Courts, Policing and the Law

NIJ's Multi-Site Evaluation of Adult Drug Courts will report on a mediation analysis to empirically test theoretical pathways to desistance. The analysis considers the theoretical mechanisms through which drug court practices are meant to impact outcomes and how such pathways can be operationalized. A path model is proposed that delineates how drug-court practices affect modifications in behaviors and attitudes, and how these changes affect outcomes. Proposed mediators include changes in: perceived risk and reward (deterrence), perceived legitimacy, and motivation to alter one's behavior. The analysis will suggest the pathways that are most crucial to desistance and the most effective drug-court components that impact these pathways.

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.

This congressional testimony summarizes research on the utility of halfway houses in facilitating the successful reentry of former prisoners, emphasizing that not all halfway houses are effective in preventing recidivism. Halfway houses that work have qualified staff who use such evidence-based practices as needs assessments and tailored, wraparound services. Halfway houses are most effective for medium- and high-risk prisoners. However, they can actually be detrimental for low-risk prisoners, who would fair better by simply returning directly to their families and communities. This research suggests that the District of Columbia's halfway houses should be reserved for higher-risk returning prisoners.

One of the worst-kept secrets in law enforcement - that there is little science behind many standard investigative practices - is getting the sunshine treatment. A new National Research Council study concludes that crime-investigation practices across the country are inconsistent: who collects the evidence, how it is processed, and how it is interpreted vary from coast to coast. Moreover, no current scientific method ensures the accuracy of many common investigative tools.