Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:02 pm
Time: 10:02 pm
Results for drug courts (u.s.)
8 results foundAuthor: Zweig, Janine M. Title: The Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: What's Happening with Drug Courts? A Portrait of Adult Drug Courts in 2004 Summary: Volume 2 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation provides information from 380 adult drug courts surveyed in 2004. It describes drug court program characteristics and operations, such as: most courts operate small programs with less than 50 participants; more than half of courts require both an eligible charge and a clinical assessment for participants to enroll; and courts that have been in operation for a longer time more often use a diversion model, whereby clients enroll in the program before entering pleas, than do younger courts. Drug courts were also classified into profiles of programming characteristics. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412355-MADCE-Portrait-of-Adult-Drug-Courts.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412355-MADCE-Portrait-of-Adult-Drug-Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 122103 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug Treatment |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: The Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview and Design Summary: Volume 1 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation provides information about the study’s context and objectives; a review of the literature; a description of the research design, data collection, and analytic strategies; and a description of the characteristics of study participants. The outcome evaluation included 1,781 offenders across 23 drug court and six comparison sites which represented several alternative ways the criminal justice system works with drug–involved offenders in jurisdictions without drug courts. Volume 1 also provides lessons learned in recruiting and retaining drug– and criminal justice involved–offenders in longitudinal survey research. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 292p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412354-MADCE-Study-Overview-and-Design.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412354-MADCE-Study-Overview-and-Design.pdf Shelf Number: 122104 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug Treatment |
Author: Baehler, Aimee Title: Adult Drug Courts: A Look at Three Adult Drug Courts as They Move Toward Institutionalization Summary: The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that two-thirds of jail inmates (70 percent of all inmates in local facilities) had committed a drug offense or used drugs regularly. Approximately 82 percent of all inmates said they had used drugs at least once and 64 percent admitted that they had used drugs regularly, that is at least once a week for at least one month. One response to this problem has been the development of drug courts that involve a new paradigm for addressing the needs of substance-involved offenders. Although not a panacea, drug courts have continued to proliferate around the country for a number of reasons. They have shown the ability to achieve a number of goals: reduced substance abuse (abstinence), decreased rates of recidivism among its participants, and improved quality of life for participants, their families and communities, more effective caseload management, benefits to the public that far exceed justice system costs and relief from jail overcrowding. Much remains to be learned, however, about how drug courts most effectively meet these goals. Furthermore, the unintended effects of some legislation, a struggling economy resulting in smaller federal, state and local budgets, including allocations for drug courts, and still emerging statistical documentation of the impacts of drug courts emphasize the need to better understand drug court operations to avoid placing their continued existence at risk. Developing the body of knowledge about drug court operations and impacts is an important, ongoing task. One method of learning about drug courts is to gather and organize detailed information about them, including their key characteristics and structures, and the way in which they operate. Operating in complex social and political environments, it is also important to understand the context in which drug courts function and how they interact with the other components of the criminal justice system and the community. With this in mind, this report provides illustrative profiles of three adult drug courts, the Hennepin County Drug Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the South County Division Drug Court in San Diego, California, and the St. Mary Parish Drug in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. These drug courts were chosen to represent different legal and socioeconomic milieus, local political arenas, and geographical locations. The profiles also highlight their individual efforts to institutionalize drug court concepts in their communities, to showcase innovative aspects of their operations, and to share challenges they currently face and obstacles they have overcome. The process of institutionalization is ongoing for most drug courts and it is apparent in the field that other drug courts can benefit from learning about each others successful efforts. More specifically, the report has the following goals: a. Identify some of the critical community linkages and quality partnerships that are valuable in the institutionalization process; b. Highlight how three drug courts have leveraged scarce resources to the benefit of their programs and participants; c. Show how the drug court movement, with its heightened accountability and standards, has raised the bar for performance outcomes for the court system in general, treatment, and supervision agencies; and d. Demonstrate how drug courts have positively impacted the community’s trust and confidence in the judiciary and contributed to increased public safety. This report is not meant to compare and contrast the three drug courts, nor is it designed to formally evaluate their programs. While we believe the issues highlighted and the lessons learned in this report will have general appeal as an educational tool, we also anticipate that it will have specific instructive value to drug court practitioners who may be grappling with finding effective solutions to their comparable institutionalization problems. Each drug court is discussed in a separate section of the report. The report ends with a summary of the general themes and challenges learned from the three drug courts’ experiences and with a list of recommendations suggested by each of the courts. Finally, the report concludes with suggestions for future research, which could contribute to the process of drug court institutionalization. Details: Denver, CO: Justice Management Institute, 2003. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/jmi-adult-drug-court-case-studies-final-report-dec-2003 Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/jmi-adult-drug-court-case-studies-final-report-dec-2003 Shelf Number: 122160 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug Offenders |
Author: Huddleston, West Title: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States Summary: This document is a national report on Drug Court and other Problem-Solving Court activity in every state, commonwealth, territory and district in the United States as of December 31, 2009 (Part I) and as of December 31, 2008 (Part II). Specific to this volume and in addition to reporting on the aggregate number and types of operational Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court programs throughout the United States, a major section of this report is dedicated to recent research findings related to the most prevalent Drug Court models. Additionally, sections are dedicated to analyses of national survey data on Drug Court capacity; drug-of-choice trends among Drug Court participants in rural, suburban and urban areas; average graduation rates; participation costs; state Drug Court authorization legislation and funding appropriations; and international Drug Court activity. Finally, this year’s report provides first-ever national demographic data on racial and ethnic minority representation among Drug Court participants. Details: Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, 2011. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/PCP%20Report%20FINAL.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/PCP%20Report%20FINAL.PDF Shelf Number: 122351 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Drug Court Experience - Final Report Volume 3 Summary: Volume 3 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) provides process evaluation findings about the 23 drug courts included in the MADCE outcome evaluation, and information about participant receipt of program services including drug court supervision (contact with judges and attorneys; case management; drug testing; and sanctions and incentives) and treatment. It also describes drug court participants' outcomes related to offender attitudes and to drug court retention. Participants' perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice, and severity of the sentence to be imposed upon drug court failure significantly predicted program compliance, criminal behavior, and drug use at follow–up. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2011. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412356-MADCE-The-Drug-Court-Experience.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412356-MADCE-The-Drug-Court-Experience.pdf Shelf Number: 123747 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Marlowe, Douglas B. Title: Behavior Modification 101 for Drug Courts: Making the Most of Incentives and Sanctions Summary: Drug Courts improve outcomes for drug-abusing offenders by combining evidence-based substance abuse treatment with strict behavioral accountability. Participants are carefully monitored for substance use and related behaviors and receive escalating incentives for accomplishments and sanctions for infractions. The nearly unanimous perception of both participants and staff members is that the positive effects of Drug Courts are largely attributable to the application of these behavioral contingencies (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006; Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2002; Farole & Cissner, 2007; Harrell & Roman, 2001). Scientific research over several decades reveals the most effective ways to administer behavior modification programs. Drug Courts that learn these lessons of science reap benefits several times over through better outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness (Rossman & Zweig, 2012). Those that follow nonscientific beliefs or fall back on old habits are not very effective and waste precious resources. Every Drug Court team should stay abreast of the research on effective behavior modification and periodically review court policies and procedures to ensure they are consistent with science-based practices. Details: Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, 2012. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheet: Accessed March 8, 2013 at: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/BehaviorModification101forDrugCourts.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/BehaviorModification101forDrugCourts.pdf Shelf Number: 127869 Keywords: Behavior ModificationDrug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Marion County Fostering Attachment Treatment 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 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 inrease 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 family drug courts (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Many of these studies show prom-ising outcomes 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 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 per-formed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Ma-rion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. This evaluation was funded under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforce-ment Assistance Grant Program: Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project 07-001. This summary contains process, outcome and cost evaluation results for the Marion County Fostering Attachment Family Treatment Court (FATC). Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/3905.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/3905.pdf Shelf Number: 128401 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Kissick, Katherine Title: Bexar County Felony Drug Court: Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Final Report Summary: Drug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for the offenders and their families. Benefits to society include substantial reductions in crime, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives operating outside of their traditional roles. The team typically includes a drug court coordinator, case managers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Prosecuting and defense attorneys modify their traditional adversarial roles to support the treatment and supervision needs of program participants. Drug court programs blend the resources, expertise and interests of a variety of jurisdictions and agencies. Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal recidivism (GAO, 2005), improving the psycho-social functioning of offenders (Kralstein, 2010), and reducing 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 been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual in the court system (Carey & Finigan). The Bexar County Felony Drug Court was implemented in January 2004. This program, which is designed to last for 18 months, takes only post-conviction participants. The general program population consists of nonviolent offenders currently on probation assessed as high risk and high needs. It has a capacity to serve approximately 225 participants at one time. In 2009, the Bexar County Felony Drug Court (BCFDC) received a program enhancement grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The program is using this enhancement grant in working towards three goals: 1) obtaining "on-demand" residential beds intended to treat 50 participants each year, 2) receiving training and technical assistance to improve the program, and 3) conducting a program evaluation including process, out-come and cost components. NPC Research performed an initial process assessment of the program as part of a technical assistance program through SAMHSA and completed a report in May of 2010. Midway through the 3-year grant, the BCFDC hired NPC Research to conduct a full process, outcome, and cost evaluation of the program. The process evaluation included in this report provides updated information from the assessment conducted in 2010 as well any changes made to the program since. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2013. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 4, 2013 at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Bexar_County_Final_Report_0913.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Bexar_County_Final_Report_0913.pdf Shelf Number: 131736 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug Courts (U.S.)Felony Drug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |