Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption


Warning: Use of undefined constant no - assumed 'no' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/austra01/public_html/allacademicanswers.com/wp-content/plugins/content-for-money/contentformoney.php on line 162

Introduction – Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption

This chapter outlines the previous studies and researches that have been focused on the Level of Services Inventory- Revised (LSI-R) assessment tool that is used by probation officers in determining the risk of offenders in offending and their treatment needs.  A number of studies have been conducted in the probation and criminology in general hence the researcher outlines the relevant information. Globally, drug consumption has resulted in several individuals arrested and arranged in courts. As a result of this, governments and non governmental organizations are in the front line to ensure that citizens are educated on the dangerous of taking drugs.

The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a positive relationship between the LSI-R measure and the results of the probationer completing a drug court program either successfully or unsuccessfully. Slot of money is used by the criminal justice, prisons, and jails on drug addicted offenders while drug courts are trying as much as possible to provide rehabilitation so as to help in reducing recidivism rates among the drug addicted offenders. Information concerning an individual’s personality and style that best benefits from drug treatment court programs is very little. It is therefore becoming hard for drug treatment court staff to educate the public on the benefits they can get from their programs.

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption

Lack of this information has resulted in some people failing to successfully complete the program and thus the tax payers incur huge amounts of money. Potential non successful participants could be eliminated from entering the program and costing the program money if there was a better understanding of what type of participant would be most likely to successfully complete the program. The rationale of conducting the LSI-R is to screen the potential drug addicted offenders in order to evaluate whether they are most appropriate for drug court programs. The most important aspect here is to ensure that huge sums of the tax payers’ money are not used without producing positive outcomes.

Pay to Unlock the Answer!



Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption

In this case therefore, the drug treatment courts have been found as the most effective way of treating drug addiction among drug offenders hence reducing recidivism rates. Since a lot of tax payers’ money is used in treating drug offenders to the extent that some criminologists have ruled against its efficiency, LSI-R score is appropriately used in determining the offenders who should under go treatment and their completion rates. Successful treatment program completion is influenced by offender demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, and education/employment (Dynia & Sung, 2000).

The criminal justice practitioners and policymakers can get significant information from this study on the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence and its principles as well as implementation of drug court programs. The findings of the previous studies have indicated that therapeutic jurisprudence mainly focuses on the physical, emotional, and psychological impact of law, legal actors, and legal procedures hence impacting the outcomes of the participants. The theory asserts that drug offenders should not be considered as criminals who have broken the laws but as people suffering from mental problems due to drug abuse hence need treatment. The criminal justice practitioners and policymakers should know that incarceration is not the best way of preventing or reducing recidivism but addiction treatment can do better.

References

Aharonovich, E., Hasin, D. S., Brooks, A. C., Liu, X., Bisaga, A., & Nunes, E. V. (2006). Cognitive deficits predict low treatment retention in cocaine dependent patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81, 313-322. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Arrigo, B. (2004). The Ethics of Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A Critical and Theoretical Enquiry of Law, Psychology, and Crime. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(1), 23-43

Bagley, S. C., White, H., & Golomb, B. A. (2001). Logistic regression in the medical literature: Standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 979-985.

Belenko, S. (2002). The challenges of conducting research in drug treatment court settings. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1635-1664. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 107-118.

Birgden, A. (2004). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Responsivity: Finding the Will and the Way in Offender Rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 283-295.

Bouffard, J. A., & Richardson, K. A. (2007). The effectiveness of drug court programming for specific kinds of offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 274-293. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 177-206.

Burnes, S. & Peyrot, M. (2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and Recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems, 50(3), 416-436.

Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Scarpitti, F. R. (2002). Factors associated with completion of a drug treatment court diversion program. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1615-1633.

California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (2006). Fact sheet: Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. Sacramento, CA: Office of Criminal Justice Collaboration. Retrieved from http://cadpaac.org/downloads/SACPA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Castro, F. G., Barrington, E. H., Walton, M. A., & Rawson, R. A. (2000). Cocaine and methamphetamine: Differential addiction rates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 390-396.

Cosden, M. A., Basch, J., Campos, E., Greenwell, A., Barazani, S., & Walker, S. (2006). Effects of motivation and problem severity on court-based drug treatment. Crime & Delinquency,52, 599-618.

Cunha, P. J., Nicastri, S., Gomes, L. P., Moino, R. M., & Peluso, M. A. (2004). Neuropsychological impairments in crack cocaine-dependent inpatients: Preliminary findings. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 26, 103-106.

Dannerbeck, A., Harris, G., Sundet, P., & Lloyd, K. (2006). Understanding and responding to racial differences in drug court outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 5, 1-22. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Dannerbeck, A., Harris, G., Sundet, P., & Lloyd, K. (2006). Understanding and Responding to Racial Differences in Drug Court Outcomes. Journal Of Ethnicity In Substance Abuse, 5(2), 1-22.

 Deschenes, E., Ireland, C., and Kleinpeter, C. B. (2005). Enhancing Drug Court Success.              Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1), 19-36.

Dynia, P., & Sung, H. (2000). The safety and effectiveness of diverting felony drug offenders to residential treatment as measured by recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11, 299-311. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Farabee, D., Zhang, S., & Yang, J. (2011). A Preliminary Examination of Offender Needs             Assessment: Are All Those Questions Really Necessary? Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43, 51-57

 Fletcher, B., Lehman, W., Wexler, H., & Melnick, G. (2007). Who Participates in the             Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS)? The Prison Journal, 87(1), 25-57.

Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-72.

Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 171-196. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Gray, A. and Saum, C. (2005). Mental health, gender, and drug court completion. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 55-71.

Greene, J. A. (2003). Smart on crime: Positive trends in state-level sentencing and corrections policy. Washington, DC: Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

 Hartman, J. L., Listwan, S., & Shaffer, D. (2007). Methamphetamine Users in a Community-Based Drug Court: Does Gender Matter? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(3/4), 109-130. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Herz, D. C. (2000). Drugs in the heartland: Methamphetamine use in rural Nebraska. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Hickert, A. O., Boyle, S. W., & Tollefson, D. R. (2009). Factors That Predict Drug Court             Completion and Drop Out: Findings From an Evaluation of Salt Lake County’s Adult Felony Drug Court. Journal Of Social Service Research, 35(2), 149-162.

Holsinger, A. M., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Validating the LSI-R on a sample of jail inmates. Journal of Offender Monitoring, Winter/Spring, 8-9.

Holtfreter, K., & Cupp, R. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 363-382. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Hopwood, C. J., Baker, K. L., & Morey, L. C. (2008). Personality and drugs of choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1413-1421.

 Houser, K., Salvatore, C., &Welsh, W. (2012). Individual Level Predictors of Community Aftercare Completion. The Prison Journal 92(1), 106-124.

Jolley, J. & Kerbs, J. (2010). Risk, Need, and Responsivity: Unrealized Potential for the International Delivery of Substance Abuse Treatment in Prison. International Criminal Justice Review, 20(3), 280-301.

Karberg, J. C., & James, D. J. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002 (NCJ 209588). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Kelly, C. E., & Welsh, W. N. (2008). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory- Revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 819-831.

Koetzle Shaffer, D., Kelly, B., & Lieberman, J. (2011). An Exempler-Based Approach to Risk Assessment: Validating the Risk Management Systems Instrument. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(2), 167-186.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (NCJ 193427). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Listwan, S. J., Jonson, C. L., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2008). Cracks in the penal harm movement: Evidence from the field. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 423-465.

Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). Combating methamphetamine use in the community: The efficacy of the drug court model. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 627-644. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Latessa, (2001). The Akron Municipal Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Listwan, S. J., Sundt, J., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389-411.

Listwan, S. J., Sundt, J., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). The effect of drug Court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency,49, 389-411. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Longshore, D., Hawken, A., Urada, D., & Anglin, D. (2006). Cost study: Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (first and second years). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Morral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., et al. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 7-26. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Bechtel, K. (2007). The predictive validity of the LSI-R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa Department of Corrections Data Management System. Federal Probation, 71(3), 25-29.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of child abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543-563.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug courts effective? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, 28, 5-10. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

 Lowenkamp, C., Holsinger, A., Brusman-Lovins, L., &Latessa, E. (2004). Assessing the Inter-rater Agreement of the Level of Service Inventory Revised. Federal Probation 68(3), 34-38.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 52-76.

Marlowe, D., Festinger, D., Lee, P., Dugosh, K., & Benasutti, K. (2006). Matching Judicial Supervision to Cleints’ Risk Status in Drug Court. Crime and  Delinquency, 52(1), 52-76. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 522-541.

Miller, J. M., & Shutt, J. E. (2001). Considering the need for empirically grounded drug court screening mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 91-106.

Miller, J. M., & Shutt, J. E. (2001). Considering the need for empirically grounded drug court screening mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 91-106. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Mullany, J. & Peat, B. (2008). Process Evaluation of a County Dug Court. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 491-508.

Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004 (NCJ 213530). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Patra, J., Gliksman, L., Fischer, B., Newton-Taylor, B., Belenko, S., Ferrari, M., Kersta, S., & Rehm, J. (2010). Factors associated with treatment compliance and its effects on retention among participants in a court mandated treatment program. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(2), 289-319. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72-96.

Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D. (2003). The New York State Adult Drug Court evaluation: Policies, participants and impacts [Technical report]. New York, NY: The Center for Court Innovation.

Roll, J. M., Prendergast, M., Richardson, K., Burdon, W., & Ramirez, A. (2005). Identifying predictors of treatment outcome in a drug court program. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31, 641-656. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2002). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates, final report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Saum, C. A., Scarpitti, F. R., & Robbins, C. A. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 3, 107-128.

Saum, C. A., Scarpitti, F. R., & Robbins, C. A. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues, 3, 107-128.

Schma, W. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Knowledge and information services. The   National Center for State Courts. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Semple, S. J., Zians, J., & Strathdee, S. A. (2008). Methamphetamine-using felons: Psychosocial and behavioral characteristics. American Journal on Addictions, 17, 28-35.

Senjo, S. & Leip, L. (2001). Testing Therapeutic Jurisprudence Theory: An Empirical Assessment of the Drug Court Process. Western Criminology Review, 3(1), 1-21

Shaffer, D. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review.  Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 09A (AAT No. 3231113)

Shaffer, D. K., Hartman, J. L., & Listwan, S. J. (2009). Drug abusing women in the community: The impact of drug court involvement on recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 4, 1045-1069. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Shaffer, D. K., Listwan, S. J., Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2008). The drug court henomenon: Findings from Ohio. National Drug Court Institute Review, 6, 33-66.

Simourd, D. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 52-70.

Staton, M., Mateyoke, A., Leukefeld, C., Cole, J., Hopper, H., Logan, T., and Minton, L. (2001).  Employment issues among drug court participants. Drug Courts in Operations: Current Research, 73-85. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Stoops, W. W., Tindall, M. S., Mateyoke-Scrivner, A., & Leukefeld, C. (2005). Methamphetamine use in non-urban and urban drug court clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 260-276.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2008). Results from the 2007National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (Office of  Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-34, DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4343). Rockville, MD: Author.

Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. (2003). Drug treatment in the community: A case study of system integration issues. Federal Probation, 67, 4-14.

Taxman, F., Cropsey, K., Young, D., & Wexler, H. (2007). Screening, Assessment, and Referral Practices in Adult Correctional Settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(9), 1216-1234.

Tyner, E. A., & Fremouw, W. J. (2008). The relation of methamphetamine use and violence: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 285-297.

U.S. General Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: Wiley. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Wagner, F. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2007). Male-female differences in the risk of progression from first use to dependence upon cannabis, cocaine, and alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86, 191-198.

Watkins, I. (2011). The Utility of Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) Assessments within the NSW Correctional Environments. Research Bulletin, 29, 1-8

Weisheit, R. A., & Fuller, J. (2004). Methamphetamines in the heartland: A review and initial exploration. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 131-151. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Weitzel, J., Nochajski, T., Coffey, S., and Farrell, M. (2007). Mental health among suburban drug court participants. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33, 475-481.

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.

Wilson, D., Mitchell, O., & Mackenzie, D. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.

Wolf, E. M., Sowards, K. A., & Wolf, D. A. (2003). Predicting Retention of Drug court Participants Using Event History Analysis. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(3/4), 139-162. Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.

Wolfe, E., Guydish, J., & Termondt, J. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 1155-1172.

Yeh, B. T., & Doyle, C. (2005). USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A brief look. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service (RS22348). Chapter 2: Literature Review: Global Drug consumption.