemthat ignores the side effects of the overall outcome of itscorrective program. Each author gives their reasons for findingfault in the system, and they emphasize on different aspects ofissues that arise from the faults of the program.

Allthe authors are keen on using reliable sources with qualitativeresearch methods that guarantee the validity of the results. Thesestudies enhance their argument giving it reasonable evidence of afaulty system. The articles are extremely important especially toplan a strategic plan for the future system of correction. Althoughthey do not offer suggestions of a better plan, the authors give thecrucial aspects of concern that will enable the implementers toachieve the desired plan that addresses the issues previouslyignored.


Sinceinitiation in Florida in 1989, Drug court models have spread acrossthe country to most States and, for a long time, served as theultimate solution to rehabilitate as well as punish offenders withdrug-related crimes. The reports and statistics have indicated thesuccess of this model in establishing corrective measures to addictsand restoring sanity in the prone areas. Graduates of the drug courtmodel have shown signs of improvement and reformation. These reportshave led to other regions to yield to the influence and make thedecision to adopt the model in more regions within the country aswell as internationally. Despite the positive reports on the progressand success of court-led treatment, there is increasing concern forthe accuracy of the data in these reports that determine the successof the program. A great number of Critics of the drug court modelhave highlighted specific issues that prove that there is sufficientevidence of a wide miscalculation and inaccuracy in the conclusiveremarks of the success story. For instance, the reports do notinclude studies of a wide range of participants. They only focus ongraduates of the program consequently hindering a possible trend ofprogressive processes that are crucial in determining the outcome.Other opposing authors give their disappointment in the systembecause, they claim, it not only ignores other demographic factorsbut also leads to racial discrimination in arresting offenders.Although the current system is likely to be consistent in theretaining jurisdiction, an explicit research on the extent of damagecaused by the model is extremely important in helping to provide thebest of solutions for the future of drug-related crimes. Thesolutions should cater, for instance, for the families of theoffenders (keep them out of punishment) and offer lasting solutionsto poverty, which is the major cause of drug abuse especially inareas considered prone to drug-related crimes.

Thispaper sought to examine four of articles that analyze the validity ofthe report in maintaining the stand that the court models are thebest alternative concerning dealing with drug-related crimes. In thepaper, I have analyzed and summarized the main points of the authorsand gave their position concerning the subject according to theirfindings and tests.