Operating in Australia since 1999, drug courts are now present in the majority of Australian jurisdictions. This paper takes stock of the impact evaluations of Australia’s drug courts to date, and considers to what extent these evaluations support drug courts as being more effective than ‘conventional’ sanctions in reducing recidivism.
While Australian evaluations indicate drug courts reduce recidivism more than conventional sanctions, certainty in these findings is tempered by mixed results and methodological limitations.
Alberti, S., King, J., Hales, J., & Swan, A. (2004). Court diversion program evaluation: Overview report: Final report. Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Inc and Health Outcomes International Pty Ltd.
2.
AndrewsD.BontaJ. (2010) The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th ed.. New Jersey: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
3.
BelenkoS. (1999) Research on drug courts: A critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute ReviewII(2): 1–59.
4.
BelenkoS. (2001) Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update, New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
5.
BerkR. (2005) Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology1(4): 417–433.
6.
Children's Court of the Australian Capital Territory. (2011). Practice direction No. 1 of 2011: Youth Drug and Alcohol Court Program.
7.
Crime Research Centre (2003) Evaluation of the Perth Drug Court pilot project: Final report, Perth: University of Western Australia.
8.
Department of the Attorney General (WA). (2006). A review of the Perth Drug Court. Perth.
9.
Department of Treasury and Finance (NT). (2012). 2012–13 mini budget. Darwin.
10.
DuroseM.CooperA.SnyderH. (2014) Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, Washington: United States Department of Justice.
11.
EardleyT.McNabJ.FisherK.KozlinaS.EcclesJ.FlickM. (2004) Evaluation of the New South Wales Youth Drug Court pilot program: Final report, Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, The University of New South Wales.
12.
FarringtonD.WelshB. (2005) Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades?Journal of Experimental Criminology1(1): 9–38.
13.
FreibergA. (2000) Australian drug courts. Criminal Law Journal24(4): 213–235.
14.
HackshawA.KirkwoodA. (2011) Interpreting and reporting clinical trials with results of borderline significance. British Medical Journal343: d3340.
Hannam, H. (2013). Current issues in delivering Indigenous justice: Challenges for the courts. Paper presented at the AIJA Indigenous Justice Conference, Adelaide.
17.
HeckmanJ.SmithJ. (1995) Assessing the case for social experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives9(2): 85–110.
18.
HollisS.CampbellF. (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal319: 670–674.
19.
IndermaurD.RobertsL. (2003) Drug courts in Australia: The first generation. Current Issues in Criminal Justice15(2): 136–154.
20.
KingJ.HalesJ. (2004) Victorian Drug Court: Cost-effectiveness study: May 2002 to December 2004, South Australia: Health Outcomes International Pty Ltd.
21.
KingM.FreibergA.BatagolB.HyamsR. (2014) Non-adversarial justice, 2nd ed.. Sydney: The Federation Press.
22.
KPMG. (2014). Evaluation of the Drug Court of Victoria: Final report.
23.
LindB.WeatherburnD.ChenS.ShanahanM.LancsarE.HaasM.LourencoR. (2002) New South Wales Drug Court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness, Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
24.
LowenkampC.HolsingerA.LatessaE. (2005) Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, Fall, 5–10, 28.
25.
LumC.YangS.-M. (2005) Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods?Journal of Experimental Criminology1(2): 191–213.
26.
MakkaiT.VeraarK. (2003) Final report on the South East Queensland Drug Court. Technical and Background Paper SeriesNo. 6, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
27.
MitchellO.WilsonD.EggersA.MacKenzieD. (2012) Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice40(1): 60–71.
28.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1976) Corrections, Washington: United States Department of Justice.
29.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2015). Adult drug court best practice standards (Vol. 2). Virginia.
30.
PalmerT.PetrosinoA. (2003) The ‘experimenting agency’: The California Youth Authority Research Division. Evaluation Review27(3): 228–266.
31.
PayneJ. (2005) Final report on the North Queensland Drug Court. Technical and Background PaperNo. 17, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
32.
PayneJ. (2008) The Queensland Drug Court: A recidivism study of the first 100 graduates. Research and Public Policies SeriesNo. 83, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
33.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M., & Lavenberg, J. (2012). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. The Campbell Collaboration.
34.
Productivity Commission. (2009). Evidence-based policy. In Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation: Roundtable proceedings. (Canberra, 17–18 August 2009) (Vol. 2: Background Paper) (pp. 1–8).
35.
Productivity Commission. (2014). Report on government services. Canberra.
Rogers, P. (2009). Learning from the evidence about evidence-based policy. In Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation: Roundtable proceedings (Canberra, 17–18 August 2009) (Vol. 1: Proceedings) (pp. 195–213).
39.
SchwartzD.LellouchJ. (1967) Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases20(8): 637–648.
40.
Shaffer, D. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
41.
ShafferD. (2011) Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly28(3): 493–521.
42.
ShermanL. (2010) An introduction to experimental criminology. In: PiqueroA.WeisburdD. (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology, New York: Springer, pp. 399–436.
43.
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to the United States Congress.
44.
Tasmania Law Reform Institute. (2006). The establishment of a drug court pilot in Tasmania. Hobart.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington.
47.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2012). Designing evaluations (2012 revision). Washington.
48.
WeatherburnD.JonesC.SnowballL.HuaJ. (2008) The NSW Drug Court: A re-evaluation of its effectiveness. Contemporary Issues in Crime and JusticeNo. 121, Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
49.
WertzR. (1995) Intention to treat: Once randomized, always analyzed. Clinical Aphasiology23: 57–64.
50.
WeisburdD. (2010) Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology6(2): 209–227.
51.
WeisburdD.LumC.PetrosinoA. (2001) Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice. The Annals of The Academy of Political and Social Science578(1): 50–70.
52.
WilsonD.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. (2006) A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology2(4): 459–487.
53.
WundersitzJ. (2007) Criminal justice responses to drug and drug-related offending: Are they working?Technical and Background Paper (No. 25), Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
54.
ZierschE.MarshallJ. (2012) The South Australian Drug Court: A recidivism study, Perth: Office of Crime Statistics and Research, Government of South Australia.
