View Research by Author - Mia Green

Publications

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International conducted a five-year Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation on behalf of the National Institute of Justice. This presentation covers the impact of adult drug courts on: 1) drug use, 2) criminal activities and incarceration, 3) socioeconomic status, 4) mental health, and 5) families. Results include the impact of drug court participation in each area, and for whom drug courts work (i.e., whether they are particularly suited to some, as opposed to other, categories of offenders).

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International conducted a five-year Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation on behalf of the National Institute of Justice. This presentation covers the impact of adult drug courts on: 1) drug use, 2) socioeconomic status, 3) family functioning, and 4) mental health. Results include offender characteristics at baseline (i.e., the severity of the problems that had to be overcome), as well as the impact of drug court participation in each area, and for whom drug courts work (i.e., whether they are particularly suited to some, as opposed to other, categories of offenders).

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International conducted NIJ's Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation, which focused on 23 drug courts and 6 comparison jurisdictions in 8 states. This presentation covers the impact of adult drug courts on 1) criminal behavior, 2) incarceration, 3) perceived fairness of the court and judge, and 4) perceived threat of sanctions for noncompliance. It also examines the widely discussed drug-crime nexus: does treatment attendance and reduced drug use lead directly to less re-offending.

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation compares outcomes between offenders in 23 drug court and six comparison sites. Such a research design poses several potential threats to validity, including selection bias (do drug court and comparison offenders vary in background), attrition bias (do offenders retained for follow-up interviews vary from the original baseline samples), and site-level bias (are the drug court and comparison sites comparable in ways other than drug court status). In addition to outlining the analytic strategy, simple outcomes are reported comparing drug court and comparison sites with respect to criminal re-offending, incarceration, and other psychosocial outcomes.

Several studies have found that drug courts reduce recidivism rates, but few studies have focused on the effect of drug courts on substance abuse. Substance abuse treatment approaches used in drug courts are identified based on data from participant surveys and process evaluation of the 23 participating drug courts. Baseline data for 1100 drug court participants and 600 comparison offenders is reported as descriptive analyses. However, the focus is on reporting substance abuse impacts, including 1) the trajectory of recovery and whether drug courts work in terms of reducing drug use, and 2) for whom drug courts are most effective.

Return to list of authors