Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:23 pm
Time: 8:23 pm
Results for drug court
2 results foundAuthor: Roberts, Ellie Title: Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit: independent evaluation Summary: The Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDAC) aim to improve outcomes for children and families by providing an alternative way of working with parents involved in care proceedings who are experiencing substance misuse. FDAC encourages parents to believe recovery and change are possible, alongside a realistic understanding of the challenges they face. Research published by Brunel University in 2014 indicated that the FDAC model was promising; showing that a higher proportion of parents whose case was heard in FDAC had ceased misusing substances by the end of proceedings, and more FDAC than comparison families were reunited with their children. Additionally, proportionately fewer children in FDAC families experienced new neglect or abuse in the first year following reunification (Harwin et al., 2014). Following the publication of the initial research by Brunel University, careful consideration was given to how best to scale-up FDAC in order to improve outcomes for more children and families. This resulted in a successful funding application to the Department of Education’s (DfE) Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme (hereafter the Innovation Programme) to create the FDAC 'National Unit'. The National Unit was originally commissioned to support 4 new sites to set-up FDACs. However, over the course of the first month, the number of sites increased to 9 due to the inclusion of 5 West Yorkshire local authorities, and Southampton joining the community of practice. Recent research, conducted by Brunel University London, Lancaster University and RyanTunnardBrown with methodological guidance from NatCen, has found evidence of the sustained benefits of FDAC. For example, the 'After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later' study, funded by the Innovation Programme, estimated that a higher proportion of FDAC than comparison reunification mothers abstained from drugs or alcohol over the 5 year follow-up (Harwin et al., 2016). Overview of evaluation In 2015 NatCen Social Research was commissioned by DfE to evaluate the FDAC National Unit. The evaluation aimed to gather an in-depth understanding of the work and contribution of the National Unit from the perspective of key stakeholders. The evaluation was underpinned by a theory of change and involved 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals from new FDAC sites and 13 interviews with other stakeholders including members of the National Unit; individuals from sites who launched their FDAC before the National Unit was established; and key government stakeholders. NatCen was also commissioned to provide independent methodological advice and guidance on 2 further studies on FDAC: • NatCen acted as a critical friend on the methodology of the 2016 evaluation of FDAC, 'After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later', funded by the Innovation Programme and conducted by Brunel University London, Lancaster University and RyanTunnardBrown (Harwin et al., 2016) • NatCen provided methodological guidance to the Centre for Justice Innovation on their research assessing the value for money of FDAC, 'Better Courts: the financial impact of the London Family Drug and Alcohol Court' (Reeder et al., 2016). Details: London: UK Department of Education, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation Report 12: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585193/Family_drug_and_alcohol_court_national_unit_evaluation.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585193/Family_drug_and_alcohol_court_national_unit_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 144881 Keywords: AlcoholismDrug CourtFamily Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Mackin, Juliette R. Title: St. Mary's County Juvenile Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: St. Mary's County Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) was formed in 2003 in response to the increase in youth abuse of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine and juvenile arrests involving drug charges. The program admitted its first participant in February 2004 and since that time has served over 100 participants. The JDC program has four phases that can be completed by participants in a period as short as 12 months. For the 80 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 341 (approximately 11 months). Graduates spent an average of 358 days in the program (almost 12 months), whereas non-graduates spent an average of 310 days in the program (approximately 10 months). Throughout the program, participants attend drug court hearings evaluating their progress, supervision meetings with a case manager, and group and individual counseling sessions. Their family members are also included in the program and offered services as needed. The program requires that the youth submit to drug testing, attend school or another educational or occupational activity, and complete a community project. The JDC uses incentives and sanctions to encourage positive behaviors. Youth must have been abstinent for a minimum of 120 consecutive days and complete all program requirements, including restitution, to graduate; at which time the youth is eligible to expunge the case from his/her court records. Three key policy questions of interest to program practitioners, researchers, and policymakers about drug courts were addressed in this study. 1. Does the JDC Reduce Substance Abuse Among Program Participants? YES: JDC participants showed reductions in drug use following entrance into the program 2. Does the JDC Program Reduce Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System? YES: JDC participants had a decreased re-arrest rate from 75% at pre-JDC to 52% postJDC admission 2. Does the JDC Program Reduce Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System? YES: JDC participants had a decreased re-arrest rate from 75% at pre-JDC to 52% postJDC admission 3. Does the JDC Result in Savings of Taxpayer Dollars? YES: Outcome costs for JDC participants showed substantive savings, when factored against the comparison group. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed arch 20, 2018 at: https://ndcrc.org/resource/st-marys-county-juvenile-drug-court-outcome-and-cost-evaluation/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://ndcrc.org/resource/st-marys-county-juvenile-drug-court-outcome-and-cost-evaluation/ Shelf Number: 118419 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtDrug OffendersDrug Treatment CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtProblem-Solving Courts |