Drug courts employ contingency management techniques through sanctions to bring about participant AOD abstinence (Taxman, 2002). Fundamental to this strategy are principles of specific deterrence, where punishments should be delivered in a swift and certain manner with relatively mild to moderate punishments (Kleiman, 2001; Marlowe, 2008; Taxman et al., 1999). Conventional supervision programs are often reliant on unpredictable revocation hearings and subsequent incarceration as a response to noncompliant behaviors (Kleiman, 2001). Yet, supervision revocation fails to account for the impulsivity and risk-taking that leads to relapse in addicted persons (Kleiman, 2001; Rosenthal, 2002).
Previous drug court evaluations have outlined the application (Arabia et al., 2008; Guastaferro & Daigle, 2012; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009; Lindquist et al., 2006), perceptions (Goldkamp, 2002; Wolfer, 2006), and effects (Brown et al., 2010) of sanctions. Programs often collaboratively employ a variety of possible sanctions, which include nonincarceration sanctions (i.e. community service, written assignments, time in the jury box) and short periods of confinement (Arabia et al., 2008; Burns & Peyrot, 2003; Guastaferro & Daigle, 2012; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). A punitive strategy to induce abstinence may appear antitherapeutic, but the use of sanctions is considered a key component of the drug court model (Carey et al., 2012). Punishment is used to interrupt relapse, teach accountability, and motivate participants (Burns & Peyrot, 2003; Lindquist et al., 2006).
Failure to administer sanctions swiftly may decrease the efficacy of punishments (Carey et al., 2012). Light sanctions may create an environment in which participants become conditioned to sanctions (Marlowe, 2008). Conversely, overly severe punishments may have a ceiling effect or participants may become resistant to the program. The NADCP suggest progressive, or graduated sanctions, as a best practice strategy (NADCP, 2013). This protocol calls for relatively light sanctions for initial program infractions while increasing the magnitude for subsequent noncompliant behavior. In addition, research suggests jail sanctions should be used sparingly, and if used, confinement should not exceed 5 days (Carey et al., 2012). Overall, research has found that the use of graduated sanctions has lessened participant AOD use and reduced recidivism within a drug-involved offender population (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009; 4 Criminal Justice Policy Review 00(0) Zweig et al., 2012). Thus far, there has been little debate regarding the utility of coerced rehabilitation, but the discretionary manner in which it is imposed appears to be unsettled (Marlowe, 2008; Taxman, 2002; Zweig et al., 2012)