Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:50 am
Time: 1:50 am
Results for drug courts (iowa)
2 results foundAuthor: White, Kristin Title: Drug Court Process Evaluation - Report Summary: The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation conducted a process evaluation in 2007 on the seven adult and juvenile drug courts existing in Iowa in 2003. (A list of adult and juvenile drug courts established in Iowa from 2004 through 2007 appears in the appendix.) The drug courts evaluated in this study differ on several important factors, including the judicial supervision model used, resources available, and the severity level of clients served. The divergent resources and clients should be considered when comparing outcomes across courts. Section 1 provides an overview of each drug court included in this study. Two sets of criteria inform this process evaluation. The first is a landmark study of drug courts conducted by researcher Dr. Sally Satel (1998). Dr. Satel identified seventeen interactional and environmental variables that characterize drug courts, with an emphasis on the judge-client relationship. Section II of this report outlines Satel’s criteria and provides a comparison of each drug court using those variables. The second body of work is the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts defined by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and the U.S. Department of Justice (1997). Section III outlines the 10 Key Components and how each drug court meets these benchmarks. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation (Consortium) contacted Dr. Satel regarding data collection instruments and operational definitions of the variables identified in her study. After communications with Dr. Satel, the Consortium staff developed operational definitions of the Satel criteria and measurement and created an instrument for recording courtroom observations. Some variables were expanded to collect more detailed data on certain aspects of drug court processes. Staff from the Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning developed lists of interview questions to guide the process evaluation. The Consortium used these questions to create team member, administrator and judge interview questionnaires. Copies of the Satel variable definitions and scales, observation instrument and interview questionnaires appear in the appendix. Evaluation methodology included observations of drug court proceedings (also called status reviews or status hearings); observations of client staffings, which are meetings held prior to status review hearings where drug court team members discuss client progress, determine issues to address with clients and sanctions or rewards to be administered; and interviews with drug court team members, including drug court officers and supervisors, county attorneys, public defenders, treatment agency liaisons, community panel volunteers and judges. Details: Iowa City, IA: Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation, 2008. 181p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/DrugCourtProcessEvaluation.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/DrugCourtProcessEvaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 121448 Keywords: Drug Courts (Iowa)Drug OffendersDrug Treatment |
Author: Adkins, Geneva Title: Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Extended Recidivism Outcomes Summary: Over the past decade, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CJJP), located in the Department of Human Rights, has been engaged in several outcome and process evaluations of Iowa’s adult and juvenile drug courts. Since 2001 CJJP has engaged in two studies of adult drug courts and two studies of juvenile drug courts. These earlier studies found that adult drug courts had positive impacts on recidivism, particularly for felony offenders and female offenders. The juvenile studies did not demonstrate significant impact on recidivism. The purpose of this research is to complete a longitudinal study of drug court participants and comparison groups from the above cohorts to address the following questions: Do adult drug court participants continue to have lower rates of recidivism over time? What is the adult recidivism rate for juvenile drug court participants? In addition, the following questions will be explored: Are there differences in the highest level of new conviction? Are there differences in the type of new convictions? Are there differences in the number of new convictions? Are there differences in cumulative recidivism over time? Are there differences in recidivism by offender background or model? It should be clearly understood that this longitudinal study looks at outcomes for adult and juvenile drug courts as they functioned in the past. The outcomes identified in this study apply to those participants and matched comparison groups. Any generalization to current operations would only be valid to the extent that the courts are being operated in substantially the same manner. Any modifications in design, staffing, or participant selection could alter the long-term outcomes for offenders. The findings for the adult drug court confirm the earlier studies. o Females drug court participants tend to have lower recidivism rates than male participants. o Non-white drug court participants do not have better long-term outcomes than the comparison groups. o Judge model drug courts tend to be more effective than community panel courts. o Drug court participants who graduate tend to have lower recidivism over time than do non-graduates. o Of those offenders who did recidivate, the highest percentages of offenses were non-person and drug-related offenses. There was not much difference between participants and the comparison groups except for the pilot cohort. That cohort had a larger percentage of violent offenses than the other three cohorts. o Drug court participants who did not graduate had a higher percentage of violent offense convictions, and had a higher cumulative recidivism rate than did the graduates. The findings for the juvenile drug court also confirm the earlier studies, suggesting that participation in drug courts does not improve outcomes into adulthood. o Participants tended to have poorer long-term outcomes than the comparison groups. o The cohort with the lowest recidivism was the consent decree cohort. o The difference between white and minority participants is not as marked as that of adult drug court participants, although white participants did have lower recidivism rates. o Long-term recidivism rates do not vary significantly by drug court model. o Non-graduates have higher felony recidivism rates than do graduates and the three comparison cohorts. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Extended%20Drug%20Court%20Study-Final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Extended%20Drug%20Court%20Study-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 123535 Keywords: Drug Courts (Iowa)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Oriented CourtsRecidivism |