Accreditation Key to Creating the Next Generation of Drug Courts
Commentary
By John Roman
Controversy continues about the effectiveness of drug courts. In the midst if this debate, and faced with limited funding, drug courts are caught in a vicious cycle pitting self-promotion against the need for rigorous research that will lead to better interventions. While it is fair to denounce the lamentable state of drug-court research, criticisms of drug court self-promotion serve no purpose. A better approach is to free drug courts from the burdens of research while at the same time providing an objective means of measuring their effectiveness. The solution: accreditation.
Kevin Whitacre's recent Join Together Online commentary on drug courts critiques the self-promotional nature of drug-court research. Many of his points are on target. He raises the important concern that the drug-court movement has outpaced the research community's ability to develop evidence to support or refute drug-court practices. He's also right that most drug-court research conducted to date lacks scientific rigor.
In an ongoing Urban Institute review of more than 70 local drug-court evaluations submitted to the federal Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 2002 and 2003, fewer than five identified an appropriate comparison group. And even those evaluations that do have a comparison group often use it as little more than a straw man. Researchers who have undertaken reviews of drug-court evaluations find very few strong designs in the sea of drug-court research (see Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, and Lieb 2001; Belenko 1998; Belenko 1999; Wilson, Mitchell and MacKenzie 2002). As a result, if the drug-court literature is considered in its entirety, it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.
But it is easy to miss the forest for the trees in this debate. The problem is that while most drug-court research is not credible, the best research supports the idea that drug courts are helping to improve the lives of a very-difficult-to-reach population. There is some solid research supporting drug courts. For example, David Wilson and his colleagues at the University of Maryland found that, even controlling for weaknesses in the research designs, 36 of 42 published drug-court evaluations reported a positive effect.
Time for a different research agenda
"Where does drug-court research go from here?" is the question drug-court funders, researchers, and practitioners should be asking. In our upcoming book from the Urban Institute (Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Use) Jeffrey Butts and I argue that the current lack of empirical support for adult drug courts is not evidence that more of the usual research is needed. Rather, it is time for a very different research agenda.
First, researchers should continue to work with the available evidence to draw conclusions from existing research. It would be difficult to find a more intensively researched social program than drug courts. Virtually every drug court that has ever served a drug-involved offender has been evaluated in some way, and many have been evaluated multiple times. The research pool is broad, but shallow. Even so, efforts like those of Steve Aos and David Wilson and their colleagues to search this pool for broader conclusions is well worth the investment.
Second, researchers need to start drawing definitive conclusions about whether, in general, the drug-court model reduces drug use and crime among participants. One attempt to do so was the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study of drug-court graduates that Whitacre says that the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Report Card misrepresents. As the lead author of the NIJ funded report, I should note that the study was not an attempt to compare drug-court graduates to others, but rather to establish a benchmark recidivism rate for this group as an early step toward a better understanding of drug-court impact. While that report is certainly open to criticism for its limited intent, it should not be used as evidence to discredit drug courts.
A much more comprehensive study is now underway. The NIJ has funded a multi-site longitudinal evaluation of adult drug courts, due in 2008. Given the complexity of the research, the study is unlikely to satisfy all drug-court observers, but the project should fill a large void in the current research. A similar project for juvenile drug courts is also warranted.
Third, it is time to get drug courts out of the business of doing research and back into the business of treating drug-involved offenders. The way forward is to start putting what's known about drug courts into practice. Doug Marlowe and his colleagues at the Treatment Research Institute are conducting randomized trials investigating how particular drug-court components affect outcomes. This type of research is absolutely critical. Even if the NIJ-funded national evaluation finds that drug courts work, its authors will not be able to detail precisely how. Only through studies like Marlowe's can those questions be answered.
Accreditation, research, and efficacy
The trick will be to use such results to move research findings into practice. Why not establish an accreditation entity to coordinate this effort? Under this model, a researcher-practitioner collaborative would identify drug-court practices that are thought to influence participant outcomes. The collaborative would then determine if there is sufficient evidence in either the drug-court literature or other literature (health, behavioral, organizational, etc.) to support including that practice in the accreditation protocol. If research isn't adequate, the collaborative would recommend that such government partners as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the NIJ fund further scientific inquiry.
Drug courts would then be given the option of going through an accreditation process. Those found to be in compliance with evidence-based practices would be fully accredited. In theory, that accreditation should be evidence of drug-court efficacy for local stakeholders and obviate the need for additional research. The accreditation process would be dynamic -- new protocols would be added as evidence is developed, thus creating a clear mechanism for drug courts to identify and implement innovative practices.
We need to get the answers to drug-court effectiveness right. The federal government has now spent more than $300 million on drug courts; a combined $1 billion has been spent when state and local money is tallied. The public deserves to know whether that investment was, and continues to be, warranted.
Drug courts represent a new way of doing business that has evolved from fad to business as usual. That paradigm shift requires thoughtful evaluation. But since adult drug courts are the leading edge of a new wave of court practice, it is critical that researchers do more than just evaluate the return to the public on the huge public investment in these programs. Researchers must also consider whether the huge public investment in drug-court research has been worthwhile, whether it is worth continuing, and in what form.
I believe the research agenda described above can begin to address these problems, and can be used as a model for other 'specialized' interventions. But this will require time and patience. Drug use is a multi-faceted problem with no easy solutions. Sophisticated research can help create more effective interventions, but there is no silver bullet waiting to be discovered.
There are some answers already in the literature that can help to improve drug courts, but this type of research is extremely difficult to do well. With a more formalized research process funneled through an objective accreditation process, best practices and future advances can be institutionalized. Accreditation will allow drug courts to evolve and innovate while at the same time taking them out of the self-promotion business. That combination will benefit everyone.
John Roman is a senion research associate at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center.
References
Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. 2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Version 4.0. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Belenko, Steven. 1998. "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review." National Drug Court Institute Review 1(1): 1-42.
Belenko. 1999. "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 Update." National Drug Court Institute Review 2(2): 1-58.
Wilson, David B., Ojmarrh Mitchell, and Doris Layton MacKenzie. 2002. "A Systematic Review of Drug Court Effects on Recidivism." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, Nov. 12-16.
Back to Drug and Alcohol Rehab News Articles
