Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:55 pm
Time: 9:55 pm
Results for drug courts
61 results foundAuthor: Guerin, Paul Title: Dona Ana County Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court Outcome Study Summary: This report summarizes findings from an outcome study of the Third Judicial District Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court conducted by the New Mexico Sentencing Commission at the University of New Mexico. In April 2008 the Department of Finance Administration (DFA) and the University of New Mexico (UNM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to study the operations and conduct an outcome study including a cost analysis of the Third Judicial District Court Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court in Dona Ana County. This MOU was amended in January 2009 to reflect preliminary findings. The Institute for Social Research at the University of New Mexico completed two previous process evaluations for the Third Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court Program that included the Dona Ana Magistrate Court as one of the courts in the Third Judicial District. The first evaluation was completed in 2001and the second was completed in 2002. The purpose of these studies was to develop an understanding of the internal dynamics of the Third Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program, with a particular focus on the District Court program, including an understanding of the overall structure, organization, and operations of four different courts located in the district. The included courts were: - Third Judicial District Court Drug Court - Dona Ana County Magistrate DWI-Drug Court - Las Cruces Municipal DWI Court - Mesilla Municipal DWI Court Process evaluations lay critical groundwork for future outcome evaluations which examine the match between stated program goals and court functioning. This report noted the development of the Third Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court programs was at the time incomplete and was complicated by the inclusion of four different drug courts under the umbrella of a single program and evaluation. An added difficulty was that ISR found significant variations between DWI-Drug Court processes and procedures amongst the lower level courts analyzed. The results of the 2002 study indicated the various courts included in the study did not, "completely follow/implement all of the 10 key components provided by the Drug Courts Program Office" (ISR Process Evaluation, 2002). We have been unable to locate process evaluations that look at each of the individual lower level courts. As a result, we were able to gather very little historical information on the Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court Program. A critical component of this study aims to address the difficulties of the 2002 process evaluation by providing an examination of the operations in only the Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug program. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2009. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2009/DACMC_DWIDrugCourt_FinalReport_v1_063009-1.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2009/DACMC_DWIDrugCourt_FinalReport_v1_063009-1.pdf Shelf Number: 117099 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsTreatment Programs |
Author: Mackin, Juliette Title: Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment Court 10-Year Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: The Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment Court (DTC) was implemented with the goal of identifying people with a substance abuse addiction and offer them a program with treatment as an alternative to incarceration. This report provides a 10-year follow-up of a cohort of the DTC participants and compares their outcomes to a group of offenders who had similar criminal histories and demographic backgrounds but who had not participated in any of the Baltimore City adult drug treatment court programs. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009 Source: Submitted to Office of Problem-Solving Courts, Annapolis, MD Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114591 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Courts |
Author: Cook, Michelle D. Title: Statewide Process and Comparative Outcomes Study of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (judge and community panel) and by judicial district. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (matched comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (referred comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge, with an end date of December 31, 2007. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2009. 169p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117711 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offenders |
Author: Anspach, Donald F. Title: Part 1 -- Process Evaluation of Maine's Statewide Adult Drug Treatment Court Program Summary: This is the first of three reports about Maine's statewide drug court program. The report details the referral process and evaluates how various components of the drug court model - drug testing, sanctions, and treatment contribute to participant success. Details: Augusta, ME: Maine State Office of Substance Abuse, Division of Behavioral and Developmental Services, 2005. 24p. Source: University of Southern Maine, Department of Sociology Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113542 Keywords: Drug Courts |
Author: Anspach, Donald F. Title: Part II - Outcome Evaluation of Maine's Statewide Adult Drug Treatment Court Program Summary: This report examines the overall effectiveness of Maine's adult drug court programs on reducing recidivism. Using a comparison group of substance abusing offenders who did not participate in the drug court, the report examines the overall impact of the program on reducing recidivism and examines the correctional cost/savings associated with those outcomes. Details: Augusta, ME: Maine State Office of Substance Abuse, Division of Behavioral and Developmental Services Source: University of Southern Maine, Department of Sociology Year: 0 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113542 Keywords: Drug Courts |
Author: Ferguson, Andrew Title: A Process and Site-Specific Outcome Evaluation of Maine's Adult Drug Treatment Court Programs Summary: This report summarizes evaluation activities for the fifth fiscal year since Maine's adult drug courts became operational. It examines the overall impact of these programs on reducing recidivism and provides a correctional cost-savings estimate relating to those outcomes. Details: Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Substance Abuse, 2006. 31p. Source: University of Southern Maine, Department of Sociology Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113542 Keywords: Drug Courts |
Author: Orr, Cynthia Hujar Title: American's Problem-Solving Courts: The Criminal Costs of Treatment and the Case for Reform Summary: Drug courts have swept the U.S. without much debate or input from the criminal defense bar. This report seeks to inform and redefine the debate by considering and challenging the fundamental criminal justice lens through which drug-related issues are evaluated. Because "the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power," accepting the criminal justice paradigm legitimizes drug courts while ignoring other smart, fair, effective, and economical approaches. The report also summarizes the history and evolution of drug courts, evaluates their operation and effectiveness, makes an overarching recommendation on the treatment of addictions, and offers a number of recommendations to ensure that the procedures and practices in drug court comply with constitutional and ethical norms. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2009. 76p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118691 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentMental Health Courts |
Author: Mackin, Juliette R. Title: Harford County District Court Adult Drug Court: Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: This report presents the findings of a cost and outcome study of the Harford County District Court Adult Drug Court (HCADC) program which operates in the State of Maryland. The report includes the cost of the program and the outcomes of participants as compared to a sample of similar individuals who received traditional court processing. There are three key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, researchers and policymakers that this evaluation was designed to answer; 1) Do drug treatment court programs reduce recidivism? ; 2) Do drug treatment court programs reduce drug-related re-arrests? and 3). Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings? Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 47p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 13, 2010 at: http://http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Harford_County_Outcome_and_Cost_Evaluation_0408.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Harford_County_Outcome_and_Cost_Evaluation_0408.pdf Shelf Number: 117718 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug Offenders |
Author: Gutierrez, Leticia Title: Drug Treatment Courts: A Quantiative Review of Study and Treatment Quality Summary: "The effectiveness of drug courts has been debated in regards to two main factors: (1) study quality and (2) treatment quality. The current study examined these two factors. Study quality was examined using the Collaborative Outcome Data Committee Guidelines (CODC), and treatment quality was assessed by evaluating adherence to the principles of Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR). Using the CODC Guidelines, studies were rated as: “rejected”, “weak”, “good” or “strong” based on methodological quality. These guidelines have been used in meta-analytic reviews of sex offender (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus & Hodgson, 2009) and community supervision (Simpson, 2008) outcome evaluations. The RNR principles have been previously shown to mediate the effectiveness of offender treatment across various offender groups and a variety of criminogenic needs (e.g., substance abuse, sexual offending). In total, 96 studies were reviewed and assessed according to study and treatment quality. Results of this review found that the study quality of the literature is poor and this accounted for much of the variability found across studies. Furthermore, analyses revealed that although adherence to the RNR principles was poor, increasing adherence to RNR resulted in more effective treatment of offenders in reducing recidivism. Using only methodologically acceptable studies, the least biased estimate of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism was found to be approximately 8%. Limitations and future research directions are discussed." Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 14, 2010 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2009-04-dtc-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2009-04-dtc-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 117386 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment |
Author: Franco, Celinda Title: Drug Courts: Background, Effectiveness, and Policy Issues for Contress Summary: Drug courts are specialized court dockets, or portions of judges’ calendars of cases, that generally target nonviolent offenders with substance-abuse problems. These programs provide offenders with intensive court supervision, mandatory drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, and other social services as an alternative to adjudication or incarceration. In this way, drug courts are designed to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime by changing the behavior of substance-abusing offenders. Participation in these programs is voluntary. Eligible defendants must agree to the program’s requirements and successfully complete the program in exchange for avoiding incarceration, having their criminal charges reduced or dismissed, or having their sentences reduced. Drug courts encourage participants’ compliance and impose sanctions on those who fail to comply with the program’s requirements. Drug courts are widely considered an important strategy for reducing incarceration, providing drug treatment, and reducing drug use and recidivism (reoffending) among nonviolent offenders. Although drug courts are mostly initiated and funded at the state and local level, Congress has supported the development, implementation, and expansion of drug courts through the federal Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, originally authorized under Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). While the federal drug court grant program authorization of appropriations expired in FY2008, the program has continued to receive appropriations: $40 million for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) and $45 million for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117). In the 111th Congress, H.R. 6090 would amend the program and extend the authorization of appropriations for drug court grants from FY2011 through FY2017. Congress could consider reauthorizing the program in its current form or amending the program to reflect issues of concern. Since the first drug court was established in 1989, drug court programs have been quickly adopted by communities and states across the country. As of July 2009, there were 2,361 drug courts in operation across the country. Although there are drug courts in many jurisdictions, it is unclear how many drug-abusing offenders participate in these programs or how well they have fared after successfully completing a drug court program. Some estimates indicate that only a small number of potential participants are actually included in these drug treatment programs. Variations in how drug courts determine eligibility, provide substance-abuse treatment, supervise participants, and enforce compliance reflect the adaptability of the drug court model, but also complicate program evaluations, comparisons, and cost-benefit analyses. Nevertheless, research suggests that drug courts reduce substance abuse and recidivism among participants compared to nonparticipants, and are a viable intervention for reducing drug demand among substance-abusing offenders. This report considers these and other issues related to state drug courts. The report includes an overview of state drug courts and the related federal grant program. The report then discusses some of the related issues that may be of interest to Congress if it considers reauthorizing the drug court grant program or other related legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report for Congress, No. R41448: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41448.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41448.pdf Shelf Number: 120205 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Addicted to Courts: How a Growing Dependence on Drug Courts Impacts People and Communities Summary: America's growing reliance on drug courts is an ineffective allocation of scarce state resources, according to a new report by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). Drug courts can needlessly widen the net of criminal justice involvement, and cannot replace the need for improved treatment services in the community. Of the nearly 8 million people in the U.S. reporting needing treatment for drug use, less than one fourth of people classified with substance abuse or a dependence on drugs and/or alcohol receives treatment, and for those who do receive treatment, over 37 percent are referred by the criminal justice system. Addicted to Courts: How a Growing Dependence on Drug Courts Impacts People and Communities finds that providing people with alternatives like community-based treatment are more cost-effective and provide greater public safety benefits than treatment that comes with the collateral consequences associated with involvement in the criminal justice system. Key recommendations from Addicted to Courts include: -- Invest in front-end treatment and services. Providing treatment in the community before a person becomes involved in the criminal justice system can be an effective way to defeat a problem before it starts. -- Implement "real" diversion policies and alternatives to incarceration. Largely as a result of increasing prison and jail populations, states and localities across the country created or are in the process of implementing diversion programs that keep people-mostly those convicted of low-level and drug offenses-out of jail and prison. These initiatives should be encouraged. -- Collect better data on drug courts. National level data on drug court participation and success is hard to come by, making evaluations of the effectiveness of drug court difficult to measure. More data can lead to better evaluations and recommendations for best practices in drug court, and provide policymakers with information necessary to choose where to spend scarce funds. -- Focus court treatment programs on those who would have gone to prison. If a person would have received a prison sentence, then a drug court program can act as a true diversion, saving the state money and protecting public safety through a more intensive period that includes both treatment and supervision. -- Evaluate current drug court policies and practices. Drug court administrators should continuously evaluate policies on participant eligibility that may lead to "cherry picking" and practices that lead to higher failure rates for certain groups, especially those with lower income or people of color. More evaluation will lead to more fair and effective programs. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/addicted_to_courts_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/addicted_to_courts_final.pdf Shelf Number: 121096 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug Offenders |
Author: Drug Policy Alliance Title: Drug Courts Are Not the Answer: Toward a Health-Centered Approach to Drug Use Summary: This report seeks to address the lack of critical analysis that stymies the policy discussion on drug courts, to foster a more informed public debate on the 20-year-old criminal justice phenomenon, and to encourage policymakers to promote drug policies based not on popularity but on science, compassion, health and human rights. This report attempts to answer two questions: 1) What impact have drug courts had on the problem they were created to address: the deluge of petty drug arrests that began to overwhelm courts and fill jails and prisons in the 1980s?; and 2) How do drug courts compare with other policy approaches to drug use in terms of reducing drug arrests, incarceration and costs as well as problematic drug use? To answer these questions, the Drug Policy Alliance analyzed the research on drug courts, other criminal justice programs and non-criminal justice responses to drug use. We also received input criminal justice responses to drug use. We also received input from academics and experts across the U.S. and abroad. This comprehensive review of the evidence. Details: New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 22, 2011 at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DrugCourtsAreNottheAnswer.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DrugCourtsAreNottheAnswer.pdf Shelf Number: 121097 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug Offenders |
Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Drug Court Cost-Effectiveness Summary: In recent years, meta-analysis has been widely adopted as a means of informing sound policy decisions. A particularly successful application of meta-analysis has been in the evaluation of the effectiveness of new medical interventions, particularly the results of new drug trials. The goal of this type of study is to draw a general conclusion from the results of many clinical trials of the same drug which often produce very different results to determine whether the drug is safe enough and ffective enough to be made available to the public. Over the past two decades, meta-analysis has become increasingly common in the study of programs and policies designed to reduce crime. Over the last decade, researchers have begun to combine meta-analyses with cost-benefit analysis. Meta-analysis answers the question: does the intervention produce positive outcomes? Cost-benefit analysis moves beyond this question to ask whether an effective intervention creates enough of a benefit to justify the cost. Thus, the combined meta-analysis and cost-benefit analysis attempt to answer the question: What is the most cost-effective way to increase public safety? DCPI has developed an empirical model that combines meta-analysis and cost-benefit analysis to help answer this question. The DCPI model uses Bayesian methods to test whether the expected outcomes of implementing a policy or combination of policies in Washington, D.C., is worth the investment. The DCPI model will incorporate both the costs of delivering services in Washington, D.C., and the benefits of those services to District citizens. In particular, the DCPI model will incorporate benefits to D.C. citizens from reductions in the risk of becoming a victim of crime. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how Bayesian statistics can be used in conjunction with meta cost-benefit analysis. To do this, we use data from 86 drug court evaluations previously coded for metaanalysis (Shaffer 2009). We then follow Drake, Aos and Miller (2009) in the development of estimates of the Washington, DC specific costs, recidivism rates and criminal justice system resource utilization. The calculation of the price of crime to victims is drawn from Roman (2009). In this paper, we first describe a brief history of the use of a combined cost-benefit and meta-analytic model. We then discuss the advantages of using Bayesian statistics, rather than traditional methods, for applied policy research. Next, we apply this method to a practical policy problem: should the District of Columbia implement a drug court? We chose drug courts as our beta test of the model because there have been several prior meta-analyses of drug courts which allows us to assess the reliability of our effect size estimates. We discuss the Bayesian methods used in this analysis and our preliminary findings. We conclude with a discussion of how differences between our results and prior results should be interpreted. We note that the goal of this research is to validate the model, in particular to compare effect sizes generated here with effect sizes generated by other authors using the same data. In this model iteration, only the prices of treating District of Columbia residents are drawn from DC data. Thus, the findings in this paper should not be interpreted as an evaluation of SCDIP. Future research will re-populate these models using DC-specific data which will allow us to estimate the optimal size and composition of the current drug court - the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP). Ultimately, the model can be used to make evidence-based decisions when policymakers are confronted with difficult choices between successful programs when the resources to fund those programs are limited. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policing Institute, Urban Institute, 2010. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/costbenefitanalysis/images/12-10-Bayesian-Cost-Benefit-Drug-Court_2.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/costbenefitanalysis/images/12-10-Bayesian-Cost-Benefit-Drug-Court_2.pdf Shelf Number: 121586 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice PolicyDrug Courts |
Author: Listwan, Shelley Johnson Title: An Examination of Idaho’s Felony Drug Courts: Findings and Recommendations: Final Report Summary: As of 2007, 41 drug courts have been implemented statewide in Idaho. This report focuses on a sample of eleven adult felony drug courts. The current study adds to the existing literature by providing a multi-site impact study of selected felony drug courts in Idaho. The project examines effectiveness as it relates to three broad areas of functioning (e.g., operations, outcomes, and needs). While most published evaluations report outcomes of only one court, the current study reports outcomes of eleven drug courts across the state in an effort to fill a much needed gap in our knowledge of drug courts overall. Details: Boise, Idaho: Idaho Supreme Court, 2008. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2011 at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/Final%20Idaho%20Felony%20Drug%20Court%20Outcome%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/Final%20Idaho%20Felony%20Drug%20Court%20Outcome%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121777 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersFelony Offenders (Idaho) |
Author: Blagg, Harry Title: Problem-Oriented Courts Summary: This paper addresses a number of issues linked to the emergence of problem-oriented courts. Problem-oriented courts form part of an emerging judicial sphere where the traditional focus on legal process is balanced with concern for therapeutic outcomes. Expressed simply, problem-oriented courts seek to use the authority and structure of the courts to further therapeutic goals and enhance the performance of agencies involved in delivering court mandated services. Problem-oriented courts attempt to facilitate a team approach and encourage close collaboration between agencies involved in the justice process. The problem-oriented court acts as the ‘hub’ connecting various ‘spokes’, such as drug and alcohol treatment agencies, community based corrections, probation services and domestic violence agencies, forming a holistic and integrated approach. This approach encourages magistrates and judges to take a pro-active and overtly leading role in the creation of better, well coordinated services for clients. Supporters of problem-oriented courts maintain that such courts sit outside the traditional punishment paradigm, being more concerned with treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. The orientation of the court is neatly encapsulated in the notion of ‘forward looking’ as opposed to ‘backward looking’ forms of justice – that is, sentencing practices should be geared towards encouraging positive future behaviour rather then simply punishing past actions. The future impact of problem-oriented courts on the ways the criminal justice as a whole deals with offending linked to issues such as drug and alcohol use, mental health, homelessness and social exclusion could prove to be far reaching. Moreover the problem-oriented approach – and the philosophies of therapeutic jurisprudence and, to a lesser extent, restorative justice that inform the approach – may influence the orientation of mainstream courts. The approach is largely in its infancy in Australia. There is no settled theory (although a number of theories vie for relevance) and no unified template describing how a problem-oriented court should operate. Working practices vary according to the nature of the problem the court has been developed to deal with. The long-term benefits of the problem-oriented approach and its implications for the criminal justice system remain the subject of debate, both within the judiciary and within the network of agencies a problem-oriented approach binds together to work collectively on a particular problem. Problem-oriented courts can include community or neighbourhood courts, family and domestic violence courts, mental health courts, drug courts and alcohol courts. However, the problem-oriented approach is also being used by some magistrates in general courts when dealing with particular groups of offenders. This is particularly the case where a magistrate’s court has become the site for specialist treatment and diversionary services, such as Western Australia’s courtbased drug diversion initiatives. This paper excludes discussion of Aboriginal Courts which have been extensively considered by the Law Reform Commission as part of its Aboriginal Customary Law Project. Problem-oriented courts have not emerged in a vacuum, but in response to the challenges posed by a number of seemingly intractable urban social problems (drug use, alcohol, family and domestic violence, mental illness, anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, and problems associated with ‘hyper-marginalised’ groups) apparently impervious to traditional remedies and solutions. They also reflect frustration with the often fragmented and ad hoc response of traditional justice structures, cultures and processes. Some courts, such as community or neighbourhood courts, have emerged in response to claims that the courts are out of touch with the concerns of local communities and have been mandated to directly involve local people in the delivery of justice. Problem-oriented courts have been influenced by the philosophies of restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. While, as will be demonstrated later, the two philosophies cannot simply be collapsed together, they do share a common commitment to ‘humanising’ the justice process, closely integrating concerns for individual and social change into the legal process, and providing ‘forward looking’ rather than ‘backward looking’ justice outcomes. This latter concern in particular represents a paradigm shift in the way justice is conceived: less concerned with simply judging past actions than with affecting change in individuals and social contexts to ensure crime and victimisation is prevented in the future. Besides the various philosophies vying for influence in the courts, the problem-oriented court has become the site for new hybrid techniques for engaging with the needs and problems of offenders. Since the focus of problem-oriented courts extends beyond applying the law, there is a need for behavioural techniques and treatments suited to the new environment. Intervention techniques such as motivational interviewing and brief interventions, discussed later, borrowed from addiction counselling, are emerging as intervention tools within problem-oriented courts because they claim positive results within a short timeframe. Problem-oriented courts are not simply a new type of specialist court. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Project 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Shelf Number: 121998 Keywords: Domestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Western Australia. Law Reform Commission Title: Court Intervention Programs: Final Report Summary: This final report is divided into six chapters. Chapter One explains the Commission’s approach to reform, in particular, the need for legislative and policy reform to support the continued operation of court intervention programs and the Commission’s guiding principles for reform. Chapter Two (which contains the majority of the Commission’s recommendations) deals with the legal and policy issues that are relevant to all court intervention programs. Specific recommendations dealing with court intervention programs addressing drug and alcohol dependency are discussed in Chapter Three. Chapter Four considers recommendations in relation to mental impairment court intervention programs and Chapter Five considers recommendations in relation to family violence court intervention programs. Finally, recommendations in relation to general court intervention programs are contained in Chapter Six. The Final Report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Commission’s Consultation Paper, which describes how various court intervention programs operate and provides the research and analysis that support the Commission’s final recommendations. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Final Report sets out the Commission’s conclusions and fi nal recommendations without repeating all of the descriptive material in the Consultation Paper. The Commission has made a total of 37 recommendations for reform in this Final Report. A list of recommendations is contained in Appendix A. For ease of reference, a list of recommendations that require legislative amendment is set out in Appendix B. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2009. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Project No. 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 121999 Keywords: Court ReformDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Taylor, Emily Title: Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation: Final Report Summary: In the past 18 years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the implementation of drug courts across the country. The first drug court was established in Florida in 1989. There are now well over 1,500 drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. The purpose of drug courts is to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that reduces drug dependence and improves the quality of life for offenders and their families. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. Addiction treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. The Michigan Community Corrections Act was enacted in 1988 to investigate and develop alternatives to incarceration. Four years later, in June 1992, the first female drug treatment court in the nation was established in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Since then, Michigan has implemented 75 drug courts, including expanding into further specialized courts (also called “problem solving courts”) for adults, juveniles, family dependency, and DUI offenders. In FY2004, 12 courts in Michigan identified as DUI courts. Of these, 10 were operational and 2 courts were in the early planning phase. SCAO assisted in funding 9 of these courts. At the time this study was proposed, comprehensive outcome evaluation with comparison groups and longitudinal analyses had not been conducted for Michigan DUI courts. Consequently, little was known about the relative effectiveness of these courts in reducing drunk driving or the characteristics that affect client outcomes. SCAO proposed to conduct an outcome evaluation of DUI courts. The evaluation was designed as a longitudinal study that included tracking and collecting data on DUI court participants for a minimum of one year following either program completion or termination from DUI Court and a comparison group of offenders who were eligible for DUI court in the year prior to DUI court implementation. Data were abstracted from several sources including site visits, the Criminal History Records (CHR) database maintained by the Michigan State Police and the Michigan Judicial Warehouse (JDW). All of these data were entered into a database created in Microsoft Access. In 2007, SCAO contracted with NPC Research to perform the data analysis and report writing for three of the DUI courts that participated in this study, Ottawa and Bay County and Clarkston DUI courts. The evaluation was guided by five research questions which were answered by a careful analysis of the data by NPC Research. These questions were: 1. What is the impact of participation in a DUI court on recidivism (re-arrests) compared to traditional court processing? 2. Does participation in DUI court reduce levels of alcohol and other substance abuse? 3. How successful is the program in bringing program participants to completion and graduation within the expected time frame? 4. What participant characteristics predict successful outcomes (program completion, decreased recidivism)? 5. How does the use of resources differ between DUI treatment court versus traditional probation? Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court; Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2011 at: http://council.legislature.mi.gov/files/sdtcac/mi_dui_outcome_eval_final_report_0308.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://council.legislature.mi.gov/files/sdtcac/mi_dui_outcome_eval_final_report_0308.pdf Shelf Number: 122371 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug CourtsDrunk Driving CourtsProblem-Solving Courts (Michigan)Recidivism |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Jackson County Community Family Court Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonvio-lent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treatment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent of-fenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of May 2009, there were 2,037 adult and juvenile drug courts active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, with another 214 being planned (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2009). Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (GAO, 2005) and in reduc-ing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have even been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). More recently, in approximately the last 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other types of offenders (e.g., juveniles and parents with child welfare cases). Family Drug Courts (FDCs) work with substance-abusing parents with child welfare cases. There have been a modest number studies of these other types of courts including some recidivism and cost studies of juvenile courts (e.g., Carey, Marchand, & Waller, 2006) and a national study of FDCs (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Many of these studies show promising out-comes for these newer applications of the drug court model. However, the number of family drug court studies in particular has been small, and to date, there have been no detailed cost studies of family drug courts. In late 2008, NPC Research was contracted by the Oregon State Police and the Criminal Justice Commission to conduct the third year evaluations of 11 drug courts funded by the Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project. NPC conducted Drug Court Foundations evaluations of 11 Oregon adult and family drug court sites. In addition, as a part of this project, NPC performed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Marion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Jackson_Byrne_Final_Report_June_2010.pdf?ga=t Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Jackson_Byrne_Final_Report_June_2010.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 122956 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentFamily Courts (Oregon)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Mackin, Juliette R. Title: Montgomery County Adult Drug Court Program Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: The Montgomery County Adult Drug Court (MCADC) is located in Rockville, the county seat. The county has a population of 950,680, based on the 2008 Census estimate. The MCADC began serving participants in 2004. As of June 2009, 121 participants have been served. The MCADC serves nonviolent adult offenders with substance abuse problems in need of intensive treatment and monitoring services. The MCADC is a post-plea, postconviction program. Upon entry into the program, participants are placed on 2 to 3 years of probation, although once a participant successfully completes the program (on average after 18 months), her/his probation is terminated successfully. The program provides services aimed at rehabilitation, including substance abuse treatment provided by Maryland’s Department of Health and Human Services community-based substance abuse treatment programs. The MCADC program has three phases and takes a minimum of 16 months to complete. For the 76 drug court participants included in this study who had since exited the program, either successfully or unsuccessfully, the average number of days in the program was 512 (almost 17 months). Graduates spent an average of 525 days in the program (just over 17 months), whereas non-graduates spent an average of 487 days in the program (approximately 16 months). Throughout the program, participants attend drug court hearings evaluating their progress, supervision meetings with a case manager, and group and individual counseling sessions. The pro-gram requires that the individuals submit to drug testing, and uses incentives and sanctions to encourage positive behaviors. In order to graduate from the MCADC program, participants must satisfy program requirements for all three phases and complete an aftercare plan. In addition, they must meet all probation requirements, complete community service and other program assignments, have 9 months clean and sober, be recommended for graduation from the drug court team, and approved by the Judge. Three key policy questions of interest to program practitioners, researchers, and policymakers about drug courts were addressed in this study. 1. Do ADC Participants Reduce their Substance Abuse During Program Participation? 2. Do ADC Participants Have Reduced Re-Arrest Rates After Program Entry? 3. Does the ADC Result in Savings of Taxpayer Dollars? Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Montgomery_Circuit_Outcome_Cost_0110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Montgomery_Circuit_Outcome_Cost_0110.pdf Shelf Number: 123399 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts (Maryland)RecidivismSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Jones, Craig Title: Intensive Judicial Supervision and Drug Court Outcomes: Interim Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial Summary: Aim: To assess whether intensive judicial supervision (IJS) during the early stages of drug court reduces drug use and sanctioning rates. Method: The study employed a non-blinded randomised controlled trial to test the effect of IJS on early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. All participants accepted onto the Parramatta Drug Court program between March 2010 and March 2011 were randomly allocated into either an IJS or supervision as usual (SAU) condition. The IJS group had phase 1 of their program extended from three to four months and appeared before the judge two times per week during phase 1. The SAU group appeared once per week for three months during phase 1. Results: Participants in the IJS group were significantly less likely to return positive urinalysis tests and had a significantly greater number of episodes of abstinence than participants in the SAU group. IJS participants were less likely to accrue sanctions than participants in the SAU group. There was no significant difference in the odds of having sanctions waived or having to serve sanctions in prison between the two groups. Conclusion: These interim findings provide strong evidence that intensively supervising drug court participants in the early phases reduces early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau o0f Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 152: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Shelf Number: 123544 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offenders (Australia)Intensive Judicial SupervisionProblem Solving CourtsRandomized Controlled Trial |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts Summary: A drug court is a specialized court that targets criminal offenders who have drug addiction and dependency problems. These programs provide offenders with intensive court supervision, mandatory drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, and other social services as an alternative to adjudication or incarceration. As of June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug courts operating nationwide, of which about 1,400 target adult offenders. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to develop and implement adult drug-court programs. DOJ requires grantees that receive funding to provide data that measure their performance. In response to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) data DOJ collected on the performance of federally funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ used these data in making grant-related decisions, and (2) what is known about the effectiveness of drug courts. GAO assessed performance data DOJ collected in fiscal year 2010 and reviewed evaluations of 32 drug- court programs and 11 cost-benefit studies issued from February 2004 through March 2011. GAO recommends that BJA document key methods used to guide future revisions of its performance measures for the adult drug-court program. DOJ concurred with GAO’s recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-53: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Shelf Number: 123545 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Shaffer, Deborah Koetzle Title: Reconsidering Drug Court Effectiveness: A Meta-analytic Review Summary: The first drug court was implemented in 1989, largely in response to the increasing number of substance-using offenders moving through the criminal justice system. Today, there are over 1,100 drug courts operating throughout the United States and an estimated 230,000 offenders had received drug court services by the year 2000. Despite the rapid proliferation of drug courts, relatively little is known about their effectiveness. Previous research on drug courts has been mixed in terms of its support. Some studies have found that drug courts fail to have an effect or actually increase recidivism, prior meta-analyses have found drug courts to be generally effective. It is likely that differences in drug court effectiveness may be attributable to differences between the drug courts themselves. The current study used a modified approach to meta-analysis to identify characteristics associated with the most effective drug courts. A total of 60 drug court evaluations were identified representing 76 distinct drug courts and 6 aggregated drug court programs. Data regarding policies and procedures were collected from 63 of the distinct drug courts via telephone surveys. These data were then combined with data collected from outcome evaluations. This approach allowed for an overall effect size to be calculated across the 82 distinct effect sizes and the exploration of moderating variables across 63 drug courts. Potentially moderating variables were grouped into 11 domains including: assessment, funding, intensity, leverage, philosophy, predictability, service delivery, staff characteristics, target population, treatment characteristics, and quality assurance. Consistent with prior meta-analyses, the current study found that drug courts, on average, reduce recidivism 9 percent. Adult drug courts appear to fare better than juvenile drug courts, and pre- or post-adjudication drug courts are more effective than mixed model drug courts. In terms of moderators, the target population, leverage, staff, and intensity domains were able to explain the most variance in effectiveness. These domains were followed by the treatment, philosophy, funding, and service delivery domains. The domains with the least ability to explain variance were predictability, assessment, and quality assurance. Details: Cincinnati, OH: University of Ohio, 2006. 315p. Source: Dissertation. Internet Resource: Accessed on January 15, 2012 at Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 123616 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersRecidivismRepeat Offenders |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts - Final Report, Volume 4 Summary: Volume 4 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) provides findings from the outcome evaluation answering the questions, "do drug courts work", "for whom do drug courts work," and "what are the mechanisms by which drug courts work", as well as provides findings from the cost–benefit study. The outcome evaluation found that drug courts prevent crime and substance use and work equally well for most participant subgroups. Effects are greatest among participants whose judges who spend time with them, support them, and treat them with respect. Implications for practice, policy, and future research are also discussed. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2011. 366p. Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412357-MADCE-The-Impact-of-Drug-Courts.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412357-MADCE-The-Impact-of-Drug-Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 123694 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Mitchell, Ojmarrh Title: Drug Courts’ Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults Summary: Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug-involved offenders’ abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. Drug courts have proliferated across the United States in the past 20 years and been adopted in countries outside the United States. Drug courts also have expanded to non-traditional populations (juvenile and DWI offenders). The objective of this review is to systematically review quasi-experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, including drug courts for juvenile and DWI offenders. This systematic review critically assesses drug courts’ effects on recidivism in the short- and long-term, the methodological soundness of the existing evidence, and the relationship between drug court features and effectiveness. Details: Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Campbell Systematic Review 2012:4: Accessed February 28, 2012 at: http://www.ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/mitchell_drugcourts_review.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/mitchell_drugcourts_review.pdf Shelf Number: 124302 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: University of Nebraska. Public Policy Center Title: Evaluation of Nebraska’s Probation Problem Solving Courts Summary: Eight Nebraska problem solving courts were examined for this evaluation: three adult drug courts, four juvenile drug courts, and one young adult problem solving court. The key questions intended to be addressed through this evaluation included the following: 1. To what extent do problem-solving courts serve appropriate persons, specifically in relation to risk classification? 2. How do the demographic characteristics of participants compare to the general population and other offenders? 3. To what extent do policies and procedures adhere to the proposed problem solving court rules 4. How do policies and procedures compare across courts? 5. What are possible areas of improvement, particularly in court procedures, treatment and ongoing program evaluation? 6. What are the participant outcomes, and to what extent are these outcomes associated with participant characteristics and program elements? The evaluation used a variety of methods to answer these questions including a review of the literature and Nebraska problem solving court documentation, courtroom observations, focus groups and interviews, and analysis of data from the state probation information system. Quantitative information for this study was collected for the time period January 2006 through June 2007. Information about policies, practices and perceptions about problem solving court operations was collected during the summer of 2007. Therefore, this evaluation provides analysis for a particular period of time and does not reflect subsequent changes in problem solving courts. Consistent with national trends, the majority of Nebraska problem solving court participants are classified as requiring a high level of community supervision. However, there were limited data available to answer this question. There were also limited data available to make a determination about what factors affect success in problem solving courts. It is recommended that data system improvements be developed to help answer these and other key policy questions. There were mixed results regarding whether there are disparities with regard to race and ethnicity of court participants as compared to the general population of the communities they serve. The data available was limited and did not indicate disparities; however, this likely was the result of small sample size. Stakeholders identified potential selection biases that could be addressed through more equitable selection processes. A review of written court policies and procedures revealed disparities between existing documented practices of the eight courts and the proposed court rules for problem solving courts. To conform to the proposed rules, enhancements in documentation are required for most courts. Although currently problem solving courts are standardizing their policies and procedures, at the time of this study there were differences in policies and procedures across the eight problem solving courts reflecting the individual strengths and challenges faced by each. Many of the courts’ practices are known by the team members, but are not well documented in policies and procedures. It is recommended that the combined knowledge and experience of the courts be captured in writing more clearly to help future team members and participants to clearly understand each court’s target population, selection processes, instruments used in the selection process, and activities built into the phases of the problem solving court process. Similar to other evaluations of problem solving courts in Nebraska, this evaluation recommends developing documentation that clearly articulates standards for selecting participants in each problem solving court. The preliminary results of this evaluation also yielded several additional findings that can be used as a basis for enhancing Nebraska’s problem solving courts. Problem solving courts in Nebraska generally have strong, dedicated teams that are critical to the success of the courts. It is recommended that team functioning be enhanced through on-going training, team building and standardized orientation for new members. Court procedures strongly influence participant success. Recommendations include enhanced attention to practices in the courtroom such as voice amplification and regular use of trained interpreters. Documenting courtroom practices via standardized orientation material may help participants, their families, team members and communities understand judicial expectations in a courtroom. The role and expectations of treatment in the problem solving court process can be better articulated. It is recommended that expectations about the use of evidence based practices by treatment providers be articulated in writing along with clear expectations about how providers should report progress in treatment as part of the problem solving court process. Participants can be better served by developing the capacity for assessment and treatment of mental health disorders for participants with co-occurring disorders. The current state level data system has serious limitations for collecting the types of information useful for informing policy. Regular generation of reports via an integrated information system would make it possible to track and compare problem solving court activities. It is more likely that errors or omissions in court reporting data will be caught early if reports are meaningful to local courts and relied upon by statewide administrators. Standardized exit interviews of participants exiting problem solving courts are recommended as a mechanism for documenting challenges and successes in local court processes. Details: Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Public Policy Center, 2008. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2013 at: http://ppc.unl.edu/userfiles/file/Documents/projects/DrugCourtEvaluation/EvaluationofNebraska'sProbationProblemSolvingCourts.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://ppc.unl.edu/userfiles/file/Documents/projects/DrugCourtEvaluation/EvaluationofNebraska'sProbationProblemSolvingCourts.pdf Shelf Number: 127740 Keywords: Drug CourtsProbationProbationersProblem Solving Courts (Nebraska, U.S.) |
Author: University of Nebraska. Public Policy Center Title: Evaluation of Nebraska’s Problem-Solving Courts Summary: From March 2010 through December 2011, the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center conducted an evaluation of Nebraska’s problem solving courts. Main findings include the following: Nebraska’s problem solving courts are effectively operated, following the ten key components for drug courts, thereby reducing crime and addiction and improving the lives of participants Graduation rates for Nebraska drug courts match or exceed national drug court rates Costs for Nebraska programs are comparable to costs for drug courts across the country Nebraska drug court programs are cost efficient, saving between $2,609,235 and $9,722,920 in tax dollars per year Problem solving courts in Nebraska are serving moderate to high need offenders, the type of offenders most appropriate for drug court services Nebraska drug courts are serving a diversity of offenders, with few disparities based on race, ethnicity, and gender Education and employment skills are emphasized in problem solving courts, which lead to successful outcomes for participants Although the evaluation found Nebraska problem solving courts are operating effectively and efficiently, there are areas that can be improved: Participants with higher criminal history risk could be accepted and effectively served in drug courts Increased training in the 10 key drug court components and the Standardized Model for Delivery of Substance Abuse Services could benefit problem solving courts, particularly family drug courts Review of admissions procedures for select courts could identify causes for racial/ethnic disparities; culturally competent approaches could improve services Improvements could be made by ensuring full participation of county attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, and treatment provides in problem solving court teams Drug court teams could benefit from additional training and team building Additional funding would enhance key supports for drug courts including participant incentives, access to day reporting centers, and enhanced treatment Programs could be improved through standardized procedures for reporting treatment progress and fidelity to evidence based practices Time between arrest and drug court admission could be reduced, thereby improving outcomes for participants The quality of problem solving courts could be improved through ongoing program evaluation. Details: Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Public Policy Center, 2012. 366p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/reports/courts/drug-court-report-final-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/reports/courts/drug-court-report-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 128317 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts (Nebraska, U.S.) |
Author: Van Wormer, Jacqueline G. Title: Understanding Operational Dynamnics of Drug Courts Summary: Drug courts seek to provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to addressing the complex intersection of defendant addiction and crime that plagues our court system. Under the layers of activity and services that occurs in a drug court model exists a team that is charged with carrying out the goals and objectives of the designed program. This program should represent, in most courtrooms, a drastic departure from business as usual. History has shown, however, that proper implementation and maintenance of criminal justice reform and program efforts over time is difficult, and mission creep or program drift is not uncommon. This research analyzes the ability of drug court teams to follow recommended operational standards and explores whether drug courts are able to reach a strong state of collaboration. In addition, this research examines philosophical and ideological program change over time to assess if drug courts have drifted away from the balanced approach that should be applied within the model. This study found that survey respondents report strong adherence to the recommended drug court components and strategies, although juvenile drug court team members are embracing components built for adult drug courts. Training was significantly correlated across many scales and revealed that as training increases for team members, so to does perceptions of model adherence. As training increases, so to does perceptions of personal and system wide benefits associated with drug court operations. Findings also reveal that the prosecutor and probation officer express less overall systems and personal benefit with participation on the team and within the drug court. In terms of assessing program drift, those team members that have received varied types of training perceive more drift and mission creep of the program over time. These findings offer important new insights into the inner working of the drug court model. Policy implications and recommendations for standardization are discussed. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2010. 235p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/2810/vanWormer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/2810/vanWormer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 128318 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Machin, Juliette R. Title: Marion County Fostering Attachment Treatment Court Follow-Up Process and Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treatment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. As of June 30, 2012, there were 2,734 drug courts, including 1,896 adult and juvenile drug courts, 334 family courts, and 503 other types of drug courts active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (NDCRC, 2013). Over approximately the last 17 years, the drug court model, originally developed for adult criminal offenders, has been expanded to address the poor outcomes substance-abusing parents traditionally experienced in traditional family reunification programs (Marlowe & Carey, 2012). Family Drug Treatment Courts (FDCs) work with the child welfare system. There have been a modest number studies of FDCs (e.g., Burrus, Mackin, & Finigan, 2011; Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007; Carey, Sanders, Waller, Burrus, & Aborn, 2010a, 2010b). Many of these studies show promising outcomes for families in the child welfare system, including higher treatment completion rates, higher family reunification rates, less time in out-of-home placements for the children, and lower arrest rates (Marlowe & Carey, 2012). In late 2008, NPC Research was contracted by the Oregon State Police and the Criminal Justice Commission to conduct the third year evaluations of 11 drug courts funded by the Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project. NPC conducted Drug Court Process Foundations evaluations of 11 Oregon adult and family drug court sites (examining the programs' adherence to best practices within the 10 Key Components, with adjustments for the special family drug court population of parents with child welfare cases). In addition, as a part of this project, NPC performed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Marion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. This study is a follow-up to that evaluation of the Marion County program. This summary contains process and outcome evaluation results for the Marion County Fostering Attachment Family Treatment Court (FATC). Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2013. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244165.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244165.pdf Shelf Number: 132121 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Boles, Sharon Title: Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court Year Seven Outcome and Process Evaluation Findings Summary: The Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court (DDC) began in October 2001. The Sacramento DDC was developed as part of a system-wide reform effort to address the needs of families with substance use disorders in the child welfare system. The Sacramento DDC operates parallel to the dependency case proceedings, which are conducted on a regular family court docket. Compliance reviews and management of the recovery aspects of the case are heard by the DDC officer throughout the life of the parents' participation in the dependency drug court. Parents begin DDC services promptly to pre-empt the possibility of noncompliance of court orders regarding substance abuse treatment participation. The focus of this report includes: 1) a description of the program participants; 2) findings regarding treatment engagement, retention and completion; and 3) 12, 18, and 36 month findings regarding child safety and permanency. For this report, the 24 month findings are presented in Appendix A. For a complete description of the DDC model and programmatic components, please contact the authors for a report issued in April 2002. Details: Irvine, CA: Children and Family Futures, 2010. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132149 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WelfareDrug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Thom, Katey Title: Evaluating Problem-Solving Courts in New Zealand - a synopsis report Summary: Problem-solving courts were developed in the United States in the late 1980s and have extended to a number of jurisdictions throughout the world (Freiberg, 2001). In New Zealand, family violence courts were the first problem-solving courts to be established in 2001 (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, & Ong, 2008), followed by a youth alcohol and drug court in Christchurch in 2002 (Searle & Spier, 2006). A specialty court for at risk youth was then established in Auckland in 2007 and a homeless court in the same city was implemented in 2010. The Ministry of Justice is currently piloting two adult alcohol and other drug courts in the Auckland region and there are also a number of Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts for young people (See Richardson, Thom, & McKenna, 2013 for further discussion of problem solving courts in Australasia). The New Zealand government has recognised that addictions, mental illness, and social care needs such as lack of family support and unemployment are inextricably linked to rates of crime (Corrections, 2009). Limitations in the ability of existing health and social care agencies to effectively address these issues have resulted in traditional adversarial courts becoming revolving doors for offenders, whose criminal behaviours arise from psychological and social impairments (King & Freiburg, 2009). Court innovations, such as problem-solving courts, have been developed to assist in addressing the psychosocial causes of offending. These courts seek to improve the psychosocial well-being of those whose maladaptive behaviour brings them to court in the first place (Winick, 2006). Problem-solving courts use a psychological lens in viewing defendants as motivated (or unmotivated) actors, who adjust their responses to the courtroom according to their motivation during hearings, anticipated emotions about future hearings and perceptions of the fairness of their treatment by the court. Currently, there is limited research available on the function and effectiveness of the problem-solving courts in New Zealand. This report, funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation, outlines a preparatory study of the problem-solving movement in New Zealand, with the view of providing the foundations for future evaluations which are methodologically robust and theoretically grounded. Details: Auckland, NZ: Centre for Mental Health Research, University of Auckland, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5.-Evaluating-problem-solving-courts-in-New-Zealand.-A-synopsis-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5.-Evaluating-problem-solving-courts-in-New-Zealand.-A-synopsis-report.pdf Shelf Number: 132856 Keywords: Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts (New Zealand) |
Author: Estee, Sharon Title: Characteristics and Criminal Histories of Adult Offenders Admitted to Treatment under Washington State's Criminal Justice Treatment Account Summary: This is the first in a series of reports prepared for the DSHS Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery to help evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the treatment funded by the state's Criminal Justice Treatment Account. This account pays for chemical dependency treatment for criminal offenders who are chemically dependent or have a substance abuse problem that could lead to addiction if left untreated. The intent is to reduce recidivism and increase the likelihood that defendants and offenders will become productive and law-abiding persons. We compare key demographic, criminal history, and geographic differences between two groups of offenders whose treatment is funded through the account: 1) those involved with formally established drug courts, and 2) those charged through non-drug court programs in either Superior Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. We found that 39 percent of offenders entering treatment were from a drug court program. One in three offenders in both programs was a young adult (age 18 to 25). Felonies were the most serious charge for 94 percent of drug court offenders and 19 percent of non-drug court offenders. Felony drug offenses were the most serious charge for 65 percent of those from drug courts. The most serious charge for half of non-drug court offenders was a traffic-related offense with 36 percent charged with driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. Drug court offenders had more arrests and convictions in the prior ten years than those from non-drug court programs. And drug-court felons entered treatment sooner than other offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2012. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/86.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/86.pdf Shelf Number: 133066 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment (Washington State) |
Author: Keaton, Sandy Title: Enhancing Treatment in a Drug Court Setting: An Evaluation of San Diego County's Pilot Vivitrol Project Summary: In 2012, the North County Drug Court began a pilot project administering Vivitrol to drug court clients with a primary opiate addiction. Vivitrol is an extended-release injectable formulation of naltrexone that was approved in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for the treatment of alcohol dependence and in 2010 for the treatment of opiate dependence (USFDA, 2010). The County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division to conduct a two-year evaluation of the Vivitrol Pilot Project to determine if the program was implemented as planned and if the expected outcomes were achieved. This is the fourth and final evaluation report and provides the findings from data collected between August 2012 and June 2014. Key Findings of Vivitrol Pilot Project This report constitutes a two-year evaluation of the North County Vivitrol Pilot Project. It is one of the first studies to look at the longer term impacts of Vivitrol among opioid dependents. While the evaluation was limited by small sample size and available comparison group, the findings support further exploration of intramuscular injections of Vivitrol to support engagement and retention in drug treatment among individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Some key findings included: Regardless of the number of shots received, program clients generally reported that Vivitrol helped to control their cravings and supported their recovery. Program clients who completed the prescribed six or more doses of Vivitrol experienced decreased desire to use, did not relapse, and did not reoffend during the study period (a total of 18 months). While positive outcomes were realized for those clients who received the full dosage amount, only around one quarter (26%) received six or more shots. Older clients (36 years old on average) whose primary method of heroin administration was injection were more likely to receive six or more doses than those who were younger and reported other primary modes of use. Program stakeholders surveyed recommended that the Vivitrol project continue because of the success of the clients they witnessed during the pilot project including decreased cravings and greater focus on treatment. Details: San Francisco: Criminal Justice Research Division, SANDAG, 2014. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: CJ Bulletin: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1873_17990.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1873_17990.pdf Shelf Number: 133626 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (California)Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Drugs: international comparators Summary: Covers approaches to drugs misuse and drug addiction in other countries: - detailing drug consumption rooms; - heroin-assisted treatment; - dissuasion commissions; - drug courts; - prison-based treatment; - prison-based harm-reduction; - new psychoactive substances; - supply-side regulation of cannabis; - decriminalising the possession of drugs for personal use Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf Shelf Number: 133934 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Ward, Jenni Title: Are problem-solving courts the way forward for justice? Summary: Problem-solving courts are not a new innovation, but their use and implementation appears to be growing across a number of jurisdictions, including the UK. This development suggests there is belief in the 'therapeutic jurisprudence' approach that underpins this style of criminal court adjudication; moreover their growth fits within the discourse which points out traditional criminal justice mechanisms too often leave the offender out as an uninvolved actor in the process (Nolan, 2001; Berman and Fox, 2009; Braithwaite, 1989). Processes that draw people in more closely, making them accountable for their actions, and playing an active role in their rehabilitation are more likely to achieve success at reducing reoffending and assisting people to live altered and reformed lives (Hoyle, 2012). This working paper provides some background detail on problem-solving courts and the central guiding principle of therapeutic jurisprudence, and argues court structures that assist people to construct positive self-identities and reintegrate into purposeful lives, and which empower people to play a role in their rehabilitation demonstrate a criminal justice model that has well-being at its core, and puts a human face to the delivery of justice. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 2/2014: Accessed November 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/What_is_Justice/HLWP_2_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134117 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Guide for Drug Courts and other Criminal Justice Programs Summary: Policymakers and practitioners face difficult decisions when they allocate resources. As resource constraints have tightened, the role of researchers in informing evidence-based and cost-effective decisions about the use of funds, labor, materials and equipment - and even the skills of workers - has increased. We believe research that can inform decisions about resource allocation will be a central focus of criminal justice research in the years to come, with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) among the key tools. This report about the use of CBA is aimed at not only researchers but also practitioners and policymakers who use research to make choices about how to use limited resources. Although we include NIJ's Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) as an example of CBA in practice, this report is not just about using CBA in drug courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: National Institute of Justice Research in Brief: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Shelf Number: 134243 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis (U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyDrug CourtsEvidence-Based PracticesProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Zajac, Gary Title: Evaluation of Mifflin County Adult Treatment Court Summary: The Mifflin County Adult Treatment Court (MCATC) is a drug court program that began development in 2010 under a Bureau of Justice Assistance grant received by Mifflin County. The first participants were enrolled in February of 2011. Program participants are under the supervision of the Mifflin County Adult Probation Department while enrolled in MCATC. As is typical for a drug court, drug and alcohol treatment is the primary service offered by MCATC, although educational, vocational and other miscellaneous services are also offered. The drug and alcohol treatment services are delivered by a local private provider - Clear Concepts Counseling (http://www.clearconceptscounseling.com/). The primary drug and alcohol treatment modality offered as part of MCATC is an intensive outpatient program (IOP), which meets 3 times per week, 3 hours each session, for a total of 4 weeks. Follow-up outpatient and recovery groups are also offered. MCATC is a small program. At the time of the CPC assessment there were 10 offenders currently enrolled. Another 5 had graduated, with 14 others having already been removed from the program. Thus, the MCATC has enrolled fewer than 30 offenders as of the date of this assessment. Note: we were not permitted to observe an IOP group treatment session, which would normally be part of the CPC assessment process. This limits to some extent the conclusions we can draw about the structure and content of the MCATC. Primary Program Strengths - - Program leadership and staff possess the requisite credentials and experience needed to work within a program like the Mifflin County Adult Treatment Court (MCATC). - Program leadership is integrally involved in the operation of the MCATC. - There appears to be good support for the program among program staff and the local criminal justice community. - The program undertakes formal, objective assessment of offender risk and need, and most importantly accepts only high risk clients into the program. - The MCATC primarily targets criminogenic needs and the ratio of criminogenic to noncriminogenic targets appears to be sufficient. - Appropriate rewards and punishers are used. - Specific to the drug court setting, the Judge appears to conduct court in an atmosphere of respect and fairness to clients, is knowledgeable about clients' cases and provides appropriate positive and redirective feedback to clients during the bi-weekly hearings. Primary Recommendations Program Improvement Following are the three most critical things that the MCATC can do to improve its likelihood of reducing the recidivism potential of its clients: - Perhaps the most important recommendation is that the scope of treatment services delivered as part of the MCATC should be expanded to include an evidence-based program(s) that specifically and directly targets core criminogenic needs including antisocial attitudes/values, anti-social peers, and decision making/problem solving skills. On a related point, the MCATC should also consider expanding its offender assessment regimen to include dynamic criminal attitudes tools that will allow staff to triage clients into any new criminal thinking programs adopted, as well as to monitor their progress through these program(s). - The MCATC should also employ a more consistent and structured approach to the substance abuse services offered. The current approach is eclectic, offering a mix of models. Some of these models have a relatively strong evidence-base (e.g. MI, CBT), but for others the evidence of effectiveness is less clear (12 Step, psycho-educational). All substance abuse services should be based upon an evidence-based approach, such as CBT. The advantage of a CBT approach is that it is fairly transferable, capable of being applied to many different problem domains, such as substance abuse, criminal thinking, peers, decision making, etc., and indeed can also provide the underlayment for an integrated treatment curriculum that addresses all necessary targets for a given client. - Finally, program facilitators should incorporate skill modeling, training and practice into the program whereby facilitators model and clients practice new skills. Staff should demonstrate new skills/pro-social alternatives using modeling/vicarious learning techniques that routinely teach participants to identify and anticipate problem situations. Offenders should spend at least as much time in group practicing new skills as they spend being formally taught those skills. Details: University Park, PA: Justice Center for Research, The Pennsylvania State University, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/mcatc/MCATCFinalReportSeptember2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/mcatc/MCATCFinalReportSeptember2013.pdf Shelf Number: 134253 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offenders Drug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Taylor, Liana R. Title: General Responsivity and Evidence-Based Treatment: Individual and Program Predictors of Treatment Outcomes During Adolescent Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment Summary: Since it was first articulated, the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) has been extensively researched and is regarded as an empirically supported model for providing effective correctional treatment. It is comprised of three core principles: the risk principle, which provides direction for who should receive treatment; the need principle, which identifies intermediate treatment targets; and the responsivity principle, which states how treatment programs should be structured. The RNR model is purported to be relevant for all offender populations, including female offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999a), juvenile offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999b), violent offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 2000), and sexual offenders (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hogdson, 2009). Yet, the majority of RNR research has examined the risk and need principles, and the responsivity principle remains understudied. The responsivity principle includes two sub-principles: general and specific (Andrews, & Bonta, 2010). The current research explored the general responsivity principle, which states that programs should use theoretically relevant models for individual change, specifically cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-social learning models (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The following techniques are consistent with these models: "role-playing, modeling, repeated practice of alternative behaviors, cognitive restructuring to modify thoughts/emotions, skills building, or reinforcement" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 50). Despite empirical support, the RNR model has received minimal application to juveniles, and it has not been widely tested in the substance abuse treatment context. Additionally, it is not clear whether adherence to the RNR model is relevant for reducing substance use outcomes in youth. Adolescent substance abuse treatment programs were designed to address substance use among juveniles, and have been widely researched to determine their effectiveness; yet their effectiveness remains understudied among juvenile offenders. These studies include examinations of specific treatment interventions used, such as Multisystemic Therapy. Many of these interventions are considered to be "evidence-based treatment" (EBT), but there is a wide variety of repositories that classify interventions as "evidence-based" with varying criteria used to classify them. The juvenile drug treatment court model (JDTC) was specifically developed to address substance use and crime among juvenile offenders; however, findings from empirical studies have not demonstrated a strong treatment effect. To address these gaps in the literature, secondary analyses were conducted on data collected from 132 adolescent outpatient substance abuse treatment programs (AOPs) and 10 juvenile drug treatment courts nationwide. This research was an application of the general responsivity principle in the AOP and JDTC context to determine the impact of responsivity adherence on the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The analyses also included an examination of evidence-based treatment (EBT) in both samples to determine the influence of EBT use scores on the odds of rearrests and substance use severity scores. To examine the AOP sample, multilevel models were used to examine the individual- and program-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. To examine the JDTC sample, multivariate analyses were used to examine the individual-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. Overall, responsivity adherence was not significantly associated with rearrests among AOP participants, nor was it significantly associated with substance use severity scores. Additionally, the odds of rearrest were significantly greater among individuals who received interventions with a higher EBT use score; though, there was no association between the average EBT use scores across programs and the odds of rearrest. There was no significant association between individual- and program-level EBT use scores and substance use severity. Among JDTC participants, an increase in responsivity adherence was associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. A similar association emerged between EBT use scores and both outcomes, wherein increases in EBT use scores were significantly associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The results of the analyses suggest the need for further specification of both general responsivity adherence and "evidence-based" treatment for use in future research and theory; specifically, further elaboration of the general responsivity-adherent techniques and clear criteria for classifying interventions as "evidence-based treatment." The findings also imply that certain types of treatment interventions are more compatible with the JDTC model than other interventions. Additional analyses suggest the possibility that general responsivity adherence and evidence-based treatment may not be unique constructs. Future research may benefit through exploring evidence-based treatment as a criterion for adherence to the general responsivity principle. Details: Philadelphia: Temple University, 2014. 252p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248590.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248590.pdf Shelf Number: 135116 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersEvidence-Based TreatmentJuvenile Drug OffendersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Blair, Lesli Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: A Process, Outcome, and Impact Evaluation Summary: This bulletin provides an overview of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-sponsored evaluation of drug court intervention programs, their processes, and key outcome features. The authors evaluated nine juvenile drug courts from three regions nationwide, assessing the relative effect of each court and the courts' combined effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving youth's social functioning. Some of the authors' key findings follow below. - Seven of nine sites saw higher rates of new referrals for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation, and six of nine sites saw higher rates of new adjudications for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation. - Only one of nine sites evidenced significant reductions for both new referrals and new adjudications. These positive outcomes may be due to the referral agencies providing treatment on the court's behalf adhering more closely to evidence-based practices. - Many of the juvenile drug courts were not adequately assessing their clients for risk, needs, and barriers to treatment success. - Juvenile drug courts in general were not adhering to evidence-based practices. Only two of the nine courts performed well in the process evaluation that measured adherence to evidence-based correctional treatment practices, and only one court's referral agencies performed well in the process evaluation. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2015: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Shelf Number: 135806 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Prince, Kort Title: 2013 Outcome Evaluation of Salt Lake County's Felony Drug Court Program Summary: Background Salt Lake County's Adult Felony Drug Court (FDC) program began in 1996. Three previous evaluations of the efficacy of the Salt Lake County FDC were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2005. These studies generally showed a positive effect of drug court participation with lower recidivism rates for drug court participants compared to other offenders (Harrison & Parsons, 2000; Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), 2001). However, the 2005 study (Van Vleet, Hickert, & Becker) indicated that the lower recidivism rates associated with drug court participation were not significant when other covariates were included. Pre-intervention arrests were the only significant predictor of rearrest. Purpose The purpose of the present study is to provide a current outcome evaluation of the Salt Lake County FDC program. FDC participants who exited in the years 2009-2011 (referred to as participants for the remainder of the report) were selected in order to allow for a sufficient post-exit follow-up period (approximately two years) for the majority of the cohort. Because the identification of a comparison group was outside the scope of this study, the analyses focus on pre- to post-exit changes in recidivism (new charges and convictions), examining the influence of length of program participation, exit status (positive, negative, neutral) and demographic factors. Participant Characteristics The 2009-2011 cohort of participants was primarily White (85%) and male (59%), with an average age of 30 years. The graduation rate for this group was 82% (positive exits; compared to 5% neutral exits and 13% negative exits). Average length of participation was 18-21 months (Mn = 84 weeks; Md = 71 weeks). Recidivism Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new charge arrests, including drug and property crime charges, in the 18 months after program completion when compared to the 18 months before. This decline cannot be confidently attributed to FDC participation, however, because successful program completion and program duration were not associated with significant reductions in recidivism for any crime except person crimes (though other marginally significant results were found). When comparing pre- and post-program recidivism for person offenses, participants who spent comparatively more time in drug court had fewer new charge arrests in the 18-month post-program follow-up period. Similarly, participants with positive and neutral exits showed significant pre-post decline in person offenses, and participants with negative exits did not. Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new convictions for any crime, including drug crimes, in the 24 months after program completion when compared to the 24 months before. Longer time in the program was a marginally significant predictor of reductions in convictions for any crime from pre- to post-program. Client Factors Related to Outcomes After controlling for pre-program convictions, there were no differences between males and females or whites and minorities in terms of the number of post-program convictions for either drugs or any crime. When compared to younger clients, clients who were older at the time of intake had less post-program recidivism. An increase in client age of one year was associated with a 1% decrease in the likelihood of post-program convictions. Similarly, neither sex nor minority status was a significant predictor of successful program exit (graduating), but age was. Each one-year increase in age increased the likelihood of successful program completion by 1%. Discussion The most consistent finding of this report is the considerable reduction in criminal recidivism for all FDC groups (positive, neutral or negative exit statuses) from pre- to post-program. It is important to note that pre-program new charge arrests and convictions include the episode that led to their placement in the FDC program if the timing of the offense(s) fell within the time window (e.g., 12 months, 18 months). Longer program duration was occasionally (though often only marginally) associated with less recidivism. This outcome suggests that the FDC program, with respect to some criminal behavior, may (with respect to some criminal behavior) reduce recidivism as a function of exposure to the program and its procedures (e.g., treatment, continual monitoring). Regardless of exit status, the program may have some positive benefits on participants simply as a result of their length of program participation (i.e., whether the participant graduates or not). This interpretation should be regarded with caution, however, as the finding was not robust across all variables and timeframes, and program duration was not associated with lower drug related recidivism (which one might assume would be the area most affected by the FDC program and its procedures). Although all recidivism variables showed remarkable pre to post-program reductions, results should be interpreted with caution until a comparison group can be included in a research design. If a statistically matched comparison group were included in a future analysis (even with retrospective data), and the FDC group showed greater reductions in recidivism compared to the comparison group, it could be more confidently asserted that the FDC program was the cause of the differential improvement. Details: Salt Lake City, UK: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136115 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersFelony OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Borderland Substance Abuse Court, Lake of the Woods County, MN: Process and Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: There are two key policy questions of interest to policymakers about DWI courts. The evaluation of Borderland Substance Abuse Court (BSAC) provided answers to these questions. This study included participants who entered the program between 2008 and 2012, and a matched comparison group of DWI offenders who were eligible but were not referred to the program. Just over half of the participants were assessed as high-need (54%) and two-thirds were assessed as high risk (69%). Participants had an average of 2.4 DWI arrests in the ten years before DWI court entry. DWI Recidivism. Out of 33 DWI court participants, there were only two new DWI arrests in the two years after DWI court entry, an indicator of reduced driving while using alcohol, and increased public safety. Compared to DWI offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the BSAC participants (regardless of whether they graduated from the program): - Had 24% fewer rearrests two years after program entry; - Were 32% less likely to be rearrested for any charges - Had no rearrests for person crimes - Had a longer time to the first rearrest for any charge (20 months versus 18 months) - Had a substantially higher graduation rate than the national average (77% versus 57%) Research indicates that drug and DWI courts should target high-risk/high-need individuals, as lower risk participants require different intervention methods and may not benefit (or may actually be harmed) from the intense supervision provided by the full drug court model (NADCP, 2013). These positive results indicate that the BSAC is targeting the correct population and should continue or increase its focus on high risk individuals. In general, these outcomes provide some evidence that the BSAC is implementing its program with good fidelity to the DWI court model and is having the intended impact on its participants. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137165 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving While IntoxicatedDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrugged DrivingProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Judicial Council Report to the Legislature: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report Summary: Judicial Council staff recommend that the Judicial Council receive the California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report and direct the Administrative Director to submit this report to the California Legislature and Governor, as mandated by Penal Code section 3015. Under the statute, the Judicial Council is required to submit a final evaluation report that assesses the pilot reentry court program's effectiveness in reducing recidivism no later than three years after the establishment of a reentry court. The report was developed in consultation with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137177 Keywords: Drug CourtsParoleesPrisoner ReentryProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Kissick, Katherine Title: Clark County Family Treatment Court: Striding Towards Excellent Parents (STEP) Vancouver, WA - Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of June 2014, there were nearly 3,0000 drug courts including more than 1,900 adult and juvenile drug courts and 300 family treatment courts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (NDCRC, 2015). In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. These include addiction treatment providers, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Family Drug Treatment Courts (FTCs) work with substance-abusing parents with child welfare cases. FTCs are a "problem-solving" court modeled after the adult drug court approach. Similar to adult drug courts, the essential components of FTCs include regular, often weekly, court hearings, intensive judicial monitoring, timely referral to substance abuse treatment, frequent drug testing, rewards and sanctions linked to service compliance, and generally include wraparound services (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004; Edwards & Ray, 2005). The FTC team always includes the child welfare system along with the judicial and treatment systems, (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Second, while adult drug courts work primarily with criminally involved adults who participate in the drug court in lieu of jail time, participants in FTCs may not be criminally involved; rather, FTC participants typically become involved in drug court due to civil family court matters. NPC Research partnered with the Clark County Family Treatment Court to conduct an evaluation of the Family Treatment Court as part of their Children Affected by Methamphetamines (CAM) grant, awarded to Clark County in 2010 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The purpose of the grant was to enhance the FTC program by adding more services for parents and their children, specifically mental health/family counseling, an at home support specialist, parenting assistance (including home, in office one-on-one and group classes around parenting skills) and evidenced based practices for parenting (Triple P and Parent Child Interaction Therapy). Participants opting into CAM services also received a neuropsychological exam intended to help identify participant and family needs to better plan which additional services were most appropriate. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2015. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Clark-County-CAM-Process-Outcome-Cost-Evaluation_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Clark-County-CAM-Process-Outcome-Cost-Evaluation_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 137668 Keywords: Child AbuseChild Abuse PreventionChild ProtectionDrug CourtsDrug OffendersParenting ProgramsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Carnevale Associates, LLC Title: Findings from the Economic Analysis of JDC/RF: Policy Implications for Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Findings from the National Cross-Site Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) indicate that costs associated with providing services in accordance with the JDC/RF integrated model are offset by substantial savings to society. The integrated model, which was created as a combination of two existing models: Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice (JDC: SIP) & Reclaiming Futures (RF), is part of an effort by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to improve the effectiveness and efficacy of JDCs. The JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation includes five sites that received funding under this initiative. This brief describes a two-part study of JDC/RF program costs, meaning the monetary value of time and resources required to operate the program, and estimated net economic benefits, meaning the monetary value of program benefits minus the program costs. Adolescent treatment program costs and associated net benefits are not studied as frequently as adult programs, despite the fact that studies of this nature for adults have become more numerous in recent years. The findings of the current study help fill this gap, lending an important contribution to the adolescent treatment research community. The study found that the five sites participating in the JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation experienced net benefits to society that greatly exceeded JDC/RF program costs. These benefits were directly related to data collected before and after the JDC/RF intervention on traditional measures of JDC programmatic success such as crime, substance abuse, education, physical health, and mental health. Findings provide preliminary economic justification for the JDC/RF program. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137992 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: The drug court model emerged to provide an intervention option to address the substance abuse treatment needs of offenders. As of 2009, there were 2,459 operational drug courts in the United States, of which 476 were specifically for juveniles (Huddleson & Marlowe, 2011). In general, drug courts are specialized courts that combine treatment with court supervision, using a non-adversarial model, in order to reduce offenders' substance abuse and criminal behavior (General Accounting Office (GAO), 1997). The main components of a drug court are: the use of a judge to preside over monthly status hearings, mandatory drug testing, court monitoring of individualized drug treatment, and use of immediate sanctions and incentives to ensure compliance with court demands. While eligibility requirements vary across jurisdictions, the majority of programs restrict eligibility to non-violent offenders with an identified substance abuse problem. Offenders typically participate in drug court for one to two years; those who complete court requirements generally have their charges dismissed or reduced, while those who do not complete often receive jail or prison sentences. In the juvenile drug court model the developmental needs of the adolescent, as well as negative peer influences and the family environment are taken into account when planning program requirements (BJA, 2005). In addition, confidentiality and involvement of parents and/or families in the treatment program are considerations when implementing interventions with juvenile offenders. This report details the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of drug courts for juvenile offenders. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138957 Keywords: Cost of Criminal JsuticeDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Friedman, Sally Title: Medication-Assisted Treatment in Drug Courts: Recommended Strategies Summary: This report provides strategies for incorporating medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction into the work of drug courts. Although based on the experience of courts in New York State, the report's recommendations are not state specific and can be applied to courts around the country. The report was produced by the Legal Action Center and the Center for Court Innovation, with support from the New York State court system. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation and Legal Action Center, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/MATindrugCourtsFinal.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/MATindrugCourtsFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 139333 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Hawken, Angela Title: HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation Summary: Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement probation relies on a regimen of regular, random drug testing tied to swift and certain, but modest, sanctions to motivate probationer compliance. In two 2007 studies in Hawai'i, a comparison-group quasi-experiment and a randomized controlled trial, HOPE was demonstrated to improve compliance with terms of probation at 12-month follow-up, with large reductions in drug use, recidivism, and overall incarceration for offenders assigned to the program. Following the original evaluations, HOPE expanded from 34 participants in 2004 to approximately 2200 participants in Hawai'i in 2014, with many replications on the mainland. Several important questions remained. The primary impact of drug treatment is felt during exposure to the treatment program; over half of treatment subjects relapse within a year of ending treatment. The original evaluations of HOPE relied on a relatively short follow-up period, and it is not clear whether its effects would persist over a longer period. And it is not clear whether implementation would maintain fidelity to the model when no longer being evaluated. This study extends the original HOPE evaluations to an almost ten-year follow-up, addressing whether the improvements in criminal-justice outcomes observed during the active HOPE intervention persist after the term of probation. The study also documents changes in HOPE practices and ongoing implementation fidelity to the model. Administrative data from several sources were collected on HOPE and probation-as-usual (PAU) subjects. These records data were supplemented with in-person surveys with probationers, a probation-officer survey, and interviews with key officials. Interpretations of outcomes data reported here should take changes in implementation practices into consideration. Tracking and contacting subjects after nearly a decade proved more challenging than anticipated. Consequently, this study relies more heavily on administrative data, and less on in-person surveys and bio-specimen collection, than initially planned. The principal findings were: 1. HOPE probationers performed better than those supervised under routine supervision. They were less likely to be revoked and returned to prison. They were more likely to be free in the community and therefore at higher risk of committing new offenses; even so, they were less likely to commit new crimes during the follow-up period, although the difference in reoffending rate was smaller at long-term follow-up than at 12-month, and the reductions in drug crimes accounted for most of the difference (differences in property crimes were smaller than anticipated). HOPE was also found to economize on supervision resources, as HOPE probationers were more likely to receive successful early terminations from probation. 2. Probationers' perception of risk of punishment given a violation (estimated from the probationer survey) was higher than probation officers' estimates, which in turn were higher than our estimates of the true risk. As the deterrent value depends on perceived risk rather than actual risk, HOPE appears to benefit from a reputation effect that exceeds the certainty delivered in practice. 3. Probation-officer surveys suggest that POs support HOPE: It makes them more effective at their job and their probationers are more likely to succeed on HOPE. POs reported deviation from how HOPE is implemented compared with how it is described in policies and procedures. They agree that positive drug tests are referred to the court, but believe that their colleagues exercise discretion in deciding how to respond to missed appointments (including missed random drug tests). As HOPE relies on swift and certain sanctions, this argues for closer monitoring of implementation fidelity. Details: Malibu, CA: School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Shelf Number: 139508 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Hamilton, Zachary Title: Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) Swift and Certain (SAC) Policy: Process, Outcome and Cost-Benefit Evaluation Summary: In 2012, the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) embarked on an ambitious effort to restructure their community supervision model. These changes were driven by the passage of Senate Bill 6204, which created substantial operating changes to the Community Corrections Division (CCD) of the WADOC, including matching the level of supervision to offender's risk level, utilizing evidence-based treatment and implementing swift and certain (yet moderate) jail sanctions for community supervision violations (Washington State Department of Corrections 2008; 2014). The Swift and Certain (SAC) policy was implemented in May of 2012, with the intent of expanding the HOPE model to a much broader community-based criminal justice population. Primarily, SAC was established to reduce confinement time for sanctions following a violation of supervision conditions. While maintaining a substantial focus on public safety, the Washington SAC program also sought to reduce correctional costs associated with short-term confinement for violation sanctioning. Through support by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF), researchers at Washington State University (WSU) completed a multi-phase project to examine the implementation process and provide an outcome and cost-benefit evaluation of SAC. Process Evaluation: The purpose and intent of this research is to provide a deeper understanding of the implementation, adoption and use of SAC with over 10,000 offenders across the state of Washington. To complete this evaluation, WSU Researchers conducted the following: 1) a careful document review of policies and procedures, 2) focus groups were conducted with community corrections officers and supervisors (CCOs & CCSs), and 3) community corrections offenders. Over 16 hours of interviews were transcribed, and were then coded to search for common themes and patterns in the data. Interviews were also conducted with numerous WADOC Administrators in order to clarify or gain further insight. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Shelf Number: 139516 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCost of CorrectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProbation ViolationsProbationers |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime: Drug Court (Adults): Technical Report Summary: A systematic review was conducted, in accordance with the protocol outlined by PRISMA (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009), to identify studies for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The study authors identified eligibility criteria for population, intervention, setting, outcome, and methodology (see Methods Report for further explanation of inclusion criteria and search strategies). The search was restricted to studies written in English and conducted between 1987 and 2011. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be eligible: a) The study must evaluate a criminal justice intervention. Primary prevention programs and programs serving non-court involved populations were excluded. Drug court was defined as a specialized, non-adversarial court that included the following components: use of judges presiding over monthly status hearings; use of mandatory drug testing; compliance monitoring of individualized drug treatment; and employment of sanctions and incentives to encourage compliance with court demands. Other specialized courts, such as DUI/DWI courts, speedy case processing drug courts, and evaluations of the Breaking the Cycle (BTC) demonstration project were not eligible for inclusion in this study. b) Both experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-experimental studies had to use matching or statistical methods to demonstrate equivalence between the treatment and comparison group. The comparison group could receive treatment as usual or no treatment (e.g., probation with or without treatment); however, the comparison group could not be made up of offenders receiving intensive drug treatment (treatment-treatment comparisons). Treatment dropouts were not considered an appropriate comparison group; comparison groups consisting of offenders who refused treatment were included only if the authors conducted analyses that demonstrated that the groups were similar. c) Both the treatment group and the comparison/control group must consist of adult offenders (ages 18 years and older). The intervention must target the criminal behavior of substance abusing offenders. d) The study must include a measure of recidivism - which could be arrest, conviction, or incarceration - as an outcome. The measurement period had to be longer than 6 months following the start of the program. Recidivism data from official sources was preferred, but studies using only self-report recidivism measures were also eligible. Non-criminal outcome measures - such as measures of drug use - were excluded from this analysis. The study must report quantitative results than could be used to calculate an effect size. Given the interest in recidivism, dichotomous data were preferred (e.g., odds ratios). If the study only included continuous measures, effect sizes were calculated and converted into odds ratios (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) using log odds. The initial literature search identified 1,085 citations, from which researchers pulled 118 studies for further evaluation. Full articles were screened by one researcher, which resulted in 42 studies that met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one of the included studies reported results on duplicate samples and were therefore excluded. Five of the remaining 42 studies included multiple comparison groups, which resulted in 51 effect sizes that were included in the analysis. Twenty-percent (20%) of the full articles (k=25) were double-screened for inclusion by a researcher (see Appendix A for PRISMA chart). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 139520 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Canada. Department of Justice. Evaluation Division Title: Drug Treatment Court Funding Program Evaluation : final report Summary: 1. Introduction The Drug Treatment Court Funding Program (DTCFP) is a contributions funding program that provides financial support and administers funding agreements to six drug treatment court (DTC) sites: Toronto (established in 1998), Vancouver (2001), Edmonton (2005), Winnipeg (2006), Ottawa (2006), and Regina (2006). This report presents the evaluation findings and responds to the Treasury Board Secretariat's 2009 Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct expenditures of the federal government be evaluated every five years. The evaluation, which was conducted between June and September 2014, covers the work of the DTCFP between fiscal years (FYs) 2009-10 and 2013-14. 2. Methodology The evaluation comprised three main lines of evidence: - a document and data review, including relevant Justice Canada sub-studies and research studies, including a recidivism study and a study comparing the results of urine drug tests (UDTs) of graduates and non-completers during the program; - 48 interviews with participants in the program; and - an online survey of DTC stakeholders and staff. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2015. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 145085 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Zafft, Kathryn Marie Title: Can Drug Courts Improve Public Safety? Exploring the Impacts of Drug Court on Crime Summary: Drug courts represent one of the largest and most widespread criminal justice programs specifically developed to provide treatment and intensive supervision to drug-involved offenders. Most of the literature about the effects of drug court programs involves individual-level analyses of recidivism or drug use for program participants. Very little is known about the broader community-wide impact of drug courts on public safety measures. The current research uses a subset of 63 drug court jurisdictions (cities and counties) drawn from a systematic review of drug court programs to assess the impact of program implementation on crime and arrest rates. A fixed-effects analysis was used to assess whether drug court implementation was associated with significant changes in specific types of violent and property crime rates. Changes in arrest rates for violent, property and drug crimes were also examined, and differential effects were explored based on effectiveness of the drug court in reducing participant recidivism and jurisdictional population size. Results indicate that drug courts are associated with decreases in overall crime rates, with marked decreases in burglary, property, and robbery rates. Drug court implementation was associated with increases in drug arrests and decreases in homicide arrests. Small jurisdictions with average populations of less than 100,000 people were found to have a different pattern of results when measuring both crime and arrest rates. These results are discussed within the context of understanding the broader policy impacts of drug court implementation. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park, 2014. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/16267/Zafft_umd_0117E_15765.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/16267/Zafft_umd_0117E_15765.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 144871 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Choo, Kyungseok Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: Policy and Practice Scan Summary: A policy and practice scan (sometimes referred to as an environmental scan) was conducted to provide data on a sample of local juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs) in the United States. The objectives of the scan were to collect data from a sample of JDTCs on their current operations and structures, challenges to implementation, and perceived or measurable successes. The scan was not conducted to determine whether or not JDTCs "work," but, rather, to provide descriptive research evidence to answer the question, "What is going on?" Eligibility Criteria To be included in the scan, a local JDTC was required to meet the following eligibility criteria: (1) the JDTC was established in 2004 or later (excluding JDTCs that predate the release of the current practice strategies), and (2) it was operational for at least 2 years at the time of the scan. Sampling Methods A variety of methods were used to create the sample for this scan. The methods were carried out in the following order: 1. Researchers contacted the state-level juvenile drug treatment court coordinators for each state and territory and asked them to furnish a list of JDTCs in their jurisdiction, along with contact information and any data that could help the research team assess eligibility. In those instances in which we did not receive a response from the state coordinator, we contacted the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOCs) at the state level for the information. 2. The initial efforts were supplemented by examinations of the most recent directory of drug courts created by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and through other methods, including Google searches. A total of 405 JDTCs from 44 states and Puerto Rico were identified through these methods, and 107 were identified as being eligible. Once the sample pool was established, key contacts at each eligible site - usually the coordinators - were contacted by e-mail or phone to request participation in the project. Out of the total, eligible sample pool, 25 JDTCs agreed to participate; they became our sample for the scan.2 The 25 JDTCs represented 20 states. Results History and inception. Local JDTCs were initiated in a variety of ways. The most common impetus was the interest of a juvenile court judge (or, in few instances, a court administrator) who had heard about JDTCs in other jurisdictions and wanted to institute a specialized court for juvenile substance abusers. In a few cases, the juvenile drug treatment court was a natural extension of an adult drug court that was already established in the jurisdiction. In other instances, the JDTC was expanded from existing JDTCs in nearby jurisdictions. The role of funding was acknowledged by some of the key contacts; several JDTCs had obtained grants (mostly state-level funding) to help start and implement the JDTC. A common component at inception was a steering or planning committee and a designated “leader” for the initiative. Some common challenges faced at start-up were the lack of treatment providers and transportation for youth to attend the program. In addition, a minority discussed conflicts among agencies in the partnerships, the learning curve in operating a JDTC, insufficient funding for hiring staff, and getting grant proposals written to support the effort. Local partnerships. Most key contacts for local JDTCs indicated that there had been little change in their partnerships since they were formed. When changes did occur, the most common were to add or change treatment providers. A wide variety of professionals and organizations were involved in JDTC partnerships, the most common of which were judges, court administrators, the district attorney's or prosecutor's office, local treatment providers, the probation department, and state/county social service agencies. Additional partnerships included efforts with church groups and community organizations. A few key contacts noted that law enforcement and education organizations were important but were missing from their JDTC partnerships. Treatment options. Most JDTCs offered multiple treatment programs. The majority of treatment options focused on substance abuse, whereas some treatment programs also offered mental health services and family services. The JDTCs commonly offered both group and individual counseling to clients; in addition, others offered job placement, education assistance, and life skills programs. Youth who required more intensive, inpatient detoxification or rehabilitation were commonly referred to a local facility. Generally, these facilities were within a 1- to 4-hour drive of the court, and programs lasted anywhere from a weekend to 6 months. Every drug court utilized urine analysis for drug testing; in addition, some conducted oral fluid analysis and breathalyzer tests for alcohol detection. The juvenile clients were tested frequently: generally, two to three times a week at random times. Structure and operation. The typical structure of a JDTC consisted of three major parts: intensive judicial supervision, treatment services, and community-based organizational support. The core members of the intensive judicial supervision typically were an assigned judge, a prosecuting attorney, a public defender, and a probation officer. Almost all of the JDTCs contracted with external providers for treatment services (i.e., substance abuse treatment, drug tests, and individual/group/family counseling services). Many also included a representative from a school district and representatives from local community-based organizations. JDTC coordinators played a significant role in maintaining the coordinated and collaborative work of all partnering agencies and organizations. Most JDTCs had a clearly delineated referral process and explicitly outlined eligibility and program requirements in their policy manuals and client handbooks. The validation calls revealed, however, that many JDTCs struggled to provide services that were age appropriate, gender sensitive, and culturally and linguistically competent. For example, courts were challenged to provide adequate services to older youth (17 years or older) as well as to younger youth (under 13 years old). Many also indicated that they did not have much experience with female clients or non-English speaking clients (although some did provide interpreters). All JDTCs in our sample used incentives and sanctions to encourage clients to comply with program requirements. The most frequently cited incentives were gift cards and extended curfews. A common sanction was increased supervision, such as GPS monitoring or detention. Some JDTCs included mental health treatment, although they still considered their primary function to be substance abuse treatment. Performance evaluation and monitoring. Local JDTCs varied in their capacity to collect data for evaluation and monitoring performance. Only about one-third of the JDTCs included in our sample indicated that they collect data for performance monitoring, and even fewer have participated in an evaluation of any kind. Those who consistently collect data varied in the breadth, depth, and utility of the data. Most data-collecting JDTCs in our sample collected only basic data required for periodic monitoring at the state level (e.g., demographics of youth referred to the court, counts for graduation and termination, services received, and recidivism), but they indicated that these data were not sufficient for local program monitoring. A few of the JDTCs collected additional data through Web-based systems used to track clients and provide real-time monitoring. Most JDTCs, however, lacked comprehensive and accessible systems to track data for local monitoring and evaluation purposes. Successes. Local JDTCs defined success in a variety of ways. Some defined it as measurable change or impact for youth who participate (e.g., program graduation and reduced substance abuse, continued education, sustained employment, and reduction in recidivism). Others identified “soft” indicators, such as staff dedication and long-term connections with youth, staff, and others such as probation officers. In addition, a few key contacts at local JDTCs identified certain attitudinal and behavioral changes, such as better relationships with parents/guardians and personal functioning, as being indicative of success even though these factors are not captured by data systems. At least one JDTC identified broader public health outcomes, such as reduced early pregnancies, as another indicator of success. Nearly all perceived their court as successful; however, very few could provide any data on documented successes of their local JDTC. Challenges to implementation. Key contacts at local JDTCs identified a wide variety of challenges to implementation. The most commonly cited challenge was lack of funding, especially for supporting incentives for youth in the program and enabling sufficient staffing. Other common challenges to implementation included developing effective treatment for youth with serious addiction or other complex problems; engaging families in the program and in providing a supportive home environment for their children; insufficient treatment options, including mental health and family counseling; training for staff and treatment providers; poor collaboration and communication among certain stakeholders in the JDTC; key gaps with agencies such as the district attorney; transportation for youth to attend JDTC activities, particularly in rural areas; and the role of the youth’s defense attorney, which can conflict with the aims of the JDTC. Sustainability. None of the JDTCs had a formal sustainability plan. Many suggested factors that would facilitate sustainability, such as having a “program champion” (i.e., someone who believes that the program is necessary and useful regardless of the statistics); securing judicial, prosecutorial, school and community buy-in (at least one JDTC used social media and a website to promote the program); having a committed leader, team, and advisory board; and demonstrating the value of the program through data and research. A few JDTCs talked about using a sales tax or Medicaid to help provide support for youth services. In at least one state, a compliance agency was created to track and certify all of the drug courts; this has helped with sustainability as the tracking process revealed how funds were being spent. Current practice standards/Guidelines development. Most key contacts at JDTCs were aware, in general, of the 2004 JDTC practice standards. In some cases, the 16 strategies were noted in the local JDTC (or state-level) policy and procedures manual. In a few instances, the 16 standards were intentionally used to guide the creation of the JDTC. Others took the standards into account for performance monitoring. Most key contacts—especially those focused on collaboration, teamwork, judicial involvement, and community partnerships—supported the 16 standards. As one key contact stated, “Just having the guidelines there and stated clearly is helpful...they’re a great resource.” Family engagement was considered critical; however, some JDTCs were struggling to involve parents or guardians in their child’s treatment. A few JDTCs mentioned a need for help with meeting standards around providing developmentally appropriate and multiculturally competent treatment. Several JDTCs cited challenges related to providing incentives (sometimes because of funding issues) and sanctions. With respect to future work related to the guidelines development process, one key contact recommended reaching out to the statewide drug court associations and asking them to review and disseminate the new guidelines. Another advocated including the use of an instrument such as the Youth Level of Service Case Management Inventory as a standard for facilitating data-driven offender assessment and treatment decisions. Conclusions A policy and practice scan was conducted with 25 local JDTCs that were established in 2004 or later and that have been operational since 2013 (for at least 2 years). Data were collected from available documentation and validation calls with key contacts at the local JDTC. Data were organized by a semi-structured protocol to provide information on history, treatment options, local partnerships, operations, performance monitoring and evaluation, successes, challenges, sustainability, and guidelines. Although the JDTCs varied widely on many dimensions, they also shared many similar attributes. Implications for Guidelines Key contacts at JDTCs generally were aware of the existence of the current practice standards, and they supported the standards. Some JDTCs made an effort to follow them as outlined, yet a few of them struggled with implementing standards such as developmentally appropriate treatment and incentives and sanctions. Key contacts did not identify any guidelines to add or remove; they believed that the current guidelines were fairly comprehensive. Most of the JDTCs, however, lacked the funding to implement the guidelines as well as they would like. The shortage of funding undermines the goals of providing incentives and sanctions and comprehensive drug testing. Details: Woburn, MA: WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Shelf Number: 146693 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentJuvenile Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Developing Juvenile Drug Court Practices on Process Standards: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Summary: Objectives. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators, and other process issues related to juvenile drug courts, refered to herein as juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), including systemwide contextual factors. This review focused on program factors directly relevant to the success of a JDC such as program fidelity, demographics of subjects, program elements, and JDC structure, as well as other potential moderators of effectiveness. Search methods. We searched the following databases and Internet resources for eligible studies: American Society of Criminology conference proceedings, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference proceedings, Campbell Library, Chestnut Health Systems website, CINAHL, Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ERIC, Google Scholar, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Clinical Trials Registry, JMATE conference proceedings, National Drug Court Institute website, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NIH RePORTER, NPC Research website, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text, ProQuest Education, ProQuest Family Health, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Health Management, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Science, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed (drug treatment studies only), RAND Drug Policy Research Center website, Sociological Abstracts, The Drug Court Clearinghouse via American University’s Justice Programs Office website, University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice website, and the Urban Institute website. We examined the references found in research reviews, meta-analyses, and eligible studies. The search strategy was tailored to each database or website with the goal of identifying all relevant process and implementation studies of JDCs. The search process identified 7,261 titles and abstracts that were initially screened for potential relevance. This resulted in 572 titles and abstracts that were examined more carefully by two independent coders. This process produced 286 documents that were retrieved and for which the full text was examined to determine final eligibility, resulting in 59 eligible and coded studies. Eligibility. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence were eligible. A study must have examined a JDC and provided quantitative or qualitative evidence regarding JDC process issues. Purely theoretical discussions of JDC operations and other editorial or thought pieces were not included. A study that collected data within a JDC but did not evaluate something related to the functioning of the JDC was not included, such as a study using JDC clients to examine peer influence on drug use. Also excluded were process evaluations restricted to determining a JDC's adherence to the National Drug Court Institute and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' "16 strategies" without an assessment of barriers or facilitators of implementing these strategies, or the value of them. Systematic review methods. Meta-aggregation was the method used for this systematic review, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. This approach involved the extraction of study findings (i.e., a text summary or direct quote), the assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting the finding, and the categorization of the findings into conceptual groups. These conceptual groups were then subjected to thematic analysis using standard qualitative data analytic techniques to arrive at an interpretative summary of each grouping of findings. A credibility of evidence assessment (questionable, low, moderate, and high) was assigned to each interpretive summary statement, which reflected the highest quality assessment achieved by at least two findings that contributed to an interpretive statement. Findings. The 477 findings extracted from the 59 studies were aggregated into 14 broad conceptual categories that reflected different aspects of the juvenile drug court system. Forty interpretive statements were developed across these categories, which reflect a broad range of process issues. Most of these statements were rated as moderate (n = 10) or high (n = 21) in terms of credibility of evidence reflecting a moderately strong connection between the study finding and the quantitative or qualitative evidence. The bulk of these statements focused on family members as stakeholders in the JDC process; standards for ensuring accountability, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies; and various needs of JDC participants, such as mental health treatment. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the complexities of implementing the conceptually simple JDC model. Youth and their families arrive at a juvenile drug court with a range of needs that extend beyond the youth’s substance use and involvement in other delinquent behavior, including mental health needs, a history of trauma, and learning disabilities. Families may be prepared to effectively partner with the court to facilitate a youth’s engagement in treatment services and comply with court expectations. However, families may experience obstacles to this partnership, such as parental substance abuse, or they may actively work against the JDC process. Furthermore, JDCs exist within a broader institutional and social context and rely on services available within the community and on support from various stakeholders. The quality and effectiveness of these services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment) will directly affect outcomes for youth and their families. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Shelf Number: 144845 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Davidson, Cheryl Title: Evaluation of the Statewide "Enhanced" Drug Courts Offering Mental Health Services for Substance Abusing Offenders in Iowa Summary: Adult drug courts in five Iowa judicial districts were provided drug court enhancement funding in the fall of 2012 to integrate mental health services into the program. The purpose of the grant was to expand drug court eligibility, improve access to mental health services, enhance mental health service delivery, and improve client outcomes. A process and outcomes evaluation was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the mental health enhancement. Process Evaluation Drug court team members believed there was a need for mental health services and co-occurring disorders were prevalent however; participants with serious mental illnesses would fall outside the realm of what the drug courts could handle. One difficulty identified by staff was defining the primary cause of clients’ problems; whether substance abuse or mental health issues. Better screening tools and resources to help identify prevailing issues may improve the administration of services. Some respondents said their mental health coordinator, provided through enhancement funding, helped expand program eligibility by enabling the court to better deal with mental health issues. The coordinator provided advice to the team and other offenders in the court and some staff indicated this person was more trusted by offenders than other court/correctional personnel. Others indicated program barriers like funding cuts or having too many/few referrals limited inclusiveness, despite the added capacity. Outcome Evaluation Program completion, supervision revocation, recidivism, relapse, and substance abuse treatment were examined. Study groups included current drug court offenders during the grant period (Current DC), a subset of current drug court offenders who received grant-funded mental health services (DC MH), a comparison group of pre-enhancement drug court offenders (Historical DC), and a group of similar offenders on probation for drug offenses (Matched Probation). In a three-year tracking period, the Current DC group had lower recidivism rates compared to the Historical DC group. This could be due to the drug court enhancement or other changes to the program. Participants of the funded mental health services did not statistically differ from nonparticipants. Several confounding factors, discussed in the key findings, may have contributed. The outcomes varied by district, consistent with the discretion given to courts in administering services. Providing more guidance to the courts in defining the enhancement target population and administering mental health services may have provided more consistency across the state. The cost per mental health participant funded by the enhancement grant ranged from $1,258.21 in District 5, to $2,541.40 in District 6. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Justice Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 141367 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersMental Health ServicesProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Mollmann, Marianne Title: Neither Justice nor Treatment: Drug Courts in the United States Summary: There are more than 3,100 drug courts operating in the United States. But while the courts' proponents say they reduce recidivism for people with substance use disorders, critics say the system abuses due process, often mandates treatment for people who don't actually need it - people without drug dependence - and fails to provide quality care to many who do. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the availability and quality of substance use disorder treatment through drug courts in three states - Florida, New Hampshire, and New York - and found major obstacles in all three states. Overall, PHR found that drug courts largely failed at providing treatment to those who truly needed it, and filled up limited treatment spaces with court-mandated patients who didn't always need the care. In many cases, court officials with no medical background mandated inappropriate treatment, or mandated treatment for people who didn't need it. In all cases, the functioning and mandate of the drug courts posed significant human rights concerns. Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 16, 2017 at: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Shelf Number: 146217 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Tanner-Smith, Emily E. Title: Meta-Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized findings from the most current evidence base of juvenile drug court effectiveness research. The objectives of the meta-analysis were to examine the effects of juvenile drug courts on general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes; and to explore variability in these effects across characteristics of the juvenile participants and drug courts. To address these objectives, we synthesized results from randomized and controlled quasi-experimental design studies that reported on the effects of juvenile drug courts located in the United States. Search methods. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search to identify all relevant studies (published or unpublished) that met our pre-specified eligibility criteria, and the literature search is current through December 2014. We searched several electronic databases, supplemented with searches of websites, research registers, reference lists, and hand-searches of key journals and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis. Standard systematic review practices were used for data collection and analysis. Titles, abstracts, and full-text reports were screened independently by two researchers. A third author resolved any disagreements about eligibility for inclusion. Studies eligible for inclusion were independently coded by two researchers, with a third author resolving any coding disagreements. All data extraction followed a standardized coding protocol, with data entered directly into a FileMaker Pro database. Inverse variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate overall mean effect sizes, and mixed-effect meta-regression models were used to explore variability in effects across various study characteristics. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were used to assess for publication bias. Results. An extensive literature search located 46 eligible experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of juvenile drug courts. The quantitative synthesis of effect sizes provided no evidence that juvenile drug courts were more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes. There was no evidence of an effect on these outcomes during the juvenile drug court program period and in the post-program period. The juvenile drug court evaluations were generally of poor methodological quality. Very few studies employed random assignment, and substantial baseline differences were found between drug court and comparison groups on baseline risk and demographics. Restricting the meta-analysis to studies using the most rigorous designs (randomized and matched quasi-experimental design) provided no evidence of effectiveness on general recidivism, drug recidivism, or drug use outcomes. Finally, there was no evidence that any of the measured participant characteristics or drug court features were associated with drug court effects. Conclusions. There is no evidence that juvenile drug courts are more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of reducing juveniles' recidivism and drug use, but there is also no evidence of harm. The quality of the body of evidence is very low, however, so we have little confidence in these null findings. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Shelf Number: 146442 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Young, Douglas Title: Drug Courts in Maryland: An Assessment of Drug Court Enhancements and Recent Data Trends in Eleven Adult Drug Courts Summary: Approaching the 25-year anniversary of the opening of the first drug treatment court in Miami-Dade County, drug courts continue to grow and gain attention as jurisdictions nationally look to reverse the incarceration binge of prior decades. Maryland was one of the first states to make a commitment to drug courts, and today the state Office of Problem Solving Courts (OPSC) oversees one of the most extensive networks of specialized courts in the country, including both circuit and district-court based drug court programs in the major metropolitan areas and smaller programs in rural counties in every region of the state. With funding support from the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, the Institute for Governmental Service and Research at the University of Maryland, College Park undertook the study reported here of 11 of the state's adult drug courts. Employing methods detailed below, the research had three distinct components. The first involved in-depth studies of four drug courts in Baltimore City and Carroll, Cecil, and Wicomico counties that had implemented program enhancements under BJA funding. In addition to a detailed descriptive assessment of enhancement plans and progress in implementation, program data from the Statewide Maryland Automated Record Tracking (SMART) system were gathered and analyzed to further assess drug court performance and outcomes at each site during the demonstration period. A second study component involved analyzing similar data from SMART on seven additional drug court programs in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Dorchester, Worcester, St. Mary's, and Montgomery counties. These sites were selected for inclusion by OPSC, and are representative of the diversity of drug courts in the state. Using 3 and 1/4 years of data (January 2014 through March 2015), trends in admissions, active participant census, and program completion results, along with common program elements (service referrals, participant sanctions, incentives) are assessed for each of these seven sites. Finally, a comparative analysis was done. Again drawing from the available SMART data, this narrative assessment compares and contrasts recent data and trends among the 11 drug courts on the same descriptive and performance measures listed above. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, 2015. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2017 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Shelf Number: 147455 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Physicians for Human Rights Title: Neither Justice nor Treatment: Drug Courts in the United States Summary: There are more than 3,100 drug courts operating in the United States. But while the courts' proponents say they reduce recidivism for people with substance use disorders, critics say the system abuses due process, often mandates treatment for people who don't actually need it - people without drug dependence - and fails to provide quality care to many who do. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the availability and quality of substance use disorder treatment through drug courts in three states - Florida, New Hampshire, and New York - and found major obstacles in all three states. Overall, PHR found that drug courts largely failed at providing treatment to those who truly needed it, and filled up limited treatment spaces with court-mandated patients who didn't always need the care. In many cases, court officials with no medical background mandated inappropriate treatment, or mandated treatment for people who didn't need it. In all cases, the functioning and mandate of the drug courts posed significant human rights concerns. Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Shelf Number: 149487 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentHuman Rights AbusesProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Cooper, Caroline S. Title: Establishing Drug Treatment Courts: Strategies, Experiences and Preliminary Outcomes. Volume One: Overview and Survey Results Summary: Drug dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder that must be addressed and treated as a public health matter, on a par with the treatment of other chronic diseases.2 It is a cluster of behavioral, cognitive and physiological phenomena that develop after repeated substance use and that typically include a strong desire to take the drug, difficulties in controlling its use, persisting in its use despite harmful consequences, a higher priority given to drug use than to other activities and obligations, increased tolerance, and sometimes a physical withdrawal state.3 Heavy drug use is found more frequently among offenders than among the general population, as shown by a number of studies in the Western Hemisphere and Europe.4 Using Goldstein's conceptual model,5 acquisitive crime to support a compulsive drug habit represents a fair proportion of crimes committed by offenders with substance abuse problems. Offenses committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to self-reports in some countries, represent an even higher percentage of crimes by drug-dependent offenders Because drug abuse is compulsive, it does not stop at the prison door. In a 2009 survey of prisoners conducted by the Scottish Prison Service, 22% of prisoners reported that they had used drugs in prison in the month prior to the survey. 7 Treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders involve diverting substance-abusing offenders from prison and jail into treatment and rehabilitation under judicial supervision. By increasing direct supervision of offenders, coordinating public resources, and expediting case processing, treatment alternatives to incarceration can help break the cycle of criminal behavior, alcohol and drug use, and imprisonment. The details of these alternative mechanisms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most involve suspension of the sentence provided the offender agrees voluntarily8 to participate in a drug treatment program. The judge in the case supervises the offender's progress in treatment, with the assistance of the prosecutor, social workers (case officers), treatment providers and probation officers. The judge has the power to end the treatment program if the offender violates its terms and conditions, in which case, the sentence will be handed down and the offender will be incarcerated. Drug treatment under judicial supervision is well established in countries like Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, under the name of "drug courts" or "drug treatment courts". While the name may vary from place to place, and the conditions of participation may differ, the essential ingredients are as described above. For the purposes of this publication, we shall use the term "drug treatment courts" and "drug courts" interchangeably. At a number of recent seminars organized by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States9 , judges, prosecutors and health care personnel from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe examined the feasibility of establishing treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders, one form of which are drug courts. Some of the CICAD countries expressed great interest in setting up such programs, although civil law countries pointed to some difficulties they might face in working such alternatives into their penal codes and procedures. Countries where drug courts are already up and running spoke of how they had overcome obstacles and public skepticism, and stressed the need for good evaluations and research on the outcomes of drug treatment court programs in order to demonstrate their effectiveness. Through its program of City Partnerships on the improvement of Drug Treatment, CICAD has helped the courts of Suriname and the State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, to set up new drug treatment courts, and continues to support the work of drug courts in Chile, Jamaica and other interested countries and cities. Belgium, where a new drug treatment court pilot has been created, has taken a collaborative approach, involving city officials and universities in the process. CICAD's exchange of good practices in recent years allowed countries where drug treatment courts are in place to share different approaches to drug court challenges. Key to the success of drug courts in the U.S. has been the ability to demonstrate to lawmakers and the public at large that drug court participants have lower rates of recidivism and lower rates of relapse into drug use than drug dependent offenders who are incarcerated. We therefore recommend that all drug treatment courts have a robust information system, to assure public acceptance of alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders as well as to secure future funding. Details: Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2010. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2018 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/fortalecimiento_institucional/dtca/files/Establishing_DTC_%20Strategies_Experiences_Preliminary_Outcomes_volume%201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Latin America URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/fortalecimiento_institucional/dtca/files/Establishing_DTC_%20Strategies_Experiences_Preliminary_Outcomes_volume%201.pdf Shelf Number: 118587 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts |
Author: Flores, Prijenett S. Title: An Analysis of Drug Treatment Courts in New York State Summary: The United States continues to struggle with its ever-growing drug problem. In 2016, drug overdose deaths claimed the lives of more than 64,000 Americans alone, with no sign of subsiding. Of these, nearly 66 percent of drug overdose deaths involved an illicit or prescription opioid, which is five times higher than the number of opioid overdose deaths in 1999. In New York, the numbers are staggering. A recent report from the Rockefeller Institute of Government found a 121 percent increase in the State's number of opioid deaths, from 1,760 in 2010 total deaths to 3,894 in 2016. As the crisis escalates, federal, state, and local policymakers continue to search for solutions. One area which has enjoyed significant bi-partisan support has been the use of drug courts. For example, in August 2017, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Van Jones, president of the national advocacy organization #cut50, joined forces to argue that drug treatment courts offer a "life-saving alternative" for people with substance abuse disorders. The unlikely duo went on to explain how drug courts can leverage the criminal justice system to achieve results. "Instead of jailing people with serious drug problems only to watch them fall back into the throes of their addiction immediately upon release, drug courts are an alternative to incarceration that use the leverage of the courts to connect people with long-term treatment and supportive programming." In this report we examine the effectiveness of existing drug treatment courts and whether they are equipped to handle the opioid problem, specifically by keeping participants from relapsing and committing future drug-related crimes. In addition to summarizing the origins and effectiveness of drug treatment courts throughout the United States, we conduct an in-depth examination of drug courts in New York State's Third Judicial District, which spans much of the Capital Region. We chose the Third Judicial district due to its close proximity and access to participants, as well as the geographic diversity of the district, which includes both vast rural counties and urban centers. Moreover, in places like Columbia and Albany Counties, local law enforcement have successfully experimented with alternatives to drug court including community-based, harm reduction interventions. In order to measure the potential effectiveness of certain elements of the program, and assess alternatives, we attempted to collect statistical data on the total number of referrals, participants, and graduates of each court; their ethnic, racial, and gender composition; as well as recidivism and retention rates. However, our request for data was rejected by the Unified Court System's Office of Policy and Planning, alongside our request to interview drug court coordinators. While a Freedom of Information Law Request is pending with the Office of Court Administration, the analysis that follows is based primarily on our interviews with public defenders, district attorneys, former drug court participants, treatment providers, and other members of the community who have direct or indirect experience working with drug treatment courts. From the comprehensive interview and national survey data, we recommend solutions that, if brought to scale, could make drug courts more effective, especially in New York State. Details: Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2018 at: http://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/5-23-18-Drug-Court-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/5-23-18-Drug-Court-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 151049 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug CourtsDrug Offenders Drug Treatment Courts Opioid Crisis Problem Solving Courts |
Author: Schleifer, Rebecca Title: Drug Courts in the Americas Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrates) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here. Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/ Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf Shelf Number: 154312 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCaribbeanData Management SystemDrug CourtsDrug CrimesDrug OffensesDrug PossessionDrug Treatment CourtsInter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAJail PopulationLatin AmericaPrison PopulationPublic Health InterventionRacial BiasRecidivismSubstance UseSupervisionTreatment |