Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court

Melanie Fessinger, Katherine Hazen, Jamie Bahm, Jennie Cole-Mossman, Roger Heideman, Eve Brank

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts. Methods: We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process. Results: Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents. Conclusions: Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Experimental Criminology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

justice
drug
parents
abuse of children
jurisprudence
mediation
neglect

Keywords

  • Dependency courts
  • Family drug courts
  • Mandatory treatment
  • Problem-solving courts
  • Procedural justice
  • Substance use
  • Therapeutic jurisprudence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Mandatory, fast, and fair : Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court. / Fessinger, Melanie; Hazen, Katherine; Bahm, Jamie; Cole-Mossman, Jennie; Heideman, Roger; Brank, Eve.

In: Journal of Experimental Criminology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fessinger, Melanie ; Hazen, Katherine ; Bahm, Jamie ; Cole-Mossman, Jennie ; Heideman, Roger ; Brank, Eve. / Mandatory, fast, and fair : Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court. In: Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2019.
@article{73a3835195d8435f8c6698e6bdcdee12,
title = "Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court",
abstract = "Objectives: Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts. Methods: We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process. Results: Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents. Conclusions: Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.",
keywords = "Dependency courts, Family drug courts, Mandatory treatment, Problem-solving courts, Procedural justice, Substance use, Therapeutic jurisprudence",
author = "Melanie Fessinger and Katherine Hazen and Jamie Bahm and Jennie Cole-Mossman and Roger Heideman and Eve Brank",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Criminology",
issn = "1573-3750",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mandatory, fast, and fair

T2 - Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court

AU - Fessinger, Melanie

AU - Hazen, Katherine

AU - Bahm, Jamie

AU - Cole-Mossman, Jennie

AU - Heideman, Roger

AU - Brank, Eve

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objectives: Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts. Methods: We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process. Results: Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents. Conclusions: Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.

AB - Objectives: Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts. Methods: We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process. Results: Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents. Conclusions: Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.

KW - Dependency courts

KW - Family drug courts

KW - Mandatory treatment

KW - Problem-solving courts

KW - Procedural justice

KW - Substance use

KW - Therapeutic jurisprudence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068190861&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068190861&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6

DO - 10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85068190861

JO - Journal of Experimental Criminology

JF - Journal of Experimental Criminology

SN - 1573-3750

ER -