In summary, the current knowledge of recidivism rates appear to demonstrate that specialty courts provide reduced temporary recidivism rates for up to three years after a client graduates. Also, researchers have explored the various predictors that may impact the chance of success while in the program and predictors that will affect recidivism rates post graduation. There is no single determinative predictor indicating which clients will succeed or not. Further, it appears that researchers credit specialty courts for reduced recidivism rates when in fact recidivism may not be a true measure of success. Recidivism is only based on individuals caught for committing crimes or individuals admitting drug use.
Notwithstanding an individual’s ability to elude the criminal justice system, the presumption remains that specialty court reduces recidivism. Researchers have not found a precise method to measure post graduation recidivism, but they have found a reliable and valid method. The best methods researchers use to obtain arrests records for post-graduates are national or local criminal databases and self-reporting. Unfortunately, researchers will never be able to track every interaction a participant has with the criminal justice system. Most research agrees that specialty court has a couple explicit goals and a few implicit goals. Recognizing these goals allows researchers to hone their skills and measure precise variables that may or may not contribute to specialty courts efficacy. Researchers are also in accord with each other as to the best way to measure specialty courts efficacy. Researchers agree that the number of arrests for both pre- and post-graduates should be used as an indication of specialty courts effectiveness. Also, researchers agree that specialty courts saves the state and taxpayers money. The data provided does indicate that investing in specialty court produces returns whether its savings or benefits. Money is mostly saved because detention centers do not need to house inmates and it is cheaper to provide clients therapy. Benefits are gained because clients become employed, pay taxes, pay child support, and pay fees to participate in specialty court. Researchers deserve respect for delving into the economic aspect of specialty court. Perhaps, these researchers should leave this area to economic researchers, economists, or forensic accountants. Implications for the social work profession Practice in the field. First, specialty courts expand the social work profession. Social workers are and will be imperative to the operations of specialty courts. Specialty courts provide opportunities for social workers to infiltrate the criminal justice system and to identify injustices from within. Further, because there is no long-term research regarding recidivism, social workers will be required to create data collection methods. For instance, client applications or intake assessments should identify all the necessary data like sociodemographics and economics, child support, education, etc., to facilitate researchers who evaluate specialty court programs. Second, DUI courts results did not differ in the studies. DUI appeared to reduce recidivism. However, DUI courts present a different problem than the other specialty courts because repeat DUI offenders have mandatory sentencing. Thus, DUI courts should not apply to second and third time offenders. DUI court clients with multiple DUI convictions would rather go to prison because his or her case will be completed faster and he or she will not have to pay court costs (Bouffard et al, 2010). If drunk driving is a social problem like most believe, then social workers should be advocating for alternative laws in which DUI offenders do not serve mandatory sentencing if the offender is participating in the DUI court. Alternatively, social workers can advocate for more hybrid drug courts to accept DUI offender because alcoholism is a drug addiction. Third, if …show more content…
Being able to provide precise data as to the specific goal will only strengthen the need for specialty court. Legislatures will want to know both sides of the research, but when a representative begins pushing his or her agenda, he or she will be able to confidently say specialty courts reduce recidivism. It is essential for representatives and legislatures to know the exact purpose and goal of specialty court so they can make policy arguments for or against specialty court. Hence, providing accurate data to representatives includes accepting only measuring post graduation arrests and costs analysis as indicators of
Notwithstanding an individual’s ability to elude the criminal justice system, the presumption remains that specialty court reduces recidivism. Researchers have not found a precise method to measure post graduation recidivism, but they have found a reliable and valid method. The best methods researchers use to obtain arrests records for post-graduates are national or local criminal databases and self-reporting. Unfortunately, researchers will never be able to track every interaction a participant has with the criminal justice system. Most research agrees that specialty court has a couple explicit goals and a few implicit goals. Recognizing these goals allows researchers to hone their skills and measure precise variables that may or may not contribute to specialty courts efficacy. Researchers are also in accord with each other as to the best way to measure specialty courts efficacy. Researchers agree that the number of arrests for both pre- and post-graduates should be used as an indication of specialty courts effectiveness. Also, researchers agree that specialty courts saves the state and taxpayers money. The data provided does indicate that investing in specialty court produces returns whether its savings or benefits. Money is mostly saved because detention centers do not need to house inmates and it is cheaper to provide clients therapy. Benefits are gained because clients become employed, pay taxes, pay child support, and pay fees to participate in specialty court. Researchers deserve respect for delving into the economic aspect of specialty court. Perhaps, these researchers should leave this area to economic researchers, economists, or forensic accountants. Implications for the social work profession Practice in the field. First, specialty courts expand the social work profession. Social workers are and will be imperative to the operations of specialty courts. Specialty courts provide opportunities for social workers to infiltrate the criminal justice system and to identify injustices from within. Further, because there is no long-term research regarding recidivism, social workers will be required to create data collection methods. For instance, client applications or intake assessments should identify all the necessary data like sociodemographics and economics, child support, education, etc., to facilitate researchers who evaluate specialty court programs. Second, DUI courts results did not differ in the studies. DUI appeared to reduce recidivism. However, DUI courts present a different problem than the other specialty courts because repeat DUI offenders have mandatory sentencing. Thus, DUI courts should not apply to second and third time offenders. DUI court clients with multiple DUI convictions would rather go to prison because his or her case will be completed faster and he or she will not have to pay court costs (Bouffard et al, 2010). If drunk driving is a social problem like most believe, then social workers should be advocating for alternative laws in which DUI offenders do not serve mandatory sentencing if the offender is participating in the DUI court. Alternatively, social workers can advocate for more hybrid drug courts to accept DUI offender because alcoholism is a drug addiction. Third, if …show more content…
Being able to provide precise data as to the specific goal will only strengthen the need for specialty court. Legislatures will want to know both sides of the research, but when a representative begins pushing his or her agenda, he or she will be able to confidently say specialty courts reduce recidivism. It is essential for representatives and legislatures to know the exact purpose and goal of specialty court so they can make policy arguments for or against specialty court. Hence, providing accurate data to representatives includes accepting only measuring post graduation arrests and costs analysis as indicators of